Your critique of my comments when I bash my fellow Beatles' fans for being ignorant, while supporting/justifying your claims, is just astounding at times. The difference between you and me, AC, is that with you there is just black n' white. Can't you see grey occasionally?
This is not like a vote to go to war where it's simply, yes or no.
Originally posted by BobbyD
Your critique of my comments when I bash my fellow Beatles' fans for being ignorant, while supporting/justifying your claims, is just astounding at times. The difference between you and me, AC, is that with you there is just black n' white. Can't you see grey occasionally?This is not like a vote to go to war where it's simply, yes or no.
In the case of the claim: "Before The Beatles there was nothing; they did everything.", it is actually black and white.
There is no truth to that claim, is there? There's not truth to it just because fans of The Beatles see them as infallible, it just makes them idiots.
I don't believe Mike Patton has put out anything short of excellent, that's my opinion, I don't BELIEVE he will, but it's entirely possible he might, because he's only human. No musician is a god, none are infallible, so your constant overrating, over-idolising and general ignorant worship is a disgrace.
There is no truth to Bakerboy's claim.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Funny that, because I once spoke of being jaded by things happening where you live and you shrugged off the idea and refused to tell me if you were American or not.
I did'nt shug off the idea, that is what you choose to think. I didn't answer your question because you were harping me to answer. Plus I knew eactly what you were going to say after I answered it anyways.
[i]
Yes, I'm aware. You said you were curious as to how I got the belief simply because you personally had not met anyone that dumb.You also have a fan of The Beatles in this thread saying the same thing, more or less. He doesn't speak for all, but it's not some outlandish belief to meet a fan who overrates them.
-AC [/B]
I told you, I know they exist, YOU said it 'was'nt uncommon'. Well it seems VERY uncommon to me. One guy in a world-wide forums page says it and I'm supposed to make generalizations? I think not. Never knew anybody who said that.
Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
I did'nt shug off the idea, that is what you choose to think. I didn't answer your question because you were harping me to answer. Plus I knew eactly what you were going to say after I answered it anyways.
Which is precisely why you didn't answer, as I said. Either way, past.
Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
I told you, I know they exist, YOU said it 'was'nt uncommon'. Well it seems VERY uncommon to me. One guy in a world-wide forums page says it and I'm supposed to make generalizations? I think not. Never knew anybody who said that.
Why do you keep saying it's not common because nobody you knew ever said it or anything like it? Who cares? It's pretty common to me, so I said it's not uncommon, that doesn't mean I think everyone believes it, Bakerboy is a special person, you'll come to realise it, but I've known of many others who have. Besides, "Not Uncommon" doesn't mean "Common.". There are many levels.
The fact that you haven't doesn't make a difference.
Who's asking you to make world-wide generalisations based on one man? Nobody, I'm not either, I'm making the claim based on experience, and my own experience alone.
And so begins a many post impasse because you messed up the interpretation AGAIN.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Which is precisely why you didn't answer, as I said. Either way, past.
No, I didnt answer becuase I knew your argument held no water.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why do you keep saying it's not common because nobody you knew ever said it or anything like it? Who cares? It's pretty common to me, so I said it's not uncommon, that doesn't mean I think everyone believes it, Bakerboy is a special person, you'll come to realise it, but I've known of many others who have.The fact that you haven't doesn't make a difference.
Who's asking you to make world-wide generalisations based on one man? Nobody, I'm not either, I'm making the claim based on experience, and my own experience alone.
And so begins a many post impasse because you messed up the interpretation AGAIN.
I said it's uncommon where I am yes. You said its common where you live. What's the problem? I never claimed that it was GLOBALLY uncommon to think that. No you messed up the interpretation. I simply asked where you've seen this believe voiced.
Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
No, I didnt answer becuase I knew your argument held no water.
