Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Post who you think altered popular music (including all sub genres and labels the pretentious wish to apply) and why?

Elvis definitely. He's at the heart of every single rock n' roll song. And I won't name the other 9 for fear of reprisals.

Originally posted by amity75
Elvis definitely. He's at the heart of every single rock n' roll song.

Agreed

2 ) The same can be said of the Beatles in my opinion Lennon and Mccartney were geniuses.

In no particular order:

1) Elvis
2) The Beatles
3) Bob Dylan
4) ed Zeppelin
5) Back Sabbath
6) Pink Floyd
7) The Velvet Underground
8) Jimi Hendrix
9) David Bowie
10) The Rolling Stones

Honrable mentions: The Clash, The Sex Pistols, The Ramones, Neil Young, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Brian Eno

Newer Bands that had Major Influence:

Pixies, Nirvana, Red Hot Chili Peppers, U2, REM, Metallica, Talking Heads, Rage Against the Machine, Green Day (admit it)

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
In no particular order:

1) Elvis
2) The Beatles
3) Bob Dylan
4) ed Zeppelin
5) Back Sabbath
6) Pink Floyd
7) The Velvet Underground
8) Jimi Hendrix
9) David Bowie
10) The Rolling Stones

Honrable mentions: The Clash, The Sex Pistols, The Ramones, Neil Young, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Brian Eno

Newer Bands that had Major Influence:

Pixies, Nirvana, Red Hot Chili Peppers, U2, REM, Metallica, Talking Heads, Rage
Against the Machine, Green Day (admit it)


The Kinks spawned both Heavy Metal and Britpop I would put them above most here.

I don't have ten, but Faith No More would be my number 1. Maybe Bowie.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't have ten, but Faith No More would be my number 1. Maybe Bowie.

-AC

Bowie yes. Reasons for Faith no More please, because I am gobsmacked.

I think Run DMC should be in any 10 myself and Tangerine Dream.

I'm sorry but Chuck Berry has to be somewhere on the list. I'm not saying number one, but he was a pioneer of rock n roll. He is also one of the best guitarist in the world.

Like Lennon once said: "If you tried to give Rock & Roll another name, you might try calling it Chuck Berry".

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Bowie yes. Reasons for Faith no More please, because I am gobsmacked.

I think Run DMC should be in any 10 myself and Tangerine Dream.

Have you heard Faith No More? Do you have any scope of how many bands exist because of Mike Patton and his music? He has had an immense influence over artist of many genres.

I suggest you go listen to some. There are your reasons. Better yet, browse his back catalogue.

-AC

Ray Charles, chuck berry, frank sinatra, aretha franklin, michael jackson, nas

It's easy to be influential when you were the first musicians in a modern genre.

Exactly.

As soon as Mike Patton joined Faith No More, Metallica (an already established band) started crediting them as influences.

-AC

Ray Davies - THE KINKS
Dave Davies - THE KINKS
Peter Shelly - BUZZCOCKS
Seve Harley - COCKNEY REBEL
Peter Green - FLEETWOOD MAC
Mike Fleetwood - FLEETWOOD MAC
Mike Oldfield
Freddie Mercury -QUEEN
Joe Strummer - THE CLASH
Stuart Adamson - THE SKIDS & BIG COUNTRY

Interesting thread, Whirly.

Beatles, first and foremost-no question.

In no order from here on out....

Bob Dylan
The Rolling Stones
Ray Charles
Jimi Hendrix
The Who
Zepellin
Nirvana
Aretha Franklin
lastly....hmm?

Why no question?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Have you heard Faith No More? Do you have any scope of how many bands exist because of Mike Patton and his music? He has had an immense influence over artist of many genres.

I suggest you go listen to some. There are your reasons. Better yet, browse his back catalogue.

-AC


No need I saw them at Rock City Nottingham in about 1990 your point?

My point was why ask me what my reasons are for having them number 1? Why do I believe that? Because you only need look at all the bands his music has spawned or at least influenced. However, you do genuinely seem to be so far out of touch with anything remotely modern that it's not surprising you're unaware. I mean that as a genuine deduction, not a diss or anything.

-AC

AC, no other band is mentioned more often when it comes to asking band members or musicians who they were most or in part influenced by.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
My point was why ask me what my reasons are for having them number 1? Why do I believe that? Because you only need look at all the bands his music has spawned or at least influenced. However, you do genuinely seem to be so far out of touch with anything remotely modern that it's not surprising you're unaware. I mean that as a genuine deduction, not a diss or anything.

-AC

Well it can be taken both ways. The irony of your comment will not be lost on many. It's cool you think your alternative and I don't mean that as a "diss" (whatever new fangled kind of word "diss" is) either "homes".

Originally posted by BobbyD
AC, no other band is mentioned more often when it comes to asking band members or musicians who they were most or in part influenced by.

They're a name to drop. I seriously doubt half the people who say it have actually been influenced.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Well it can be taken both ways. The irony of your comment will not be lost on many. It's cool you think your alternative and I don't mean that as a "diss" (whatever new fangled kind of word "diss" is) either "homes".

Doesn't disprove the fact that you're an old guy stuck in the days of his youth, refusing to accept that music has moved on. You play the age card against me all the time but it's not me who wanders into this forum looking uneducated is it? You're genuinely out of touch with all the great modern music post 95. No wonder you don't understand why I voted FNM as number 1.

-AC

AC, you don't have to like it. That's ok. But, a lot of people in the music industry say so.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They're a name to drop. I seriously doubt half the people who say it have actually been influenced.

Read this again.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They're a name to drop. I seriously doubt half the people who say it have actually been influenced.



Doesn't disprove the fact that you're an old guy stuck in the days of his youth, refusing to accept that music has moved on. You play the age card against me all the time but it's not me who wanders into this forum looking uneducated is it? You're genuinely out of touch with all the great modern music post 95. No wonder you don't understand why I voted FNM as number 1.

-AC

Really when I listen to most music today you can tell how little it's moved on. I have a great deal of post ninety five music. Truth is music goes in fashions as you get older (you played the youth card ) you will understand this more.

Your own tastes also change a bit, I used to enjoy more aggressive music, but as I have grown older I enjoy people who speak to me at the age I am now in their songs. Is that a bad thing - Not in my opinion, now I own a house and have a stable relationship, good job, finished my education and am expecting a baby, most twenty years olds music has little to say to me. It will have little to say to you one day, you can only have so much angst and you will fondly remember the angst filled bands of your youth although you will play them less and less.

I'm following you now. Interesting.....

...would be kind of weird though to say it and not believe it. But, I could see how most new bands would want others to perceive themselves as having a sense of history, and knowing their craft, seem intelligent, blah, blah, blah instead of just trying to make a "quick buck".

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Really when I listen to most music today you can tell how little it's moved on. I have a great deal of post ninety five music. Truth is music goes in fashions as you get older (you played the youth card ) you will understand this more.



The music is all still in existence though: one need only listen to it with an eye on the chronological details; living through it isn't compulsory.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Really when I listen to most music today you can tell how little it's moved on. I have a great deal of post ninety five music. Truth is music goes in fashions as you get older (you played the youth card ) you will understand this more.

Doesn't though does it? That's you being bitter because music HAS changed a great deal and it's no longer how you like it. I'm sorry but that's just tough. When I get older I'm sure music will again be greatly different than now, but that's what happens. Music changes, musicians get older and musicians die. They can't be around forever and things can't stay the same.

Music has changed a great deal, you just don't like what it's changed to.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Your own tastes also change a bit, I used to enjoy more aggressive music, but as I have grown older I enjoy people who speak to me at the age I am now in their songs. Is that a bad thing - Not in my opinion, now I own a house and have a stable relationship, good job, finished my education and am expecting a baby, most twenty years olds music has little to say to me. It will have little to say to you one day, you can only have so much angst and you will fondly remember the angst filled bands of your youth although you will play them less and less.



Hahahaha! How ironic, you complain about music becoming phases or fashions and yet YOU grew out of it because the musical trend you were into happened to pass. Irony at it's best. What a love of music YOU had, eh?

