Post Your unpopular opinions (1 Viewer)

[bostonfred]

You bought your "free t-shirts"? Nice job, Otis.

Co-opted work better for you, Christo?

Sorry. You can go back to name dropping, bueno.

I appreciate everything you do around here, Ministry of Pain.

Whoa. That's, like, deep, Giggy.

 

[kaa]

I'd even say that being able to misdirect and deflect is a badge of honor among liberals. When Bill Clinton said "I never inhaled", liberals considered that to be a wonderful response. In truth, it was a warning of just how irresponsible he was going to be.

 

[flysack]

Monogamy causes erectile dysfunction.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I think bgp is rational.

 

[Red Eyed and Blue]

everyone should be an organ donor.

This is an unpopular opinion?

I would not have a problem if it became law that 100% of our population should be enrolled into being an organ donor. but I can see how a mojority of the people would have a problem with that so I would settle with 100% of our population is enrolled, and they have to opt out. currently no one is enrolled and you have to sign up.Another idea if you are currently not an organ donor you are disqualified from getting one.

Your newsletter. I'd like one.

 

[Mr.Roboto]

Although I enjoyed UFC 1, I hate MMA

 

[flysack]

It should be easier to pass universal health care than it is to lie your way into an impossible six year war.

 

[flysack]

I think it's hilarious that the man who wrote The History of Sexuality contracted AIDS during fisting sessions in LA bathhouses.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Watching bostonfred and Mr. Pickles go at it is more entertaining than watching golf on TV.

yes

 

[TexanFan02]

I think bgp is rational.

He's completely sane.

 

[Jutz]

The Beatles did what the Ramones did in 1960. Played 2 minute songs really fast dressed in leather. Go find Live at the Star Club if you doubt me.

The Beatles viewed this as simply a phase and moved on to other stuff. They didn't make a career out of dressing in leather and calling it revolutionary.

They were too busy ACTUALLY being revolutionary like being the first self contained rock band and bringing multi track recordings to its absolute height in Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Revolver, and Abbey Road.

The Beatles did not do what the Ramones did. The Beatles may have played some 2 minute songs... and they may have been relatively fast compared to the music at the time. But the songs the Ramones played when they first came out in their live concerts was EXTREMELY fast... like 2 to 3 times faster then the normal speed at the time.So your saying the Beatles dressed in leather at the star club, but considered it a phase, and moved on. And the Ramones 'made a career out of dressing in leather and calling it revolutionary'??? OK... the Ramones did dress in a 'uniform'. It consised of leather jackets... nothing else was leather. The did make a career out of this dress... and they were revolutionary... but they were NOT revolutionary BECAUSE of their dress. Its sounds like that is what you are saying. They were revolutionary because of their music.

Being a self contained rock band and revolutionizing multi track recording is NOT the same as revolutionizing music itself. That is more like revolutionizing the technology and business of music. Two different things. The bottom line to me is... when the Beatles came out with songs like Hard Days Night, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, Love Me Do, Twist-n-shout, All My Lovin... there was nothing revolutionary about those songs. They were mild mannered pop songs that had a strong american blues influence. If that music was revolutionary... then what genere did they create? Even with the Beatles later material... what genere did they create? They didn't create any genere... they didn't revolutionize music. They were extremely popular because American teenage women loved how they looked, and they loved their accents. American women today still go ga-ga over european men with accents. It wouldn't have worked if they were horrible musicians, they made good music, but the music alone was nothing revolutionary. Take away their looks, and where they were from, and the Beatles were nothing special. Release those early songs as an american band and they would have success... but there would be no Beatlemania.

The Ramones on the other hand... when they came out, no one else sounded like them. What they did was completely against the grain of all music at the time. Their biggest influence was 50's bubble gum pop... but they played it about 10 times as fast, with guitars about 10 times as loud, and since they were all freaks... their song subject matter was unlike any other on the airwaves at the time. What they did was so completely different from anything going on at the time, they truely did create a new genere of music. When the Ramones went on tour, they influenced kids all across America and Europe to pick up instruments and play. Punk bands started all over the place. None of this had to do with leather... or being 'self contained'... or multi tracking. It had to do with music. They started something new... the Beatles played quality pop songs, but the music was not at all revolutionary.