It held water as proven by what you've said in this thread, not me, you. You can be jaded by over-exposure to things around you that aren't necessarily the same anywhere else, which is what I was trying to say to you, hence me asking if you were American. As an American, you are more exposed and more jaded to Tool being more known over there, than here. Just because they are well known in the States, doesn't make it so in England. Accept your hypocricy.
Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
I said it's uncommon where I am yes. You said its common where you live. What's the problem? I never claimed that it was GLOBALLY uncommon to think that. No you messed up the interpretation. I simply asked where you've seen this believe voiced.
I never actually said it's common, did I? I said it's not uncommon. That doesn't actually make something definitely common, there isn't just common and uncommon, there are levels.
So yes, you have a habit of misinterpreting posts.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
In the case of the claim: "Before The Beatles there was nothing; they did everything."
But, I did not say this. You make it sound as if I've said such?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There is no truth to that claim, is there?
Correct. I've agreed with you already. ...though most of us Beatles fans probably are too proud to know better and/or agree with you.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't believe Mike Patton has put out anything short of excellent, that's my opinion, I don't BELIEVE he will, but it's entirely possible he might, because he's only human. No musician is a god, none are infallible, so your constant overrating, over-idolising and general ignorant worship is a disgrace.-AC
Good God, don't get religious on me now. Ok? I understand how you feel and where you're coming from. You're as passionate for Mike Patton as I'm about the Beatles.
The problem I see for everyone who thinks the Beatles are overrated is simply this....
A 10 year old kid listens to the radio and hears Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds by Elton John for the first time, and thinks it great, only to find out from an older sibling or parent that it was done before...by you know who. They soon discover that it's the same band that sang I wanna hold your hand. A new convert has been born.
A 16 year old hears With a little help from my Friends by Joe Cocker, only to discover that he was not the original artist. They learn it's the same band who did In my Life. A new convert has been born.
A 52 parent says to this his teenage son that Metallica's version of Hey Jude is a cover. The kid is astonished to know that Metallica isn't the original artist. He hears the original for the first time, and is blown away.
He puts 2 and 2 together and says that's the same band that did A Day in the Life.
A new convert...you get the picture, AC.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It held water as proven by what you've said in this thread, not me, you. You can be jaded by over-exposure to things around you that aren't necessarily the same anywhere else, which is what I was trying to say to you, hence me asking if you were American. As an American, you are more exposed and more jaded to Tool being more known over there, than here. Just because they are well known in the States, doesn't make it so in England. Accept your hypocricy.
Hypocricy? Hah you're the master at that. Hence why you change definitions of words and your own definitions when your arguments fail. And no you were not right because you CLAIM Tool isnt well know across anywhere but the US. Then why do they tour Europe in FESTIVALS. Your argument didnt work because you assume Tool was only well known in the US, bullshit. I admitted that nobody thinking that where I am from does'nt imply people think like that globally. See I don't make assumtions.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriSo yes, you have a habit of misinterpreting posts.
-AC
You as a habit of misinterpreting mine, you dont see me bitching.
Originally posted by BobbyD
But, I did not say this. You make it sound as if I've said such?
No I don't. I know you haven't.
Originally posted by BobbyD
Correct. I've agreed with you already. ...though most of us Beatles fans probably are too proud to know better and/or agree with you.
Which is idiotic, as per my point.
Originally posted by BobbyD
Good God, don't get religious on me now. Ok? I understand how you feel and where you're coming from. You're as passionate for Mike Patton as I'm about the Beatles.
I don't go around acting like there isn't, or never will be, anybody better. As high as a I rate him, as few as I would put near him, I don't act like he's the second coming, I don't act like there would be any truth to the claim Bakerboy made if someone made it about anybody else.
Originally posted by BobbyD
A 10 year old kid listens to the radio and hears Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds by Elton John for the first time, and thinks it great, only to find out from an older sibling or parent that it was done before...by you know who. They soon discover that it's the same band that sang I wanna hold your hand. A new convert has been born.