The difference between you and I is that you chose to listen to bands who WERE angst filled and speaking "to you", as said above. I love music, what they're speaking about doesn't matter to me.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
The music is all still in existence though: one need only listen to it with an eye on the chronological details; living through it isn't compulsory.

Of course not and most of it is more prevalent than the stuff you and AC lord some of which is not bad at all. But it's prevalence shows how influential it still is.

Originally posted by BobbyD
I'm following you now. Interesting.....

...would be kind of weird though to say it and not believe it. But, I could see how most new bands would want others to perceive themselves as having a sense of history, and knowing their craft, seem intelligent, blah, blah, blah instead of just trying to make a "quick buck".

Happens all the time. The Beatles in popular music, while the trend du jour in metal is to name Black Sabbath.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Of course not and most of it is more prevalent than the stuff you and AC lord some of which is not bad at all. But it's prevalence shows how influential it still is.

None of it is bad, son.

It was better in my day (today).

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The difference between you and I is that you chose to listen to bands who WERE angst filled and speaking "to you", as said above. I love music, what they're speaking about doesn't matter to me.

-AC

So you like the music but the song never sings to your soul, I get it the poetry means little to you. Thats OK I'll take Soul over Content anyday.

Agreed, Vic about Black Sabbath and what not. The only difference is the Beatles touched waaaay more people whether true or fictitously (as AC has said, which I won't discount altogether-it's a half truth).

Originally posted by BobbyD
Agreed, Vic about Black Sabbath and what not. The only difference is the Beatles touched waaaay more people whether true or fictitously (as AC has said, which I won't discount altogether-it's a half truth).

Depends who you ask. However it's important to maintain the distinction between popularity and influence.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
So you like the music but the song never sings to your soul, I get it the poetry means little to you. Thats OK I'll take Soul over Content anyday.

Where did you get that from? The music is extremely important to me and touches my "soul" more than anything.

Hence why it will always mean as much to me. I don't like any of the bands I do due to trends, you obviously did and to you the lyrics were obviously so important that your love decreased when you got older.

Won't happen with me because lyrics don't mean much to me, music does. Music is timeless.

-AC

I think I have, despite the affinity for them. I have nothing against Black Sabbath. In a previous thread, I had them as the best hard rock/metal band of all time, just based on their sheer influence alone.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Where did you get that from? The music is extremely important to me and touches my "soul" more than anything.

Hence why it will always mean as much to me. I don't like any of the bands I do due to trends, you obviously did and to you the lyrics were obviously so important that your love decreased when you got older.

Won't happen with me because lyrics don't mean much to me, music does. Music is timeless.

-AC

Trust me you listen to bands because of trends - You're "Alternative" thats cool I like the Jesus and Mary Chain they were "deep".

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Trust me you listen to bands because of trends - You're "Alternative" thats cool I like the Jesus and Mary Chain they were "deep".

Hahaha, oh dear. Now you're desperately resorting to telling me why I listen to bands? Just about out of ammo aren't you Whirly?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Hahaha, oh dear. Now you're desperately resorting to telling me why I listen to bands? Just about out of ammo aren't you Whirly?

-AC

Resorting to telling me i'm out of ammo really is empty AC remember and act on this

There's nothing wrong with having nothing to say - unless you insist on saying it.

Wait wait, I thought you were joking.

You genuinely believe you can tell me why I choose to listen to bands...and be right? I always thought you were a pretend idiot, not an actual one.

I don't and never have listened to bands because of trends. You have, but that's not my fault. I haven't and your self-disappointment for following trends doesn't mean I have done so.

-AC

Prince and Elvis definately.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Wait wait, I thought you were joking.

You genuinely believe you can tell me why I choose to listen to bands...and be right? I always thought you were a pretend idiot, not an actual one.

I don't and never have listened to bands because of trends. You have, but that's not my fault. I haven't and your self-disappointment for following trends doesn't mean I have done so.

-AC

AC as usual you misunderstand

To call you an idiot would not only be a waste of precious breath, but also an insult to idiots worldwide. We can trade insults all day Truth is you just don't get it.

Originally posted by Da preacher
Prince and Elvis definately.

an intelligent post, learn from it AC

Thanks, I guess.

I actually agree with Prince.

Elvis is disgustingly overrated, but I guess you had to be there right? Isn't that just the best "Get Out of Jail Free" card there is?

-AC

I don't know how influential Prince is or was. But he is regarded as one of the best songwriters ever, and is apparently a decent, not great, musician with MANY instruments.

...very impressive, no doubt.

The King overrated, AC?

...is one of my fav's.

50 Cent easily, oh, and Jessica Simpson.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I actually agree with Prince.

there you go you can get it right

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Elvis is disgustingly overrated

-AC

In your opinion

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
but I guess you had to be there right? Isn't that just the best "Get Out of Jail Free" card there is?

-AC

Nah... Diplomatic immunity is the best get out of jail free card, the one you quoted has the drawback that "you had to be there" for it to work

Prince is great on every instrument he plays. He's impressed some of the world's best guitarists.

Originally posted by BobbyD
The King overrated, AC?

...is one of my fav's.

So? Him being one of your favs doesn't make him not overrated.

You really need to look up the definitions of over and underrating. You've got it so confused.

-AC

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
there you go you can get it right



In your opinion



Nah... Diplomatic immunity is the best get out of jail free card the one you quoted means you had to be there for it to work

A) I always get it right.

B) Nah, he is overrated. The amount of praise he gets is in no way equal to what he actually did for music.

C) No need for that part, what I said was true. If you're old and you're losing a debate that you can't back up, it's "You're young, weren't there."

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

So? Him being one of your favs doesn't make him not overrated.


-AC

And you saying he is doesn't make it so either

Wow, Whirly, your ignorance of music astounds me.

Especially your comments about growing out of something when you get older.

My mother is 44 (today is her birthday), 24 years older than I. Guess who it was through that I started listening to a lot of the music that I like? My mother. I remember listening to bands like Nirvana and Faith No More when I was 3-4 years old. My mom's told stories of my brother dancing to the Sex Pistols and Ramones when he was three years old. That's what I grew up on. I had Radiohead, Tool, System of a Down, RATM CDs when they came out, even though I was a kid. 20 years later, what does my mom still like and listen to? Faith No More, System of a Down, Black Sabbath, and Weezer are her favorite bands. Apparently she didn't 'grow out of it' as she got older, as she and I still have the same tastes in music.

Ha! Whatever, AC.

...just making sure us old timers don't get "kicked to the curb".

Lana, let's be fair. Three or four? I actually remember you telling me that you knew your Mum liked them and that you hadn't bothered listening to them until I started speaking about them.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
And you saying he is doesn't make it so either

No, you're missing the point.

Bobby thinks that because he likes someone, they are either underrated or overrated. He believes The Who are UNDERRATED just because they aren't generally rated as high as he would like.

They are factually overrated.

-AC

Originally posted by Lana
Wow, Whirly, your ignorance of music astounds me.

Especially your comments about growing out of something when you get older.

My mother is 44 (today is her birthday), 24 years older than I. Guess who it was through that I started listening to a lot of the music that I like? My mother. I remember listening to bands like Nirvana and Faith No More when I was 3-4 years old. My mom's told stories of my brother dancing to the Sex Pistols and Ramones when he was three years old. That's what I grew up on. 20 years later, what does my mom still like and listen to? Faith No More, System of a Down, Black Sabbath, and Weezer are her favorite bands. Apparently she didn't 'grow out of it' as she got older, as she and I still have the same tastes in music.

Well I would say most peoples taste changes if your mum likes listening to the same music she used to thats cool. Music will always be subjective. Faith No More truly are not a great band. Lana I hate to say it your mum is 5 years older than me and you are really very young, your taste will probably change, but if it doesn't that's cool you'll save a fortune in buying Cd's, Downlods or whatever format music format exists then. So you share a taste in music with AC. Thats cool, It's your fashion.

Originally posted by Lana
Wow, Whirly, your ignorance of music astounds me.

Especially your comments about growing out of something when you get older.