 

[Jutz]

Horrible post.

Again, this isn't unpopular. This is wrong. Perhaps you giggled at your "boy band" analogy. Excellent. But when you say there's nothing original or revolutionary about The Beatles, you're either uniformed or on a fishing trip

And I love The Ramones, so that isn't affecting this post.

I have held my 'boy band' analogy for many years. This unpopular opinion is not new to me. I would estimate it to be approximately 15 years old with me. I did not 'giggle' when I wrote it because I have believed it for many years now.I still don't see what was revolutionary about the MUSIC of the Beatles. Take away everything... then listen to the music ONLY of both bands. Then consider the context of the time this music was released. What did the Beatles Revolutionize??? Musically... I just don't see it.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Horrible post.

Again, this isn't unpopular. This is wrong. Perhaps you giggled at your "boy band" analogy. Excellent. But when you say there's nothing original or revolutionary about The Beatles, you're either uniformed or on a fishing trip

And I love The Ramones, so that isn't affecting this post.

I have held my 'boy band' analogy for many years. This unpopular opinion is not new to me. I would estimate it to be approximately 15 years old with me. I did not 'giggle' when I wrote it because I have believed it for many years now.I still don't see what was revolutionary about the MUSIC of the Beatles. Take away everything... then listen to the music ONLY of both bands. Then consider the context of the time this music was released. What did the Beatles Revolutionize??? Musically... I just don't see it.

So which 'boy bands' were around when the Beatles took the scene?

 

[shut it down]

The entire FFA should just be this thread.

 

[bostonfred]

The entire FFA should just be this thread.

It used to be.

 

[awesomeness]

Driving age should be 21 and the drinking age 18.

Money wasted on space exploration needs to be spent on developing a male birth control pill.

Women on welfare need to be shot up with birth control before they collect their checks.

Child molestors and rapists should be eligible for the death penalty.

Baseball fans are much smarter than football fans.

The US Mint should stop producing pennies and all products should round up to the nearest whole number.

People riding on Segways should be eligible targets for rock throwing.

Gladiator, Fight Club and The Departed were all incredibly overrated movies.

Tom Brady fumbled that football and the Raiders were absolutely screwed out of that game.

New drivers suck period, a 3 year age difference between 18-21 isn't going to change that.I don't think you know what the the definition of a whole number is. To say we should round the prices of all products to a whole number would erase all change not just pennies. I agree with your first point on the matter though, we should get rid of pennies and have the smallest currency be a nickel or dime.

 

[flysack]

The entire FFA should just be this thread.

This opinion is not unpopular. Only frowned upon.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Horrible post.

Again, this isn't unpopular. This is wrong. Perhaps you giggled at your "boy band" analogy. Excellent. But when you say there's nothing original or revolutionary about The Beatles, you're either uniformed or on a fishing trip

And I love The Ramones, so that isn't affecting this post.

I have held my 'boy band' analogy for many years. This unpopular opinion is not new to me. I would estimate it to be approximately 15 years old with me. I did not 'giggle' when I wrote it because I have believed it for many years now.I still don't see what was revolutionary about the MUSIC of the Beatles. Take away everything... then listen to the music ONLY of both bands. Then consider the context of the time this music was released. What did the Beatles Revolutionize??? Musically... I just don't see it.

The innovations The Beatles and George Martin came up with are myriad, and that is an established fact. I'm going to remind myself that you actually think The Ramones are more innovative than The Beatles and just drop this argument as a pointless endeavor.

 

[drummer]

Horrible post.

Again, this isn't unpopular. This is wrong. Perhaps you giggled at your "boy band" analogy. Excellent. But when you say there's nothing original or revolutionary about The Beatles, you're either uniformed or on a fishing trip

And I love The Ramones, so that isn't affecting this post.

I have held my 'boy band' analogy for many years. This unpopular opinion is not new to me. I would estimate it to be approximately 15 years old with me. I did not 'giggle' when I wrote it because I have believed it for many years now.I still don't see what was revolutionary about the MUSIC of the Beatles. Take away everything... then listen to the music ONLY of both bands. Then consider the context of the time this music was released. What did the Beatles Revolutionize??? Musically... I just don't see it.

