|
|
Post by jefflynnenut on Sept 29, 2014 0:44:14 GMT
Oh the joy to find this! 1. U2. ... I agree, I still can't take them seriously, at all. I can agree that "Streets Have No Name" can serve as their great chicken-scratch-guitar opus, and good for them for that one. But that just makes them a one-hit-wonder, with me. Other than that, it's not necessarily that they're bad, but they just bug me to death. I don't think they're that great, and and their egos, especially The Edge really gets on my nerves. Jim I have a friend who worked on the "Lemon" tour. He was a tool rat who climbed the lemon day after day for a year. He said it was a good lil buzz and he made some really great friends. However he said the highlight of his time on the tour was serving the "musicians" on keys and guitar under the lemon stage cups of tea! I rest my case. Boner and co. Are untalented, overrated knobs. |
|
|
|
Post by jefflynnenut on Sept 30, 2014 20:06:05 GMT
5. Fleetwood Mac: Stevie Nicks ruined what was a decent blues band. Ever since she and her goat-voice came, their music was lacking in inspiration and sucked.
So beautifully and eloquently put!. This my brother of another mother I completely agree! Their only saving grace was Lyndsay (jeff lynne )lookalike) Buckingham! But the Peter Green era really were something special before they sold out to commersialism! Goat voice Bahahaha!
B.T.W! To all you funny folk who reposted my sheer hatred for Boner and U2 agreed and had a good giggle...just to let you know in Ireland it is a national past time to hate this band and especially Boner! We even have a joke over here about the saps....it goes as follows..
Whats the difference between Boner and God? God doesn't walk around Dublin saying he's Bono!
|
|
|
|
Post by unomusette on Sept 30, 2014 20:57:46 GMT
I'm not a big blues fan and quite liked Fleetwood Mac with La Nicks, but I laughed like a drain at the goat-voice bit, heeee!
Oh, dear, now I'm going straight to hell, the hell I described in the appropriate thread...eww
|
|
|
|
Post by Helmut83 on Oct 1, 2014 2:08:53 GMT
5. Fleetwood Mac: Stevie Nicks ruined what was a decent blues band. Ever since she and her goat-voice came, their music was lacking in inspiration and sucked. So beautifully and eloquently put!. This my brother of another mother I completely agree! Their only saving grace was Lyndsay (jeff lynne )lookalike) Buckingham! But the Peter Green era really were something special before they sold out to commersialism! Goat voice Bahahaha! When I started reading your message I was like "yes, I agree, Fleetwood Mac is overrated  . And yes I also think Stevie Nicks ruined it!  Wow, I agree a lot with this guy!  ... How incredible  , I also thought that same thing about the goat-vo... oh, damn  ... you could have used the 'quote' button, Jefflynnenut". I had said that such a long time ago I had almost forgotten. |
|
|
|
Post by jrmugz on Oct 2, 2014 14:31:54 GMT
One guy I can't stand who I think is over-rated is Kid Rock. What an ego-maniac. I think "Born Free" is the dumbest thing I ever heard, just a bunch of self-centered drivel.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Timeblue on Oct 2, 2014 15:55:55 GMT
1.Elvis Presley- good looking guy that could dance a bit and was around at the right time.Had writers to do all the song writing and an agent who thought of himself first.
2.Michael Jackson- hated the J5 and when he went solo,he believed his own hype.
3.Bruce Springsteen-just because of 'Born.....' why do Americans have to namecheck cities in the USA?
