Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   General Music (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/)
-   -   Unpopular Music Opinions (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/19170-unpopular-music-opinions.html)

Urban Hat€monger ? 05-10-2008 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger (Post 478636)
Getting back on topic , anyone can quite clearly see the influence The Beatles have had on music over the past 40 years , even if you don't like them.

What exactly have Godsuck contributed to music?

That was my full quote,

And I asked YOU what they have contributed. Don't be giving me any of this Wiki shit

sleepy jack 05-10-2008 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oomph! (Post 478654)
Not personal opinion, I already explained it.

Okay than please provide objective evidence to prove that "The Beatles are lame" isn't a personal opinion, it's a fact.

Oomph! 05-10-2008 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger (Post 478655)
And I asked YOU what they have contributed. Don't be giving me any of this Wiki shit

OK, thier art, that's what they've contributed. Not a very complex concept.

Urban Hat€monger ? 05-10-2008 10:02 PM

All bands have contributed 'their art'

You claimed they were better than the Beatles. I want to know why.

Seltzer 05-10-2008 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oomph! (Post 478649)
Relative, REL-A-TIVE

So you're saying that regardless of how well his basslines are written, the bass isn't loud enough for you because it's relatively less prevalent?

Well that is due to the recording technique of the time really, and refusing to acknowledge music due to an older recording style is like dismissing all foreign movies just because you can't be bothered reading subtitles.

I mean, heaven forbid there should be music which isn't absolutely sodden and dripping in bass frequences to placate the current generation. Heaven forbid someone should actually have to make some effort and use their ears to hear a bassline.

Oomph! 05-10-2008 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy jack fire drill (Post 478631)
I refuse to try and argue with someone who makes up words.



Just because you can give it a definition doesn't make it a real word.

There is no such thing as a 'real word'. All words are 'made-up' and 'given a definition'.

Layer: an abstract unit of 'thickness'
-less: To be lacking in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger (Post 478661)
All bands have contributed 'their art'

You claimed they were better than the Beatles. I want to know why.

I'm not the one who brought up 'contributions to music', you are. I'm talking about thier sound itself regardless of popularity or acceptance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfarer (Post 478660)
Fair enough.

Scientifically prove for us how the Beatles are an objectively bad band. Hell, scientifically prove how any band can be objectively bad.

I didn't say 'bad' I said lame.

sleepy jack 05-10-2008 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oomph! (Post 478667)
I didn't say 'bad' I said lame.

Well the Beatles (when they were the Beatles) all had fully functional limbs so you mine as well prove how they're bad as opposed to lame because I can find tons of videos of them walking around to disprove your point that they're lame.

sleepy jack 05-10-2008 10:13 PM

The Beatles were not lame.

Look at them having a pillow fight!

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/61574.jpg

And here they are jumping about!

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/500/2588646.jpg

Here's them making exaggerated stepping movements down stairs in sync with eachother!

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/500/2243529.jpg

Completely functional limbs.

Urban Hat€monger ? 05-10-2008 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oomph! (Post 478664)

I'm not the one who brought up 'contributions to music', you are. I'm talking about thier sound itself regardless of popularity or acceptance.

I know I did

And if they were such a great band and better that probably the most important band of the 20th century you should have no problem answering it.

Oomph! 05-10-2008 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seltzer (Post 478663)
So you're saying that regardless of how well his basslines are written, the bass isn't loud enough for you because it's relatively less prevalent?

More or less, yes. Bass, along with the drums, effectively drives your rythm, it creates a layer of sound. Bass isn't the only aspect I was reffering to though.

Quote:

Well that is due to the recording technique of the time really, and refusing to acknowledge music due to an older recording style is like dismissing all foreign movies just because you can't be bothered reading subtitles.
That was a poor simile, I don't see how dissmissing a movie bacause you don't understand the language it's in has anything to do with music being lame.

Quote:

I mean, heaven forbid there should be music which isn't absolutely sodden and dripping in bass frequences to placate the current generation. Heaven forbid someone should actually have to make some effort and use their ears to hear a bassline.
If you have to strain yourself to make out the bass, you can't concentrate on the rest of the song.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy jack fire drill (Post 478672)
The Beatles were not lame.

Thier music was

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfarer (Post 478670)
...

Okay, scientifically prove how the Beatles are, objectively, a lame band. And try not to dodge it this time, yeah?

I didn't 'dodge' it, in fact I've already explained it in this very thread just pages ago.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:39 AM.


© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.