My mother is 44 (today is her birthday), 24 years older than I. Guess who it was through that I started listening to a lot of the music that I like? My mother. I remember listening to bands like Nirvana and Faith No More when I was 3-4 years old. My mom's told stories of my brother dancing to the Sex Pistols and Ramones when he was three years old. That's what I grew up on. I had Radiohead, Tool, System of a Down, RATM CDs when they came out, even though I was a kid. 20 years later, what does my mom still like and listen to? Faith No More, System of a Down, Black Sabbath, and Weezer are her favorite bands. Apparently she didn't 'grow out of it' as she got older, as she and I still have the same tastes in music. Parental Influence eh?

I dunno.My dad likes SOAD,he got me into Metallica after a while.Then again,he also like's James Blunt.It's my moms fault.She popularized him

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Lana, let's be fair. Three or four? I actually remember you telling me that you knew your Mum liked them and that you hadn't bothered listening to them until I started speaking about them.



No, you're missing the point.

Bobby thinks that because he likes someone, they are either underrated or overrated. He believes The Who are UNDERRATED just because they aren't generally rated as high as he would like.

They are factually overrated.

-AC

That's not what I said and you know it - what I had said is that I hadn't listened to them in years, not that I had never liked them before.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Bobby thinks that because he likes someone, they are either underrated or overrated. He believes The Who are UNDERRATED just because they aren't generally rated as high as he would like.

They are factually overrated.

-AC

The same could be said of Faith no more AC in your opinion. You think they are underrated, I cannot believe you have them in your mind on a level with the Beatles.

Originally posted by Lana
That's not what I said and you know it - what I had said is that I hadn't listened to them in years, not that I had never liked them before.

We are all influenced to a point by our parents Lana so your into your mums music, thats cool I hope my baby is into my music as well.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
The same could be said of Faith no more AC in your opinion. You think they are underrated, I cannot believe you have them in your mind on a level with the Beatles.

I never said they are underrated, they're under-recognised for their influence, and they are. You don't realise the extent to which they influence and the proof is that you don't listen to much modern music. Your tactic? You pass it off as fashion. You're ignorant and contrary to your own belief, you're not too well versed on music as I've proven many times before. You're just bitten that a young guy such as myself continues to upstage you.

Lana, barely anyone appreciates music by name at 3-4 outside of subconsciously and even then it's just rhythm. You didn't dance to FNM and think "Oh mad, FNM, truly credible music by great musicians" at 3 or 4. You may very well have liked the music, but anything else is just an overstretch.

-AC

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
The same could be said of Faith no more AC in your opinion. You think they are underrated, I cannot believe you have them in your mind on a level with the Beatles.

FNM are very much a little-known band, though.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
We are all influenced to a point by our parents Lana so your into your mums music, thats cool I hope my baby is into my music as well.

As I've gotten older it's sorta changed so that now I largely influence her tastes now. Like, she likes Incubus because she heard me listening to them 5 or 6 years back and thought they sounded good.

Though we both equally hate many things - like Coldplay.



Well, duh, and I'm not saying anything else. Just pointing out that for the most part, I'm still listening to the same stuff I have since childhood, and that I was listening to that stuff because of my mom.

I have my 4 and 2 year old siblings dancing to SOAD all the time

Whoa, whoa, whoa....whether I'm incorrect or correct about bands being underrated or overrated has nothing to do with my liking/disliking for them, AC. Generally speaking, it makes sense however that for someone you (anyone) think to be underrated, you have to actaully like/respect them.

Now, it is possible that I might be misinformed or delusional, but to say that my opinion of someone being underrated or overrated is tied to my liking or distate for them is not necessarily true. It all depends....case by case scenario.

Faith No More,were really popular in Holland at one time.They had like three number 1 hits in the nineties

Originally posted by Lana
FNM are very much a little-known band, though.


As I said I saw them at Nottingham Rock city in 1990 or 1989, I don't dislike them, but they are not the Beatles to say they are is insane.

Originally posted by Lana
As I've gotten older it's sorta changed so that now I largely influence her tastes now. Like, she likes Incubus because she heard me listening to them 5 or 6 years back and thought they sounded good.


Thats fair enough my dad was born in 1928 and likes the Clash for similar reasons.

Originally posted by Slay
Faith No More,were really popular in Holland at one time.They had like three number 1 hits in the nineties

that would be about right they had some top 30 hits in the UK in the early nineties pop/rock

Originally posted by Lana
FNM are very much a little-known band, though.

They're not, they're a legendary band. Just not massively know legendary.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Whoa, whoa, whoa....whether I'm incorrect or correct about bands being underrated or overrated has nothing to do with my liking/disliking for them, AC. Generally speaking, it makes sense however that for someone you (anyone) think to be underrated, you have to actaully like/respect them.

"The King overrated? AC, he's one of my favourites."

So? He's still overrated. U2 are overrated, whether they're a favourite or not.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Now, it is possible that I might be misinformed or delusional, but to say that my opinion of someone being underrated or overrated is tied to my liking or distate for them is not necessarily true. It all depends....case by case scenario.

You said that The Who were UNDERRATED because they weren't rated as highly as you would like them to be. That's tied to how much you like them, not anything relevant.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
As I said I saw them at Nottingham Rock city in 1990 or 1989, I don't dislike them, but they are not the Beatles to say they are is insane.

Nobody's saying they are.

They're just worlds better. In terms of talent (on instruments and creatively), more innovative and more influential genuinely. They're not a name to be dropped so therefore, when someone says "FNM influenced me" you know it's genuine. Pop idiots reference The Beatles to be cool.

-AC

Aye...sometimes AC, you see things too much the way you only want to see them, or the way it makes sense to YOU.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So? He's still overrated. U2 are overrated

-AC

In your opinion AC.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Aye...sometimes AC, you see things too much the way you only want to see them, or the way it makes sense to YOU.

Bless him - he truly does

You made a thread called "Most Underrated Bands", in it you cited The Who and Fleetwood Mac, two of the furthest bands from being underrated that there are.

You're very confused.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
In your opinion AC.

Did I state anything else? "We're the best band in the world"-Bono.

Overrating.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You made a thread called "Most Underrated Bands", in it you cited The Who and Fleetwood Mac, two of the furthest bands from being underrated that there are.

You're very confused.

-AC

Pot calling Kettle, come in Kettle.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


Did I state anything else? "We're the best band in the world"-Bono.



-AC

In his opinion, I'll take the middle ground

I understand you're bitter about me forcing you further and further into irrelvancy by smashing your points and exposing your hypocricy, but do you have anything else to add, or are you here to just massage the sphincters of those who attempt to challenge me?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
In his opinion, I'll take the middle ground

You're not good at playing Devil's Advocate, Whirly.

-AC

As great as someone can be or is, someone can still be underrated, AC. Take for instance Tim Duncan of the NBA. If you follow the NBA, you know that he is on the path to being the greatest power forward in NBA history, yet is still incredibly underrated. This is a similar loop hole.

Originally posted by BobbyD
As great as someone can be or is, someone can still be underrated, AC. Take for instance Tim Duncan of the NBA. If you follow the NBA, you know that he is on the path to being the greatest power forward in NBA history, yet is still incredibly underrated. This is a similar loop hole.

The Who are often regarded as "The Best Band in the World Ever" by many "official" polls and are often labelled as the best ever on their respective instruments.

The former is subjective, but I disagree anyway. The second is factually untrue and proves how much they get overrated.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I understand you're bitter about me forcing you further and further into irrelvancy by smashing your points and exposing your hypocricy, but do you have anything else to add, or are you here to just massage the sphincters of those who attempt to challenge me?

-AC

Smashed my points best joke all day.

AC You tell enough white lies to ice a cake. Question: Does your train of thought have a caboose?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Smashed my points best joke all day.

AC You tell enough white lies to ice a cake. Question: Does your train of thought have a caboose?

You bailed out of the Radiohead debate faster than Road Runner and simultaneously managed to dodge everything I said WHILE providing cop out replies. A record indeed. Oh, no wait. Of course, your reply was something along the lines of me not understanding because I'm young and had to be there, right?

Question of my own: Do you have anything relevant to say? Last I checked it was me who holds the last on topic post.