The innovations The Beatles and George Martin came up with are myriad, and that is an established fact. I'm going to remind myself that you actually think The Ramones are more innovative than The Beatles and just drop this argument as a pointless endeavor.

Jutz doesn't understand the concept of a Boy Band.

 

[drummer]

The Beatles did what the Ramones did in 1960. Played 2 minute songs really fast dressed in leather. Go find Live at the Star Club if you doubt me.

The Beatles viewed this as simply a phase and moved on to other stuff. They didn't make a career out of dressing in leather and calling it revolutionary.

They were too busy ACTUALLY being revolutionary like being the first self contained rock band and bringing multi track recordings to its absolute height in Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Revolver, and Abbey Road.

The Beatles did not do what the Ramones did. The Beatles may have played some 2 minute songs... and they may have been relatively fast compared to the music at the time. But the songs the Ramones played when they first came out in their live concerts was EXTREMELY fast... like 2 to 3 times faster then the normal speed at the time.So your saying the Beatles dressed in leather at the star club, but considered it a phase, and moved on. And the Ramones 'made a career out of dressing in leather and calling it revolutionary'??? OK... the Ramones did dress in a 'uniform'. It consised of leather jackets... nothing else was leather. The did make a career out of this dress... and they were revolutionary... but they were NOT revolutionary BECAUSE of their dress. Its sounds like that is what you are saying. They were revolutionary because of their music.

Being a self contained rock band and revolutionizing multi track recording is NOT the same as revolutionizing music itself. That is more like revolutionizing the technology and business of music. Two different things. The bottom line to me is... when the Beatles came out with songs like Hard Days Night, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, Love Me Do, Twist-n-shout, All My Lovin... there was nothing revolutionary about those songs. They were mild mannered pop songs that had a strong american blues influence. If that music was revolutionary... then what genere did they create? Even with the Beatles later material... what genere did they create? They didn't create any genere... they didn't revolutionize music. They were extremely popular because American teenage women loved how they looked, and they loved their accents. American women today still go ga-ga over european men with accents. It wouldn't have worked if they were horrible musicians, they made good music, but the music alone was nothing revolutionary. Take away their looks, and where they were from, and the Beatles were nothing special. Release those early songs as an american band and they would have success... but there would be no Beatlemania.

The Ramones on the other hand... when they came out, no one else sounded like them. What they did was completely against the grain of all music at the time. Their biggest influence was 50's bubble gum pop... but they played it about 10 times as fast, with guitars about 10 times as loud, and since they were all freaks... their song subject matter was unlike any other on the airwaves at the time. What they did was so completely different from anything going on at the time, they truely did create a new genere of music. When the Ramones went on tour, they influenced kids all across America and Europe to pick up instruments and play. Punk bands started all over the place. None of this had to do with leather... or being 'self contained'... or multi tracking. It had to do with music. They started something new... the Beatles played quality pop songs, but the music was not at all revolutionary.

Ever hear of The Who?

 

[jdoggydogg]

the Beatles played quality pop songs, but the music was not at all revolutionary.

I take it back. I can't drop this so quickly. That you wrote this statement proves you don't know very much about The Beatles' catalog. Tell me what's "pop" about Tomorrow Never Knows. There isn't a trace of "pop" in Why Don't We Do It In The Road?. You like Punk, Jutz. Helter Skelter is, in fact, as Hardcore and Punk as music ever written in in that era. If you think that The Beatles can be dismissed as a pop band, then you are segregating their early work and using that to characterize their music asa whole.I love Punk. There are few things better than a great Punk album. But The Ramones aren't nearly as important a band, and this is the consensus. The Beatles experimented in Jazz, Indian Music, Ragtime, Classical, Honkey Tonk, The Blues, and countless other genres. 40 years later, I think it's easy for people to write that dabbling off as trickery when, in fact, the music world had rarely seen such a high level of innovation.