See, that's overrating. You are assuming that just because The Beatles did the original, they would automatically gain a new fan. What about someone who hears All Along the Watchtower by Hendrix, you think they'd automatically love Bob Dylan? No, so don't assume the same for The Beatles.
They have a lot of famous songs, so what? A lot of people love Nothing Compares 2 U by Sinead O' Connor, but that doesn't mean they'd be a fan of Prince just because they discovered that he wrote it.
Originally posted by BobbyD
A 16 year old hears With a little help from my Friends by Joe Cocker, only to discover that he was not the original artist. They learn it's the same band who did In my Life. A new convert has been born.
How? Prove to me for a fact that a fan would definitely be born. You can't, and it's stupid to assume so. You don't become a fan just because someone did the song before.
Originally posted by BobbyD
A 52 parent says to this his teenage son that Metallica's version of Hey Jude is a cover. The kid is astonished to know that Metallica isn't the original artist. He hears the original for the first time, and is blown away.
Where are you getting this bullshit from, man? "Is blown away.", how the hell do you know that? For all you know he might think it's boring as paint drying.
You are overrating them by assuming that the outcome of EVERY scenario you've proposed is: "Kid loves The Beatles, kid becomes a fan.". No, it's not the case.
Originally posted by BobbyD
He puts 2 and 2 together and says that's the same band that did A Day in the Life.
Does he? How do you know? How do we know he's even heard A Day in the Life? How do we even know his dad's a fan of The Beatles? Oh, because you're crafting scenarios to overrate them. Here's one:
Kid asks his dad about The Beatles, since he was around then, dad says "They were nothing special.", kid checks them for himself and agrees. What about that? Oh, it means nothing, cos it's a scenario I just made up. You're being silly and very biased.
Originally posted by BobbyD
A new convert...you get the picture, AC.
Yeah, that you're some fanatical Beatles fan who can't debate about them without tonguing their collective anii.
Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
And no you were not right because you CLAIM Tool isnt well know across anywhere but the US.
No I didn't, because that's not true. I claimed they weren't well known and clarified many times that I was speaking for England, and noted that they had ESPECIALLY large fanbases in the US and Australia. Not that they were entirely unknown everywhere, just not well known or AS well known. Again; misinterpretation.
Admit you misinterpreted me or I will go grab every quote and prove you misinterpreted me.
Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
Then why do they tour Europe in FESTIVALS. Your argument didnt work because you assume Tool was only well known in the US, bullshit. I admitted that nobody thinking that where I am from does'nt imply people think like that globally. See I don't make assumtions.
I didn't assume Tool was only well known in the US, you moron. Quote me.
I said they're MOST well known, and because of your over-exposure, you assume they are as well known elsewhere, or well known elsewhere. THAT is wrong.
Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
You as a habit of misinterpreting mine, you dont see me bitching.
I see you bitching all the time.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No I didn't, because that's not true. I claimed they weren't well known and clarified many times that I was speaking for England, and noted that they had ESPECIALLY large fanbases in the US and Australia. Not that they were entirely unknown everywhere, just not well known or AS well known. Again; misinterpretation.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I didn't assume Tool was only well known in the US, you moron. Quote me.I said they're MOST well known, and because of your over-exposure, you assume they are as well known elsewhere, or well known elsewhere. THAT is wrong.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I see you bitching all the time.
I'm bitching? Your'e the pathetic guy who reported me, you bitched the to moderators. You're the alpha-bitcher
Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
No your argument was that TOOL could'nt be consider overrated be cause they were not well knowned enough to be. that is obviously wrong if they have Fan bases across the world. See you're wrong, either way. You just wont admitt it. Tool is well known, in the US in england, Austrailia so YES they have enough spotlight to be overrated.
No, my argument was that Tool aren't overrated for other reasons. My argument against you denying they are some globally well known, mainstream rock band, was the FACT that here in England they are never on TV, Radio or anything else. They're not known to the general public like that.