Are you done swerving? Because there are two threads in which you've dodged me now.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You bailed out of the Radiohead debate faster than Road Runner and simultaneously managed to dodge everything I said WHILE providing cop out replied. A record indeed.


Not really you get uspet when I quote reputable experts over your opinion and waffle on regardless. Of course the Beatles have influenced more bands than Radiohead and innovated more. You are obviously suffering from Clue Deficit Disorder.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Question of my own: Do you have anything relevant to say? Last I checked it was me who holds the last on topic post.

-AC

And there you were, reigning supreme at number two.

Alright guys, can we agree to disagree sometimes w/o ruining this forum?

Originally posted by BobbyD
Alright guys, can we agree to disagree sometimes w/o ruining this forum?

agreed

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Not really you get uspet when I quote reputable experts over your opinion and waffle on regardless.

Oh the hypocrisy is widerife. Reputable experts? It's still their opinion Whirly . Heed your own words buddy, heed them well. You always resort to Google, in every single debate. You can never do it alone.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Of course the Beatles have influenced more bands than Radiohead and innovated more. You are obviously suffering from Clue Deficit Disorder.

And you're obviously suffering from "Can't prove anything" disorder. You've still not replied to my last post about The Beatles innovation. You gave half-assed, pointless cop out replies and I called you out, you backed down.

Me: List everything innovative they've ever done.

You: Erm...lots of interesting instruments....sounds...in general.

Me: Go on.

*Car drives away*

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Oh the hypocrisy is widerife. Reputable experts? It's still their opinion Whirly . Heed your own words buddy, heed them well. You always resort to Google, in every single debate. You can never do it alone.


I always resort to secondary opinions from reputable experts who share my opinion agreed. I like to know my opinion is supported by evidence and not empty opinion - agreed.

Hypocrisy, I can tell that your charisma bypass was successful.

Short list

Musical
- renders much of existing USA RnR (esp Rockabilly, Phil. Mach., doo wop, pre-Motown girl groups, etc) out of style during initial introduction in 1964
- intense appeal of music revives bland/stultified pop market, success set up environment for British Invasion
- lay foundation for "arena rock," with their 1965 performance in Shea Stadium (NYC) entertaining 55,000 fans, demonstrating their intense appeal
- Beatles helped set in motion a maturation process for RnR, ultimately ending with their contribution for establishing "Rock" by proving that RnR could be conduit for significant message re culture/society: in process they expanded to embrace topics and musical style formerly excluded from RnR genre
- expansion in full bloom on Revolver '66: "Taxman"--protest about rapacious taxation by UK govt, "Eleanor Rigby"-- reflecting on emptiness of life and religious ritual, melody set to string quartet (no trad. rock insts), "Love To You"-- introduction of subcontinent Indian musical style (raga) and instruments (tabla and sitar), "Tomorrow Never Knows"-- Lennon advocation for opening one's mind to new experience, exploiting technical innovations (see technical)
- music sets new artistic and commercial standards for future RnR (the "yardstick" by which every group will be measure in '60s and into '70s)
- sets trend for bands establishing and maintaining artistic control over their music:
- inaugurate era of "self-contained" band (inspiring thousands to pick up guitars and imitate them)
- help to reestablish trend that artists compose songs for themselves: bands now expected (by fans) to create own material; redirects song-writing trend away from centralized, production-line, professional song-writing concept indicative of Brill Bldg
- set trend for bands to record their music themselves
- in all, establishing many aspects of "DIY" trend, which becomes measure of authority
- accorded credit for creating new style of album with Sgt Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band: "concept album," in which songs can be seen to relate to one central topic or idea
- helps establish "album" rather than "single" as industry standard
- seen as pushing Beatle creativity into realm of classical music: Pepper's songs now contain stylistic diversity and artistic sophistication to be considered equivalent to Romantic "art-song" and album equivalent to Romantic "song cycle" by Schubert, Schumann, Wolf, etc
- seen as early pioneers of music video with promotional film for "SFF", also sections of HDN
- said to start (but re-introduce) concept of double A-side single

Music Technology/Creative Process
- begin to create exclusively in studio (retire from touring in 12/66)
- first successful band to do so, set trend for future bands
- pioneer new techniques to maintain creative/innovative musical style
- begin to rely on creativity of studio technicians/producer:
- E.g. ADT (artificial double tracking ) created to ease problematic vocal double-tracking process for JLennon, comes into wide-spread use on instruments in future albums
- E.g. Lennon's request that G Martin combine two "uncombinable" versions of "Strawberry Fields Forever"
- E.g. subjecting voices, instruments to unusual electronic modifications (limiters, etc) to produce sophisticated, inimitable "sound"
- explore innovative, avant-garde techniques (formerly unused in RnR)
- E.g. musique concrete--modification of sound through unconventional techniques: tape loops used in "Tomorrow..", steam calliope 'wash' used to help create circus atmosphere in "Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite"
- E.g. Aleatoric approach toward creating orchestral crescendos in "Day In A Life"
- E.g. avant-garde influence in "Revolution No. 9"
- experimentation is so pervasive that nearly every subsequent technique used in Rock can be traced to precedent in Beatles music
- first significant group to achieve "verticality" in business through Apple Corp. (i.e controlling all significant aspects of their business (from songwriting to recording to movies etc. through an in-house/self-contained entity)

case rested point proved.

I can't believe I'm arguing with a Faith no more fan

I can't beliee you still post the exact same posts in two different threads....damn.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They're not, they're a legendary band. Just not massively know legendary.


Not massively known - precisely my point.

*goes back to playing video games*

The Beatles seem to have done a lot. Wow that AC guy was owned with the same post twice. Cool.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I always resort to secondary opinions from reputable experts who share my opinion agreed. I like to know my opinion is supported by evidence and not empty opinion - agreed.

Hypocrisy, I can tell that your charisma bypass was successful.

It was hypocricy wasn't it? You go around saying how music itself is subjective only to quote "experts" matter of factly. This shortlist, despite being a copy and paste job, is quite bullshit. Allow me:

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Short list

Musical
- renders much of existing USA RnR (esp Rockabilly, Phil. Mach., doo wop, pre-Motown girl groups, etc) out of style during initial introduction in 1964

So they were the next big thing, who cares? We're arguing influence, not popularity.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
- intense appeal of music revives bland/stultified pop market, success set up environment for British Invasion

Being the first is different to being the most influential. That said, every band that came with the British Invasion (Deep Purple etc) were better.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
- lay foundation for "arena rock," with their 1965 performance in Shea Stadium (NYC) entertaining 55,000 fans, demonstrating their intense appeal

Again, being the latest flavour doesn't meant you've innovated music. We're arguing influence and innovation, not popularity. Come on dude, do better.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
- Beatles helped set in motion a maturation process for RnR, ultimately ending with their contribution for establishing "Rock" by proving that RnR could be conduit for significant message re culture/society: in process they expanded to embrace topics and musical style formerly excluded from RnR genre

Speaking on current issues? It was done before The Beatles and it was done after. Them being the flavour of the time is what made people pay attention, not their talent. Green Day made a lot of kids into anti-bush followers due to their overwhelming popularity. It doesn't mean nobody before hadn't done it.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
- expansion in full bloom on Revolver '66: "Taxman"--protest about rapacious taxation by UK govt, "Eleanor Rigby"-- reflecting on emptiness of life and religious ritual, melody set to string quartet (no trad. rock insts), "Love To You"-- introduction of subcontinent Indian musical style (raga) and instruments (tabla and sitar), "Tomorrow Never Knows"-- Lennon advocation for opening one's mind to new experience, exploiting technical innovations (see technical)

So they spoke about spiritual things and real world issues in their songs, so what? Again, nothing that hadn't been done before. Their POPULARITY just made it noticeable.