 

[NCCommish]

Liberals are completely incapable of engaging in an intellectual debate. Its an endless stream of straw man arguments, misdirections, deflections, and personal attacks. The only difference I've ever seen between the Michael Moore's of the world and the more eloquent liberals is that the eloquent ones tend to be better at it. But as soon as you trap in their own crap, they devolve into laughing at you and insulting your mother. Although sometimes they just run and hide in their little enclaves.

Pretty sure it's never gone that way between us and anytime you want to try to prove your little hypothesis you know where to find me. But it is an interesting opinion from a guy who has raised the drive-by post to an art form.

 

[Saints-Man]

The opinion of anyone that uses the "slippery slope" argument should be dismissed out of hand. It's the lowest form of political discourse, to be used only by morons who are trying to sound smart.

Careful, if you dismiss everyone who uses a slippery slope argument out of hand, next you'll be dismissing all strawman arguments and then Occam's Razor and Schrodinger's Cat. Seriously, where will it end???!

I am so glad this is getting more love lately.

 

[Saints-Man]

...

The winner of todays political landscape is which side can get a discrediting label that will stick to the other side. It doesn't even have to be true, it just has to stick.

This is nothing new for it has been true since the early years of the republic, and I think in most democracies/republics also. JFK lied about the US missile gap with the USSR to stir up fear in the voting public, and he was on the Senate committee that had access to this info.

 

[Saints-Man]

Liberals are completely incapable of engaging in an intellectual debate. ...

There are an equal number of conservatives as liberals who do this. This is a character trait of an individual, not a shared trait of similar-minded people, whatever their philosophy may be(this extends way beyond the political landscape).

 

[saintsfan]

Horrible post.

Again, this isn't unpopular. This is wrong. Perhaps you giggled at your "boy band" analogy. Excellent. But when you say there's nothing original or revolutionary about The Beatles, you're either uniformed or on a fishing trip

And I love The Ramones, so that isn't affecting this post.

I have held my 'boy band' analogy for many years. This unpopular opinion is not new to me. I would estimate it to be approximately 15 years old with me. I did not 'giggle' when I wrote it because I have believed it for many years now.I still don't see what was revolutionary about the MUSIC of the Beatles. Take away everything... then listen to the music ONLY of both bands. Then consider the context of the time this music was released. What did the Beatles Revolutionize??? Musically... I just don't see it.

1. They wrote their own songs. If you can't see how that revolutionized pop music, then you're fishing.2. The entire world music scene can be traced back to George Harrison's experimentation with Indian Music

3. Music structure. Before the Beatles, rock and roll was little more than major chord progressions, usually 3 chords. The Beatles wrote songs in minor keys, yes even the "boy band" early music. If I Fell has an opening that is in a minor key and not repeated in any other part of the song. Songs also switched from major to minor keys in the same song. Unheard of in pop music at the time and far beyond anything the Ramones ever dreamed of.

4. Harmonies. Even an untrained ear can hear the harmonies of the Beatles. What they might not be aware of is how INTRICATE and complex some of these harmonies are. Uncommonly complex for rock and roll.

5. Multi track recordings. The complexity of something like Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road set the scene for the 70's Prog music scene. I would argue that the Beatles practically invented this genre.

6. Instrumentation. The Beatles added instrumentation to the rock and roll vocabulary that hadn't been done. Indian instruments, classical instruments, mellotron, ect.

7. Tommorrow Never Knows is practically the first techno song.

8. Helter Skelter predated the Ramones by a decade and is louder and rawer than anything the Ramones ever dreamed of

9. First feedback on any record = I Feel Fine

10. Every musical style you can think of, the Beatles did it.

Anything else?? I can probably keep going.

 

[TexanFan02]

Horrible post.

Again, this isn't unpopular. This is wrong. Perhaps you giggled at your "boy band" analogy. Excellent. But when you say there's nothing original or revolutionary about The Beatles, you're either uniformed or on a fishing trip

And I love The Ramones, so that isn't affecting this post.

I have held my 'boy band' analogy for many years. This unpopular opinion is not new to me. I would estimate it to be approximately 15 years old with me. I did not 'giggle' when I wrote it because I have believed it for many years now.I still don't see what was revolutionary about the MUSIC of the Beatles. Take away everything... then listen to the music ONLY of both bands. Then consider the context of the time this music was released. What did the Beatles Revolutionize??? Musically... I just don't see it.