How would you know? You don't even live here, do you? Have you ever even been to this country? Because I've been to America, I've been to Canada and I've been to Australia, and I've hung out in music spots. I know about the places I'm talking about, do you? Who are you to tell me they're well known here? You're some closed off, jaded American, and if you're not, then you cannot blame me for assuming, as I tried many times to find out, civilly, if you were American, and you didn't answer.
Ball is in your court, reply, and try not to dodge.
Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
Well then you just proved my point, smart guy. They are not just well known here, they are well known across the world to be overrated. They have a big enough fan base and lime light to be overrated. You just chose not to except that, even if you just said it yourself.
They aren't well known. There is a difference between having fanbases in other countries and being a globally famous mainstream rock band, as you'd claim. They're not Foo Fighters, they're not Coldplay. Do you have any experience of Tool's popularity outside of America, first hand? Yes or no? (I'm gonna count how many times you dodge.). Remember; "See, I don't make assumptions.".
Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
I'm bitching Your'e the pathetic guy who reported me, you bitched the to moderators. You're the alpha-bitcher
Yes, because you were doing things worthy of reporting. It's general consensus that you're a sock who pretends to have a girlfriend that happens to be another sock.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, my argument was that Tool aren't overrated for other reasons.
Yet again changing your argument, because it's been disproven. How predicatable.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, because you were doing things worthy of reporting. It's general consensus that you're a sock who pretends to have a girlfriend that happens to be another sock.-AC
If you say so, you know all about me don't you? Sorry, but this site Is'nt my life, unlike sad people like you who've been posting here everyday for like the past 2 years. Whats a 'sock' anyway?
Anyways Im done playing with you for the day, I got a life to live. You will sadly be here, probably all day, all weekend.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
See, that's overrating......You are assuming that just because The Beatles did the original, they would automatically gain a new fan.How? Prove to me for a fact that a fan would definitely be born. You can't, and it's stupid to assume so. You don't become a fan just because someone did the song before.
-AC
Because AC, for many us fans all over the globe, who say they are the greatest ever and were not alive or around, or had not begun to feel a sense of appreciation for music unitl a particular age, that is how it has come to be. How else can you explain an 18 year old, 23 year old, 14 year old or 35 year old who claims they're the greatest ever? This is how it has come to be. Right, wrong, indifferent. Why it works for the Beatles and not others, I can't say, but I've already speculated such. That you don't like it, I can't do anything about it.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You are overrating them by assuming that the outcome of EVERY scenario you've proposed is: "Kid loves The Beatles, kid becomes a fan.". No, it's not the case.........
Does he? How do you know? How do we know he's even heard A Day in the Life? How do we even know his dad's a fan of The Beatles? Oh, because you're crafting scenarios to overrate them.
-AC
Please, let's not talk semantics. ...was merely providing examples of how their fan worship/idolotry starts, that's all.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, that you're some fanatical Beatles fan who can't debate about them without tonguing their collective anii.-AC
C'mon dude, you know better. ....is unnecessary.
Originally posted by BobbyD
Because AC, for many us fans all over the globe, who say they are the greatest ever and were not alive or around, or had not begun to feel a sense of appreciation for music unitl a particular age, that is how it has come to be.
So what? Who in the hell are YOU to ASSUME everyone exposed to The Beatles would automatically love and appreciate them, just because you didn't get into them 'til later? Tell me how you feel you can make that assumption.
You cannot, you are wrong to do so. Just like ANY OTHER BAND EVER, there is as much possibility that someone could not like The Beatles. Making up scenarios that help your argument is pathetic.
Originally posted by BobbyD
How else can you explain an 18 year old, 23 year old, 14 year old or 35 year old who claims they're the greatest ever? This is how it has come to be. Right, wrong, indifferent. Why it works for the Beatles and not others, I can't say, but I've already speculated such. That you don't like it, I can't do anything about it.