None of them were technically great musicians.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
- music sets new artistic and commercial standards for future RnR (the "yardstick" by which every group will be measure in '60s and into '70s)

Yeah, they were the first boyband. Is that what we have to thank them for? Nice. What great standards they set.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
- sets trend for bands establishing and maintaining artistic control over their music:

Yeah, then one of them famously got outbid for his own music by Michael Jackson. Great control there.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
- inaugurate era of "self-contained" band (inspiring thousands to pick up guitars and imitate them)

Again and again, someone inspired The Beatles to pick up guitars and play them. When are you going to prove they were massively innovative and influential? You're not doing so.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
- help to reestablish trend that artists compose songs for themselves: bands now expected (by fans) to create own material; redirects song-writing trend away from centralized, production-line, professional song-writing concept indicative of Brill Bldg

Claiming that they're innovative for writing their own songs? Hahahahaha. Too funny, go on.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
- set trend for bands to record their music themselves

Hahaha, no seriously, continue. Waiting to see how innovative and influential they are...

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
- in all, establishing many aspects of "DIY" trend, which becomes measure of authority

They established that you should do it yourself? A) They didn't and B) Big deal. That's a fact and it was a fact before The Beatles.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
- accorded credit for creating new style of album with Sgt Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band: "concept album," in which songs can be seen to relate to one central topic or idea

They opened the doors for bands to be overly pretentious and uncharacteristically wanky? Good job.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
- helps establish "album" rather than "single" as industry standard
- seen as pushing Beatle creativity into realm of classical music: Pepper's songs now contain stylistic diversity and artistic sophistication to be considered equivalent to Romantic "art-song" and album equivalent to Romantic "song cycle" by Schubert, Schumann, Wolf, etc
- seen as early pioneers of music video with promotional film for "SFF", also sections of HDN

Music video is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with music itself. We're discussing MUSIC innovation and influence (well, I am. You're just showing how popular they were and what they did).

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
- said to start (but re-introduce) concept of double A-side single

So? So what? Where's the overwhelming evidence that they influenced the most people ever and innovated more than FNM?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Music Technology/Creative Process
- begin to create exclusively in studio (retire from touring in 12/66)
- first successful band to do so, set trend for future bands
- pioneer new techniques to maintain creative/innovative musical style
- begin to rely on creativity of studio technicians/producer:
- E.g. ADT (artificial double tracking ) created to ease problematic vocal double-tracking process for JLennon, comes into wide-spread use on instruments in future albums
- E.g. Lennon's request that G Martin combine two "uncombinable" versions of "Strawberry Fields Forever"
- E.g. subjecting voices, instruments to unusual electronic modifications (limiters, etc) to produce sophisticated, inimitable "sound"
- explore innovative, avant-garde techniques (formerly unused in RnR)
- E.g. musique concrete--modification of sound through unconventional techniques: tape loops used in "Tomorrow..", steam calliope 'wash' used to help create circus atmosphere in "Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite"
- E.g. Aleatoric approach toward creating orchestral crescendos in "Day In A Life"
- E.g. avant-garde influence in "Revolution No. 9"
- experimentation is so pervasive that nearly every subsequent technique used in Rock can be traced to precedent in Beatles music
- first significant group to achieve "verticality" in business through Apple Corp. (i.e controlling all significant aspects of their business (from songwriting to recording to movies etc. through an in-house/self-contained entity)

You're claiming they pioneered working in a studio? So what? WHERE is the proof that they are so much more innovative and influential than FNM? What are these pioneering techniques you love to cite by never detail? You can't just make claims and hope I'll go away. Come on, start spilling.

Also, wait. Lennon SUGGESTS that someone else does something innovative (George) because they can't do it themselves? What happened to "Do It Yourself" music? You know, the one thing you claim they pioneered? 99% of the "innovating" that "they" did wasn't even them, it was George.

All you managed to prove was that they did some stuff and made themselves extremely huge and popular.

I'll await the next essay on how they're more influential and innovative than bands like FNM and Radiohead.

-AC

Originally posted by Lana
Not massively known - precisely my point.

*goes back to playing video games*

Not little known though are they?

Anybody else? I've got time.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It was hypocricy wasn't it? You go around saying how music itself is subjective only to quote "experts" matter of factly. This shortlist, despite being a copy and paste job, is quite bullshit. Allow me:



So they were the next big thing, who cares? We're arguing influence, not popularity.



Being the first is different to being the most influential. That said, every band that came with the British Invasion (Deep Purple etc) were better.



Again, being the latest flavour doesn't meant you've innovated music. We're arguing influence and innovation, not popularity. Come on dude, do better.



Speaking on current issues? It was done before The Beatles and it was done after. Them being the flavour of the time is what made people pay attention, not their talent.



So they spoke about spiritual things and real world issues in their songs, so what? Again, nothing that hadn't been done before. Their POPULARITY just made it noticeable.

None of them were technically great musicians.



Yeah, they were the first boyband. Is that what we have to thank them for? Nice. What great standards they set.



Yeah, then one of them famously got outbid for his own music by Michael Jackson. Great control there.



Again and again, someone inspired The Beatles to pick up guitars and play them. When are you going to prove they were massively innovative and influential? You're not doing so.



Claiming that they're innovative for writing their own songs? Hahahahaha. Too funny, go on.



Hahaha, no seriously, continue. Waiting to see how innovative and influential they are...



They established that you should do it yourself? A) They didn't and B) Big deal. That's a fact and it was a fact before The Beatles.



They opened the doors for bands to be overly pretentious and uncharacteristically wanky? Good job.



Music video is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with music itself. We're discussing MUSIC innovation and influence (well, I am. You're just showing how popular they were and what they did).



So? So what? Where's the overwhelming evidence that they influenced the most people ever and innovated more than FNM?



You're claiming they pioneered working in a studio? So what? WHERE is the proof that they are so much more innovative and influential than FNM? What are these pioneering techniques you love to cite by never detail? You can't just make claims and hope I'll go away. Come on, start spilling.

Also, wait. Lennon SUGGESTS that someone else does something innovative (George) because they can't do it themselves? What happened to "Do It Yourself" music? You know, the one thing you claim they pioneered? 99% of the "innovating" that "they" did wasn't even them, it was George.

All you managed to prove was that they did some stuff and made themselves extremely huge and popular.

I'll away the next essay on how they're more influential and innovative than bands like FNM and Radiohead.

-AC

Clutching at straws you really have refuted nothing.

Sorry mate. You've said a lot but still gone nowhere with it. Wheres your proof. I thought so - Non existant.

Might go to the farm.

Hear they've got some free range chickens.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Not little known though are they?

Anybody else? I've got time.

-AC

Oh please, quit jumping at me, I'm on your side here.

They're not really a household name. A lot of people might recognize their music (because of songs like Epic), but probably won't know the name.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Might go to the farm.

Hear they've got some free range chickens.

-AC

What you choose to do at the farm with chickens is up to you If you video it you could susidise your student loan

Originally posted by Lana
Oh please, quit jumping at me, I'm on your side here.

They're not really a household name. A lot of people might recognize their music (because of songs like Epic), but probably won't know the name.

You called them a little known band. They're not.

End.

-AC

Originally posted by Lana
Oh please, quit jumping at me, I'm on your side here.

They're not really a household name. A lot of people might recognize their music (because of songs like Epic), but probably won't know the name.

We all like them..... but to say they are as influential as the Beatles is insane and yes AC most of those technical innovations had only been used in moern "classical" and "avant garde" music.

There's more to reply to, go on Whirly.

And no, it's no insane. I believe that they surpass The Beatles in every area by a long way, I find it hard to believe that anyone with objective comprehension of music would agree with you, but that's me.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There's more to reply to, go on Whirly.

And no, it's no insane. I believe that they surpass The Beatles in every area by a long way, I find it hard to believe that anyone with objective comprehension of music would agree with you, but that's me.

-AC

Theres not really more to reply to AC

And I disagree and believe that your ideas are incredibly flawed. But thats me and every expert on google , but what's your opinion compared to that of thousands of others? I know you'll play the "popularist" card, problem is it doesn't really get you out of jail.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There's more to reply to, go on Whirly.

And no, it's no insane. I believe that they surpass The Beatles in every area by a long way, I find it hard to believe that anyone with objective comprehension of music would agree with you, but that's me.

-AC

Give it up, you're getting owned badly Mr.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Theres not really more to reply to AC

And I disagree and believe that your ideas are incredibly flawed. But thats me and every expert on google , but what's your opinion compared to that of thousands of others? I know you'll play the "popularist" card, problem is it doesn't really get you out of jail.