1. They wrote their own songs. If you can't see how that revolutionized pop music, then you're fishing.2. The entire world music scene can be traced back to George Harrison's experimentation with Indian Music

3. Music structure. Before the Beatles, rock and roll was little more than major chord progressions, usually 3 chords. The Beatles wrote songs in minor keys, yes even the "boy band" early music. If I Fell has an opening that is in a minor key and not repeated in any other part of the song. Songs also switched from major to minor keys in the same song. Unheard of in pop music at the time and far beyond anything the Ramones ever dreamed of.

4. Harmonies. Even an untrained ear can hear the harmonies of the Beatles. What they might not be aware of is how INTRICATE and complex some of these harmonies are. Uncommonly complex for rock and roll.

5. Multi track recordings. The complexity of something like Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road set the scene for the 70's Prog music scene. I would argue that the Beatles practically invented this genre.

6. Instrumentation. The Beatles added instrumentation to the rock and roll vocabulary that hadn't been done. Indian instruments, classical instruments, mellotron, ect.

7. Tommorrow Never Knows is practically the first techno song.

8. Helter Skelter predated the Ramones by a decade and is louder and rawer than anything the Ramones ever dreamed of

9. First feedback on any record = I Feel Fine

10. Every musical style you can think of, the Beatles did it.

Anything else?? I can probably keep going.

No need. Jklutz's views on the Beatles are crazier than BGP. And that's saying a lot.

 

[shut it down]

9. First feedback on any record = I Feel Fine

Again, I don't deny that the Beatles had a major influence, but you're wrong on this one:1954. I don't know if there's anything earlier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVsNlchp0GE

And the statement about George Harrison and world music should be re-considered. Although I did chuckle.

 

[awesomeness]

Horrible post.

Again, this isn't unpopular. This is wrong. Perhaps you giggled at your "boy band" analogy. Excellent. But when you say there's nothing original or revolutionary about The Beatles, you're either uniformed or on a fishing trip

And I love The Ramones, so that isn't affecting this post.

I have held my 'boy band' analogy for many years. This unpopular opinion is not new to me. I would estimate it to be approximately 15 years old with me. I did not 'giggle' when I wrote it because I have believed it for many years now.I still don't see what was revolutionary about the MUSIC of the Beatles. Take away everything... then listen to the music ONLY of both bands. Then consider the context of the time this music was released. What did the Beatles Revolutionize??? Musically... I just don't see it.

1. They wrote their own songs. If you can't see how that revolutionized pop music, then you're fishing.2. The entire world music scene can be traced back to George Harrison's experimentation with Indian Music

3. Music structure. Before the Beatles, rock and roll was little more than major chord progressions, usually 3 chords. The Beatles wrote songs in minor keys, yes even the "boy band" early music. If I Fell has an opening that is in a minor key and not repeated in any other part of the song. Songs also switched from major to minor keys in the same song. Unheard of in pop music at the time and far beyond anything the Ramones ever dreamed of.

4. Harmonies. Even an untrained ear can hear the harmonies of the Beatles. What they might not be aware of is how INTRICATE and complex some of these harmonies are. Uncommonly complex for rock and roll.

5. Multi track recordings. The complexity of something like Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road set the scene for the 70's Prog music scene. I would argue that the Beatles practically invented this genre.

6. Instrumentation. The Beatles added instrumentation to the rock and roll vocabulary that hadn't been done. Indian instruments, classical instruments, mellotron, ect.

7. Tommorrow Never Knows is practically the first techno song.

8. Helter Skelter predated the Ramones by a decade and is louder and rawer than anything the Ramones ever dreamed of

9. First feedback on any record = I Feel Fine

10. Every musical style you can think of, the Beatles did it.

Anything else?? I can probably keep going.

this is one of the worst posts i've seen in recent memory.

 

[kaa]

Liberals are completely incapable of engaging in an intellectual debate. ...

There are an equal number of conservatives as liberals who do this. This is a character trait of an individual, not a shared trait of similar-minded people, whatever their philosophy may be(this extends way beyond the political landscape).

