hey Alc WHATS ** mean hahahaha
Shooting the s**t
Sort:
sorry, i would have responded earlier, but i was eating s*it.
now that i am full of it...i wish you well with your study of many of us here, and, good luck with your lectures. if you include as many expletives as you've posted in the last day, it's sure to be a hit.
please post a link to the study you have referenced. as you know, you are the smartest in the room, and we would all like to glean from what you have taken in. especially since you're never wrong.
after that, we'll miss you.
as usual, bunny makes a good point.
May 7, 2016
0
#647
AlCzervik wrote:
bieber has had hits. many shit bands have also made money selling chorus-verse to the sheep. i'm not saying the monkees were shit, they just don't compare.
what i'd like to point out is the influence the beatles had and have on virtually every artist, regardless of type (country, pop, rap, rock, hip-hop). in my years of following music, i can't remember anyone stating the monkees influenced them-aside from the beatles! but, that was obviously fleeting as we heard with abbey road and sgt. peppers. anybody think the monkees could have dreamed up albums like those? if i'm not mistaken, the only way the monkees influenced the beatles was to make them realize how easy it could be to write a three minute moneymaker. john and paul even said at times, "let's write us a swimming pool!"
if anyone else thinks the monkees are anywhere near the equal of the beatles, get your head out of your ass.
and i don't need any stats from wiki to sell me otherwise. as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. firstplay has it right. the monkees were sold to the public, instead of the public finding the band and liking them.
I'd take The Monkeys over The Beatles "Psychedelic" period any day. At least you know what you're getting. As opposed to something with delusions of grandeur that's actually just an obvious pastiche/hopping on the bandwagon.
Just an opinion.
"As opposed to something with delusions of grandeur that's actually just an obvious pastiche/hopping on the bandwagon."
well, they weren't deluded, as the album reached new heights. and, the beatles weren't hopping on any bandwagon. rather, they wanted to do something competely different (insert monty python joke here). and they accomplished a very unique album. too much to list, so i'll paste from wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sgt._Pepper's_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band
May 7, 2016
0
#649
AlCzervik wrote:
"As opposed to something with delusions of grandeur that's actually just an obvious pastiche/hopping on the bandwagon."
well, they weren't deluded, as the album reached new heights.
Perhaps pretentions would have been a better word. To give them a bit of credit, artistic judgements aside, they created some innovations (first band to use a synthesizer in a pop song for example) and were even innovative and influencial as a whole. But it's the same for a lot of godawful music, doesn't mean the thing sounds anything other than sh*t.
and, the beatles weren't hopping on any bandwagon. rather, they wanted to do something competely different (insert monty python joke here).
Despite the innovations It mostly just recycles popular shallow philosophy and crude and naive psychedelic imagery of the time. In my opinion those who have a more stretched-out musical mind can see where the real cutting edge was; and it wasn't the Beatles.
and they accomplished a very unique album. too much to list, so i'll paste from wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sgt._Pepper's_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band
it's my contention that the innovations by beatles/martin were and are the main reason of the album's influence (40 piece orchestra in a rock/pop song).
personally, i don't believe sgt. peppers is recycled psychedelia. hell, i've heard country and rap artists state the album was a major influence on them.
as far as musical minds of the listener, it appears we simply disagree.
cheers, fowlman.
There are not to many tunes by the Beatles I like, artistic or not the later crap I couldn't stand. In 1967 I was 17 and I heard this song by the Doors "Break On Through" (their first tune) on the radio and I thought 'who are these guys this is great'. I was really tired of hearing Beatle songs on the radio all the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxI5wvao8us
Unsensored cut, recorded August 1966
{edit} The reason I liked it so much is because it was real Rock 'n' Roll and not the weird stuff the Beatles were putting out then.
May 7, 2016
0
#654
The Doors were totally kickass! The manic energy of Jim Morrison (before his later downturn) was a massive presence on stage and in the recordings.
DrSpudnik wrote:
The Doors were totally kickass! The manic energy of Jim Morrison (before his later downturn) was a massive presence on stage and in the recordings.
I saw the Doors in concert 1969 in L.A. BB King and Jerry Lee Lewis were the opening acts. It was a good time.
May 7, 2016
0
#656
Dang. I was 9 and my parents wouldn't let me hitch to Woodstock or Haight-Ashbury or anything. 
DrSpudnik wrote:
Dang. I was 9 and my parents wouldn't let me hitch to Woodstock or Haight-Ashbury or anything.
It was because they knew all you wanted to do was look at bare boobs.
May 7, 2016
0
#658
HessianWarrior wrote:
DrSpudnik wrote:
Dang. I was 9 and my parents wouldn't let me hitch to Woodstock or Haight-Ashbury or anything.
It was because they knew all you wanted to do was look a bare boobs.
Well, I was just done nursing the previous year...
DrSpudnik wrote:
HessianWarrior wrote:
DrSpudnik wrote:
Dang. I was 9 and my parents wouldn't let me hitch to Woodstock or Haight-Ashbury or anything.
It was because they knew all you wanted to do was look at bare boobs.
Well, I was just done nursing the previous year...
Once a Horn Dog always a Horn Dog.
I never said the Monkees were better that the Beatles.
you can always untrack.