What do you think of Britney Spears? That she's shit? Millions would disagree. What's your opinion to MILLIONS of others?

I'm an expert on music, writing for a magazine or website doesn't make you any different. NME, a major publication, didn't know about Queens of the Stone Age till their second or third album. Officiality doesn't equate intelligence or credibility, nor does mass opinion.

The very fact that you resort to Google is pathetic. Google also believes that Robbie Williams is heavy metal remember?

-AC

Originally posted by Captain Kirk
Give it up, you're getting owned badly Mr.

I've already established that you're another person that I've already whooped here under a different name. It happens often and it's the oldest trick in the book.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What do you think of Britney Spears? That she's shit? Millions would disagree. What's your opinion to MILLIONS of others?



You seem to think of her more than me as you use this all the time i've noticed, it's cool she's a healthy girl.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm an expert on music, writing for a magazine or website doesn't make you any different.

My mum went to trinity college London at 15, she's an expert on music AC.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Officiality doesn't equate intelligence or credibility, nor does mass opinion.



Cringe


The very fact that you resort to Google is pathetic. Google also believes that Robbie Williams is heavy metal remember?

-AC

And you think Faith No More are as influential as the Beatles, I'm waiting for you to make a point here AC.

AC, it's okay that YOU believe they're not as influential, but when thousands of producers, musicians, music historians regard the Beatles as the most influential band ever, even you have to step aside and say: Hmm, they have something. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. The outcome is not determined by how you feel on the subject matter.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You seem to think of her more than me as you use this all the time i've noticed, it's cool she's a healthy girl.

Your point was that thousands of opinions over-ride mine. Then if the numbers game is what you want to play, you couldn't argue The Beatles over Britney, could you?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
My mum went to trinity college London at 15, she's an expert on music AC.

Point? I don't need a music "officiality" badge to know I'm an expert on music. Being an "official" music expert just means you've got a shiny certificate to prove it. Doesn't mean she knows more.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
And you think Faith No More are as influential as the Beatles, I'm waiting for you to make a point here AC.

Why chicken out all the time? You resort to Google because you don't know enough. I don't need Google in my debates. Your mentality is "Look how many hits I get on Google, they know their stuff, I agree, so that means I win."

Stupidness.

-AC

Well I think jsut through their popularity the Beatles probably invluenced a greater number of Musicians to follow (then they also had more years than faith no more)

Originally posted by BobbyD
AC, it's okay that YOU believe they're not as influential, but when thousands of producers, musicians, music historians regard the Beatles as the most influential band ever, even you have to step aside and say: Hmm, they have something. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. The outcome is not determined by how you feel on the subject matter.

I don't have to do anything.

Are they massively influential? Yes. Are they the most innovative and influential band ever? No, not to me they aren't. Many agree. It doesn't matter if more agree with you and Whirly than me and whoever, neither of us can factually prove it, but I don't have to agree.

They're just opinions, nothing there is fact. I'm not denying their talent or their influence, I'm denying them of a title that they don't deserve.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Your point was that thousands of opinions over-ride mine.

Thats it

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

you couldn't argue The Beatles over Britney, could you?


Back to your Britney fetish

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Point? I don't need a music "officiality" badge to know I'm an expert on music.


Anyone who told you to be yourself couldn't have given you worse advice, perhaps AC's funniest line ever. the pompousity is incredible.

I use Secondary sources because I know what to search for to support my arguments If clues were shoes, you'd go barefoot AC trust me.

Well, as much as you feel differently, I think this is going to be a hard one to fight. Let's say perhaps maybe you have something, it'd be pretty hard to fight the mass flock of Beatles fans all over the world to agree with you. It's a fight I don't think you can win, even if you're correct.

It's like those who think Wilt Chamberlain is better than MJ...though the world believes MJ to be the greatest basketball player ever. It's just not going to happen.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't have to do anything.

Are they massively influential? Yes. Are they the most innovative and influential band ever? No, not to me they aren't. Many agree. It doesn't matter if more agree with you and Whirly than me and whoever, neither of us can factually prove it, but I don't have to agree.

They're just opinions, nothing there is fact. I'm not denying their talent or their influence, I'm denying them of a title that they don't deserve.

-AC

Back to opinions and ours on this differ. Please provide some evidence just once to support your spurious asserions AC.

Unfortunately, fewer bands are regarded as more innovative also.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Thats it



Back to your Britney fetish

Could you, then? If you believe thousands of opinions override one, then millions must kill it, right? You believe you could argue The Beatles over Britney?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Anyone who told you to be yourself couldn't have given you worse advice, perhaps AC's funniest line ever. the pompousity is incredible.

I use Secondary sources because I know what to search for to support my arguments If clues were shoes, you'd go barefoot AC trust me.

You don't use secondary sources Whirly. You find sites and then claim you agree.

Hence why you're so easy to deal with.

-AC

Originally posted by BobbyD
Well, as much as you feel differently, I think this is going to be a hard one to fight. Let's say perhaps maybe you have something, it'd be pretty hard to fight the mass flock of Beatles fans all over the world to agree with you. It's a fight I don't think you can win, even if you're correct.

Point proven.

You are arguing that I am losing a battle because there's more Beatles fans. So? There could be a billion claiming that they're the best at everything ever, doesn't make it any more true.

Millions voted for Bush because they believed him to be the man for the job. Case closed. Numbers mean nothing and if that's your only argument, I suggest you bail out.

I don't care if "fewer bands" are as regarded for innovation. The Beatles didn't innovate that much, they were just the first to do things, which isn't ACTUAL innovation. Innovation is primarily taking something that exists and drastically altering it or changing it. The Beatles didn't do that as much as people claim.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Could you, then? If you believe thousands of opinions override one, then millions must kill it, right? You believe you could argue The Beatles over Britney?


If you wish to argue for Britney go ahead

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You don't use secondary sources Whirly. You find sites and then claim you agree.

Hence why you're so easy to deal with.

-AC

No I found sites that agree with me I stated my opinion first I'd like to see things from your point of view, but I can't seem to get my head that far up your ass mate.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
If you wish to argue for Britney go ahead

Stop chickening out, weasel boy.

Could you realistically argue against a million Britney Spears fans, if they said she was better in many ways, than The Beatles? Yes or no? Simple question.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
No I found sites that agree with me I stated my opinion first I'd like to see things from your point of view, but I can't seem to get my head that far up your ass mate.

Of course you found sites that agree with you, we're talking about The Beatles. It's not hard, they're the classic name to drop. Anyone in search of musical credibility decides to namecheck them.

I just quoted your massive copy and paste job, you decided to skip it. Either reply or don't. Your call.

-AC

AC, I think your disdain? for the Beatles may be clouding your normally intelligent capacity to see clearly. Post 2 threads, and let's see the results of what people HERE say. Thread #1: Who is the most innovative band of all time, and #2) Who is the most influential band of all time. Make them singular response answers. We are not asking for seconds on these, or an order/rank. We won't take ties either for #1.

I could be wrong, but I'd bet you'd find the Beatles winning both threads even IF you are correct. I don't know what else to tell you, man.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Stop chickening out, weasel boy.


You are the Britney fan it's only fair you get to argue her Weasel boy no

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Of course you found sites that agree with you, we're talking about The Beatles. It's not hard, they're the classic name to drop, Anyone in search of musical credibility decides to namecheck them.


Nope I like them and know they are credible, If your comment was twice as smart as it is, it would be absolutely stupid AC.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I just quoted your massive copy and paste job, you decided to skip it. Either reply or don't. Your call.

-AC

You really didn't you stated opinion without support, I'm not arguing against something where you offer nothing but AC says "blah, blah' blah"

I will defend, to your death, my right to my opinion.

Originally posted by BobbyD
AC, I think your disdain? for the Beatles may be clouding your normally intelligent capacity to see clearly. Post 2 threads, and let's see the results of what people HERE say. Thread #1: Who is the most innovative band of all time, and #2) Who is the most influential band of all time. Make them singular response answers. We are not asking for seconds on these, or an order/rank. We won't take ties either for #1.