4.Oasis AND Blur-Sunday morning call and song2 aside,nothing of theirs even remotely makes me want to like them
5-The whole dance culture artists-I KNOW I'm not supposed to like them at my age...................and I don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by jrmugz on Oct 2, 2014 17:31:48 GMT
Oasis always seemed way to serious/depressing for my tastes.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jefflynnenut on Oct 3, 2014 18:20:47 GMT
Oasis always seemed way to serious/depressing for my tastes. Jim One of those scummy Mancs also said that ELO were (sh*t)!!! I think it was Noel. |
|
|
|
Post by Helmut83 on Oct 3, 2014 22:23:54 GMT
1.Elvis Presley- good looking guy that could dance a bit and was around at the right time.Had writers to do all the song writing and an agent who thought of himself first. Man, I couldn't agree more. In fact, I'm kind of ashamed now that I didn't bring Elvis into the discussion. How on Earth do they call "the King of Rock n' Roll" a guy who didn't even write his own songs? Are they crazy? If someone deserves that title it is Chuck Berry in my opinion, not the sheer intepreter Elvis Presley. |
|
|
|
Post by Helmut83 on Oct 3, 2014 22:28:09 GMT
jefflynnenut: I remember having seen that clip some time ago. That nullity dissing ELO is like Shamrock Rovers #8 criticizing Messi.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob 2095 on Oct 4, 2014 0:49:53 GMT
1.Elvis Presley- good looking guy that could dance a bit and was around at the right time.Had writers to do all the song writing and an agent who thought of himself first. Man, I couldn't agree more. In fact, I'm kind of ashamed now that I didn't bring Elvis into the discussion. How on Earth do they call "the King of Rock n' Roll" a guy who didn't even write his own songs? Are they crazy? If someone deserves that title it is Chuck Berry in my opinion, not the sheer intepreter Elvis Presley. Maybe neither deserved the title. In spite of the fact the he didn't write his own material, Elvis has always struck me as having been the more talented of the two, overall. |
|
|
|
Post by jrmugz on Oct 4, 2014 0:59:21 GMT
Oasis always seemed way to serious/depressing for my tastes. Jim One of those scummy Mancs also said that ELO were (sh*t)!!! I think it was Noel. Not surprised at their bad musical tastes and musical judgement. Hearing their stuff is like being in Hell. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Helmut83 on Oct 4, 2014 7:02:42 GMT
Maybe neither deserved the title. In spite of the fact the he didn't write his own material, Elvis has always struck me as having been the more talented of the two, overall. Talented in what? In singing? Probably, but in my opinion, music is at least 80% about songwriting. Without songs to play there is no brilliant interpretation, there is no great singer, there is not great guitar solo and there are not amazing drummers. Songwriting is the foundational stone of what musicians do IMO. Bob Dylan is a terrible singer and not a particularly good instrumentist, but he is a legend because of the songs he wrote, which always sound better when covered by other artists, yes, but the credit of their composition belongs to him. So, according to that opinion of mine, Chuck Berry is far more talented than Elvis because he could do the most important thing in music while Elvis couldn't, despite Berry not being a better interpreter than Presley. Chuck Berry could live with not being a fantastic singer or showman, but Elvis couldn't have lived without someone writing songs for him. |
|
|
|
Post by elophile on Oct 4, 2014 11:20:04 GMT
One of those scummy Mancs also said that ELO were (sh*t)!!! I think it was Noel. Not surprised at their bad musical tastes and musical judgement. Hearing their stuff is like being in Hell. Jim Yes! Liam Gallagher's voice (shudder)... Like nails on a chalkboard. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob 2095 on Oct 5, 2014 1:32:59 GMT
Maybe neither deserved the title. In spite of the fact the he didn't write his own material, Elvis has always struck me as having been the more talented of the two, overall. Talented in what? In singing? Probably, but in my opinion, music is at least 80% about songwriting. Without songs to play there is no brilliant interpretation, there is no great singer, there is not great guitar solo and there are not amazing drummers. Songwriting is the foundational stone of what musicians do IMO. Bob Dylan is a terrible singer and not a particularly good instrumentist, but he is a legend because of the songs he wrote, which always sound better when covered by other artists, yes, but the credit of their composition belongs to him. So, according to that opinion of mine, Chuck Berry is far more talented than Elvis because he could do the most important thing in music while Elvis couldn't, despite Berry not being a better interpreter than Presley. Chuck Berry could live with not being a fantastic singer or showman, but Elvis couldn't have lived without someone writing songs for him. Talented as a singer, piano player, (arguably) guitar player and definitely as a showman. Even when Presley had one foot firmly planted in his grave, the guy still showed flashes of brilliance as a performer, IMO, and still retained his rich, booming and powerful voice. One could even argue that his voice improved with age, but as you well know, his lifestyle got the better of him and greatly impaired many of his performances. Elvis may have been and continue to be overrated by quite a few people, but I've always been able to see why he was so idolized. I can't really say the same for Berry. 'Maybe it's just personal preference in this situation. |
|
. And yes I also think Stevie Nicks ruined it! 
Wow, I agree a lot with this guy! 
... How incredible 
, I also thought that same thing about the goat-vo... oh, damn 
... you could have used the 'quote' button, Jefflynnenut". 
, but we're OK. 
Apparently it's quite hard to see them with the naked eye, you need to be looking through a camera or other type of lens?