What utter tripe. So four people of different ages claim they are the greatest ever, and this is pure opinion, how did you assume this would apply to EVERYONE? It wouldn't, as I proved. You need to recognise that there is a certain stigma attached to The Beatles that makes people feel they have to agree also, regardless of whether it's what they truly feel. You need to admit that you were wrong to say what you did about new fans being born just by knowing that covers were originally by The Beatles. It's not a guarantee, not even close.
You are making up scenarios that work for you, and you are being a very ignorant man. You are essentially sitting there saying that if anyone on Earth heard a cover that was originally by The Beatles, they'd automatically love it or become a fan. You are wrong, you cannot say such an all-encompassing thing, it doesn't work.
You KNOW you have nothing to back you up, so you're making things up as you go along.
Originally posted by BobbyD
Please, let's not talk semantics. ...was merely providing examples of how their fan worship/idolotry starts, that's all.
No, you were providing "examples" as to why and how they get fans. That's not true, it's not like that for everyone. Do you honestly think that anybody who hears The Beatles is instantly a fan?
THIS whole debate proves you are overrating them.
Originally posted by BobbyD
C'mon dude, you know better. ....is unnecessary.
As are your ridiculous scenarios, doesn't stop you.
Originally posted by BobbyD
Was this aimed at me? 😕
No, 2D.
-AC
.....is exactly why I don't like to debate with you, AC. .....because you must always get personal if you find yourself disagreeing with someone. Even when I speak to you in a calm, relaxed, yet argumentative manner, you must always self destruct.
You will get the last word in. I know you will, and that is fine, because that's the way you are.
I wish you well.
Originally posted by BobbyD
.....is exactly why I don't like to debate with you, AC. .....because you must always get personal if you find yourself disagreeing with someone. Even when I speak to you in a calm, relaxed, yet argumentative manner, you must always self destruct.You will get the last word in. I know you will, and that is fine, because that's the way you are.
I wish you well.
Why do you assume I'm not calm simply because I find your debate incredible stupid? You sat there making up scenarios to help yourself, that prove nothing, and I called you on it.
I don't see why YOU take everything so personal, because I'm not attacking you. Don't get so upset everytime you have a debate.
-AC
First of all, my claim about the beatles, based on a sentence that john lennon did about elvis, its a little over the top, but true in the meaning.
In mean, tell me some great band before the beatles. And im talking a iconic band, a band who mixed pop, rock and other music styles, a band that get the people crazy, a band who did the first video-clip, etc. And im not talking about roy and the peacemakers and things like that. Im talking about great bands. The stones come after the beatles, queen the same, the who the same, pink floyd the same, zeppeling the same, and a long etc. Im not saying that there arent any music before the beatles. Im talking that they were the first great band, and they open the run for many and many other bands, and they were influential in many ways in others bands and other generations, and they were the first in tons of things. And the people reconigzed it. Hendrix, dylan, the stones, queen, the who, pink floyd, led zeppelin, bowie, the doors , and many more.
The beatles did it first, and the others followed them.
Originally posted by bakerboy
First of all, my claim about the beatles, based on a sentence that john lennon did about elvis, its a little over the top, but true in the meaning.In mean, tell me some great band before the beatles. And im talking a iconic band, a band who mixed pop, rock and other music styles, a band that get the people crazy, a band who did the first video-clip, etc. And im not talking about roy and the peacemakers and things like that. Im talking about great bands. The stones come after the beatles, queen the same, the who the same, pink floyd the same, zeppeling the same, and a long etc. Im not saying that there arent any music before the beatles. Im talking that they were the first great band, and they open the run for many and many other bands, and they were influential in many ways in others bands and other generations, and they were the first in tons of things. And the people reconigzed it. Hendrix, dylan, the stones, queen, the who, pink floyd, led zeppelin, bowie, the doors , and many more.
The beatles did it first, and the others followed them.
they were formed before those bands...woopdeedoo...
the million dollar quartet beats the beatles ass and came 10 years previous