I could be wrong, but I'd bet you'd find the Beatles winning both threads even IF you are correct. I don't know what else to tell you, man.

Disdain? I love The Beatles, don't assume. This is where you become a confused guy. You think that because I'm not rating them over every band, I don't like them. As if that's the Beatles requirement.

Exactly, even if I am correct, The Beatles would likely win because they're The Beatles. That's why they're rated so high, name over quality. Which is wrong.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Disdain? I love The Beatles, don't assume. This is where you become a confused guy. You think that because I'm not rating them over every band, I don't like them. As if that's the Beatles requirement.

Exactly, even if I am correct, The Beatles would likely win because they're The Beatles. That's why they're rated so high, name over quality. Which is wrong.

-AC

Give it up man, your posts obviously show some intelligence, but you are just looking very ignorant in this thread. How much do these guys have to own you?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You are the Britney fan it's only fair you get to argue her Weasel boy no

Gonna answer my question or not?

Here:

Could you realistically argue against a million Britney Spears fans, if they said she was better in many ways, than The Beatles? Yes or no?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Nope I like them and know they are credible, If your comment was twice as smart as it is, it would be absolutely stupid AC

Why are they credible? Because they're published and on the net? Everyone and their mothers are saying that Arctic Monkeys are great, are they? I mean magazines are saying it, many people are saying it, must be true right?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You really didn't you stated opinion without support, I'm not arguing against something where you offer nothing but AC says "blah, blah' blah"

I countered each and every one of the points from whoever's essay it was you pasted. You chose to reply with two lines of sarcasm rather than countering, because we know you have nothing beyond Google.

-AC

Originally posted by Captain Kirk
Give it up man, your posts obviously show some intelligence, but you are just looking very ignorant in this thread. How much do these guys have to own you?

He's not getting owned, please don't say that. Nobody owns anyone else matey.

Originally posted by Captain Kirk
Give it up man, your posts obviously show some intelligence, but you are just looking very ignorant in this thread. How much do these guys have to own you?

Whirly has a Captain Kirk sig...you two should get along .

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Whirly has a Captain Kirk sig...you two should get along .

-AC

I said that ealier, it's a cool name. I just wish he would stop with the AC is getting owned bit.

Well, it woudn't be the first time someone said I was confused.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

I countered each and every one of the points from whoever's essay it was you pasted. You chose to reply with two lines of sarcasm rather than countering, because we know you have nothing beyond Google.

-AC

Really AC you didn't you used opinion I think you are confused that opinion and fact are not the same.

OK he is not getting owned, he just looks stupid! I like your Kirk sig man, it owns.

Agreed, Whirley....CK, the music forums is a place where people love to speak passionately about their music, and that is what is respected most here...its subjectivity.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Agreed, Whirley....CK, the music forums is a place where people love to speak passionately about their music, and that is what is respected most here...its subjectivity.

Yup AC is passionate but not subjective bless him.

If he's a music expert, you have to wonder what kind of music he is an expert on man.

Well, he does have 90s and on over me, that's for sure.

You've not answered this Whirly:

"Could you realistically argue against a million Britney Spears fans, if they said she was better in many ways, than The Beatles? Yes or no?"

Please do so. I'm asking you civilly.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Really AC you didn't you used opinion I think you are confused that opinion and fact are not the same.

I know. A thousand opinions will never equal fact, so why are you claiming that you and Google have somehow over-ridden my opinion? It doesn't matter how many opinions you hijack from the net, you'll never have it factually nailed down. Moreover, you haven't responded to that post. If you wish to continue this debate, do so.

I'm the one BEING subjective, so why you're claiming I can't be is quite the puzzling issue.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm the one BEING subjective, so why you're claiming I can't be is quite the puzzling issue.

-AC

You are entitled to your opinion but don't try to claim it's supported by anything except your own words. I'm glad to see you're not letting your education get in the way of your ignorance

Originally posted by Captain Kirk
You are entitled to your opinion but don't try to claim it's supported by anything except your own words. I'm glad to see you're not letting your education get in the way of your ignorance

Impressive Kirk and you're copying my trademark use of smileys.......... cool

Yes, so Whirly/Kirk, my post? Gonna reply to it?

Oh and answer my question.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, so Whirly, my post? Gonna reply to it?


I already have, going to provide some evidence to support your ideas?
No? Thought not!

Reply to my long post (where I provided these ideas and evidence. You skipped over it and are now making excuses not to reply) and/or answer this question:

Could you realistically argue against a million Britney Spears fans, if they said she was better in many ways, than The Beatles? Yes or no?

What's wrong? It's just a question, not gonna bite.

-AC

In no particular order....


Dino

Sinatra

Stevie Wonder

Santana

John Lennon

Tupac

Hendrix

Ray Charles

Bob Marley

Jim Morrison

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Reply to my long post (where I provided these ideas and evidence. You skipped over it and are now making excuses not to reply)

AC I replied to it but you obviously didn't like the answer look back. All you did was say" I disagree blah, blah, blah" you didn't refute anything. You sometimes post in a way that makes slugs and other invertebrates look like Nobel Prize winners.

You really like Britney huh?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
AC I replied to it but you obviously didn't like the answer look back. All you did was say" I disagree blah, blah, blah" you didn't refute anything. You sometimes post in a way that makes slugs and other invertebrates look like Nobel Prize winners.

Getting very tired of your constant attempts and insisting false claims:

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It was hypocricy wasn't it? You go around saying how music itself is subjective only to quote "experts" matter of factly. This shortlist, despite being a copy and paste job, is quite bullshit. Allow me:



So they were the next big thing, who cares? We're arguing influence, not popularity.



Being the first is different to being the most influential. That said, every band that came with the British Invasion (Deep Purple etc) were better.



Again, being the latest flavour doesn't meant you've innovated music. We're arguing influence and innovation, not popularity. Come on dude, do better.



Speaking on current issues? It was done before The Beatles and it was done after. Them being the flavour of the time is what made people pay attention, not their talent. Green Day made a lot of kids into anti-bush followers due to their overwhelming popularity. It doesn't mean nobody before hadn't done it.



So they spoke about spiritual things and real world issues in their songs, so what? Again, nothing that hadn't been done before. Their POPULARITY just made it noticeable.

None of them were technically great musicians.



Yeah, they were the first boyband. Is that what we have to thank them for? Nice. What great standards they set.



Yeah, then one of them famously got outbid for his own music by Michael Jackson. Great control there.



Again and again, someone inspired The Beatles to pick up guitars and play them. When are you going to prove they were massively innovative and influential? You're not doing so.



Claiming that they're innovative for writing their own songs? Hahahahaha. Too funny, go on.



Hahaha, no seriously, continue. Waiting to see how innovative and influential they are...



They established that you should do it yourself? A) They didn't and B) Big deal. That's a fact and it was a fact before The Beatles.



They opened the doors for bands to be overly pretentious and uncharacteristically wanky? Good job.



Music video is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with music itself. We're discussing MUSIC innovation and influence (well, I am. You're just showing how popular they were and what they did).



So? So what? Where's the overwhelming evidence that they influenced the most people ever and innovated more than FNM?



You're claiming they pioneered working in a studio? So what? WHERE is the proof that they are so much more innovative and influential than FNM? What are these pioneering techniques you love to cite by never detail? You can't just make claims and hope I'll go away. Come on, start spilling.

Also, wait. Lennon SUGGESTS that someone else does something innovative (George) because they can't do it themselves? What happened to "Do It Yourself" music? You know, the one thing you claim they pioneered? 99% of the "innovating" that "they" did wasn't even them, it was George.

All you managed to prove was that they did some stuff and made themselves extremely huge and popular.

I'll await the next essay on how they're more influential and innovative than bands like FNM and Radiohead.

-AC

Reply to all of that, or stop saying I've refuted nothing. Your answer was "Blah blah clutching at straws". That was your answer and rebuttal. You're just saying "Refuted nothing" so you don't have to actually reply to it.

Secondly, I want a clear yes or not for this:

Could you realistically argue against a million Britney Spears fans, if they said she was better in many ways, than The Beatles? Yes or no?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You really like Britney huh?

No, just exposing your hypocricy and it's funny how badly you're running scared.

-AC

Hey people, whats wrong with liking Britney?..............I would

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Secondly, I want a clear yes or not for this:

Could you realistically argue against a million Britney Spears fans, if they said she was better in many ways, than The Beatles? Yes or no?



-AC

Isn't "better" an opinional word???

Yes, it's subjective. That was never in doubt. I'm asking the man a question and he's scared to answer.

I'm asking him if he believes a thousand people saying "Britney is better" would override his view of "The Beatles are better."

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm asking him if he believes a thousand people saying "Britney is better" would override his view of "The Beatles are better."

-AC

I'm not running scared it's a forum, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone saying Britney innovated like the Beatles. Do you think she did? You think Faith no more did, this is no less bizarre. I think your IQ is at room temperature tonight AC you're obsessed with Britney being better than the Beatles.

I guess she's your next pick

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I'm not running scared it's a forum, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone saying Britney innovated like the Beatles. Do you think she did? You think Faith no more did, this is no less bizarre. I think your IQ is at room temperature tonight AC you're obsessed with Britney being better than the Beatles.

I guess she's your next pick

Why are you excreting a building block? Stop dodging my question and twisting my words, man.

I'm not saying she's better, am I? I'm asking you this question:

Do you believe that a thousand Britney fans having the opinion of "She's better" would override your single opinion of "She's not"?

Yes or no? Simple. One word answer is necessary.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why are you excreting a building block? Stop dodging my question and twisting my words, man.


Why am I what? I don't think that's anatomically possible AC - twisting your words ironic

I answered you again - get with the programme, look have you still got your etch a sketch, it might help if I used visual aids . If you're going say something that stupid you could at least fake a stroke matey.

Funniest thing you ask for rebuttal on "being the first is not the same as being most innovative" - Where do I start when you want replies to stuff like that.

Dude, I think you be dodgin' the question. AC just wants a "yes" or "no". (pretend you're on a gameshow and AC is the host)

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Dude, I think you be dodgin' the question. AC just wants a "yes" or "no". (pretend you're on a gameshow and AC is the host)

"Dude" read the thread his had his answer. Everyone earlier acknowledged that.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Why am I what? I don't think that's anatomically possible AC - twisting your words ironic

I answered you again - get with the programme, look have you still got your etch a sketch, it might help if I used visual aids . If you're going say something that stupid you could at least fake a stroke matey.

Funniest thing you ask for rebbutall on "being the first is not the same as being most inovative" :Rollin - Where do I start when you want replies to stuff like that.

Sorry, basically I asked why you were shitting a brick. I'll dumb them down for you next time.

So your answer is...I'm guessing, no? They do not override your opinion just because there is many of them? Is that your answer? Final answer?

Instead of trying the old "Hahaha look at this, how am I supposed to reply?" schtick, try ACTUALLY replying instead of using a barrage of failed attempts at humourous insults and simultaneously hiding behind smileys. Might be a good start. Though I think we've established that you're done. All I'm waiting for now is the confirmation above then I'll be on my way.

-AC

So why is he continuing?

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
So why is he continuing?

Because AC does that he never knows when to stop. He has changed his question several times. I think it was when people started telling him he was owned. He gets upset

How pathetically childish of you. I've not changed that question once.

It's odd how you say "Nobody gets owned" when it suits you, but when you are actually being made a fool of, you suggest it's happening. In all the time you've typed these attempts to save face, you could have gave me a clear answer and it would have been done. It is also hypocritical that you keep saying I ignored your answer when you have a tendancy to slyly edit posts after I've already replied and seen them, THEN to say that I haven't refuted anything just because you can't be bothered to go and look? Interesting...shit, but interesting.

Anyway, I'm going to assume the answer is no. In that case, why did you suggest that all the "music experts" that you found on Google (hahaha), override my opinion? If their views are, infact, opinion also?

A thousand opinions are still opinion. No more provable than the next. If a million people with music degrees came to this forum and said "The Beatles make the best music ever" I could counter all of them by just saying "They're not, to me." And so could anyone. Numbers mean nothing, substance does. All the substance you've provided has been that of uncharacteristic wank that amounts to nothing but failed humour.

Confused aren't you? It's been fun.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How pathetically childish of you. I've not changed that question once.



Outburst 1 heres your dummy back 1 : 0 me

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's odd how you say "Nobody gets owned" when it suits you

Nobody does, but I think that guys comments wound you up - read my post again, I was sticking up for you anyway

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Anyway, I'm going to assume the answer is no. In that case, why did you suggest that all the "music experts" that you found on Google, override my opinion? If their views are, infact, opinion also?


Never assume anything You think the Faith no more are more influential than the Beatles and so is Britney. I can see your point, but I still think you're full of shit.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Numbers mean nothing, substance does. All the substance you've provided has been that of uncharacteristic wank that amounts to nothing but failed humour.

Confused aren't you? It's been fun.

-AC

Hey Numbers mean loads AC but I guess you still need your fingers to count.

Me Confused You're a greasy undergraduate scratching his pimples, try harder next time, your incompetence is this thread is an inspiration to idiots on forums everywhere.

Yup its been fun

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Noone does but I think that guys comments wound you up read my post again, I was sticking up for you anyway

Yes I know, thanks. Let's continue, it's about to get fun:

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Never assume anything You think the Faith no more are more influential than the Beatles and so is Britney. I can see your point, but I still think you're full of shit.

Wow, you truly are unbelievable. "I've read your posts." I NEVER said Britney was more influential than The Beatles, EVER. You've not even been reading my posts, oh the irony is too much.

I said what I did about Britney's fans because you raised the suggestion that thousands of Google (hahaha) "expert" opinions override my own. If numbers = truth or weight to you, then thousands of Britney fans Vs one Beatles fan would mean the Britney fans are right, by YOUR rationale, but obviously you panicked to the degree that you completely missed and misunderstood what my posts and point were saying.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Hey Numbers mean loads AC but I guess you still need your fingers to count.

Me Confused You're a greasy undergraduate scratching his pimples, try harder next time, your incompetence is this thread is an inspiration to idiots on forums everywhere.

Yup its been fun

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Outburst 1 heres your dummy back 1 : 0 me

The shell of comfort smileys finally cracked, hahaha.

-AC

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You're a greasy undergraduate scratching his pimples

OUCH!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes I know, thanks. Let's continue, it's about to get fun:


Nah tmz got work at 8AM cya Wednesday maybe

Keep thinking about Britney


Originally posted by DiamondBullets
OUCH!

Glad you liked it

Ironically Diamond, I said the same thing, except I was laughing at him. Considering that he's one of KMC's main advocates of "It's just a forum, why would I get annoyed?"

Whirly, you're done. Just accept it dude. You f*cked up, misread my posts and made yourself look like a fool.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Ironically Diamond, I said the same thing, except I was laughing at him. Considering that he's one of KMC's main advocates of "It's just a forum, why would I get annoyed?"

Whirly, you're done. Just accept it dude.

-AC

it's just a forum AC I was about to engage in some serious debate about what you just stated but then i remembered that I dont give a damn about Britney and its obvious to everyone but you the Beatles are more influential.
In closing, I suggest the next time that you feel an urge to embarrass yourself and bore others, that you summon all your might, and resist.



Goodnight "dude" and you say you're a Londoner

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
it's just a forum AC I was about to engage in some serious debate about what you just stated but then i remembered that I dont give a damn about Britney and its obvious to everyone but you the Beatles are more influential.

Smiley followed by a "I didn't really mean it" safety net comment? You lost your cool, plain and simple. Everyone but me believes The Beatles are more influential? Factually incorrect. A silly claim from a silly man.

You still under the impression that I said Britney is more influential? Hahaha. That was funny.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
In closing, I suggest the next time that you feel an urge to embarrass yourself and bore others, that you summon all your might, and resist.



Embarass myself?

You: You claimed Britney is more influential than The Beatles."

After claiming I never read the posts and you do. Oh and let's not forget how you called me out for "outbursting" only to throw a tantrum yourself haha.

Anyway, my point was proven and I've exposed you. Done and dusted .

-AC