I used to be a democrat in the 80s and 90s. The complete inability to find even ONE liberal who could engage in an intellectual debate on issues helped push me away. Typically I would become exposed to republican ideas, and then I'd bring them up to a liberal. I would go in assuming the democratic view would be correct and they'd have some good reasoning. Instead, they would attack me personally, or just ignore it.Even today it happens. Everywhere I look, conservatives bring up deep concerns about the national debt. The liberals absolutely refuse to engage on that issue. The liberal mainstream press acts like the issue doesn't even exist. Then on top of that, they decide to make up wild fantasy stories that the protestors are being organized by some right-wing conspiracy or that there's racism involved. And then liberals wonder why the entire nation begins to completely turn away from them.Communicate. Interact. These liberals need to stop running and hiding in their little enclaves and get involved.

 

[Saints-Man]

Liberals are completely incapable of engaging in an intellectual debate. ...

There are an equal number of conservatives as liberals who do this. This is a character trait of an individual, not a shared trait of similar-minded people, whatever their philosophy may be(this extends way beyond the political landscape).

I used to be a democrat in the 80s and 90s. The complete inability to find even ONE liberal who could engage in an intellectual debate on issues helped push me away. Typically I would become exposed to republican ideas, and then I'd bring them up to a liberal. I would go in assuming the democratic view would be correct and they'd have some good reasoning. Instead, they would attack me personally, or just ignore it.Even today it happens. Everywhere I look, conservatives bring up deep concerns about the national debt. The liberals absolutely refuse to engage on that issue. The liberal mainstream press acts like the issue doesn't even exist. Then on top of that, they decide to make up wild fantasy stories that the protestors are being organized by some right-wing conspiracy or that there's racism involved. And then liberals wonder why the entire nation begins to completely turn away from them.Communicate. Interact. These liberals need to stop running and hiding in their little enclaves and get involved.

To extrapolate one's limited experiences with so few data points is not a method for finding truth.Also, even today each side has done their fair share of ducking tough questions and claiming false data as truth. This is done as much on the right as the left.

 

[shut it down]

Even today it happens. Everywhere I look, conservatives bring up deep concerns about the national debt.

Why weren't conservatives as concerned with the debt when GWB was in office? He wasn't exactly fiscally disciplined.

 

[TexanFan02]

Liberals are completely incapable of engaging in an intellectual debate. ...

There are an equal number of conservatives as liberals who do this. This is a character trait of an individual, not a shared trait of similar-minded people, whatever their philosophy may be(this extends way beyond the political landscape).

I used to be a democrat in the 80s and 90s. The complete inability to find even ONE liberal who could engage in an intellectual debate on issues helped push me away. Typically I would become exposed to republican ideas, and then I'd bring them up to a liberal. I would go in assuming the democratic view would be correct and they'd have some good reasoning. Instead, they would attack me personally, or just ignore it.Even today it happens. Everywhere I look, conservatives bring up deep concerns about the national debt. The liberals absolutely refuse to engage on that issue. The liberal mainstream press acts like the issue doesn't even exist. Then on top of that, they decide to make up wild fantasy stories that the protestors are being organized by some right-wing conspiracy or that there's racism involved. And then liberals wonder why the entire nation begins to completely turn away from them.

Communicate. Interact. These liberals need to stop running and hiding in their little enclaves and get involved.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I used to be a democrat in the 80s and 90s. The complete inability to find even ONE liberal who could engage in an intellectual debate on issues helped push me away.

Sounds like a real Algonquin round table there. I don't know where you began your mighty quest, but I promise you there are Liberals that love to engage in an intellectual debate on issues.

 

[drummer]

I used to be a democrat in the 80s and 90s. The complete inability to find even ONE liberal who could engage in an intellectual debate on issues helped push me away.

Sounds like a real Algonquin round table there. I don't know where you began your mighty quest, but I promise you there are Liberals that love to engage in an intellectual debate on issues.

It's not like kaa has posted anything intellectual...

 

[drummer]

I think this song is very underrated. Not because of the 80's factor. The arrangement and mix are superb, and Dusty sails above the monotone and apathy of the other leads.

 

[Tom Servo]

Horrible post.

Again, this isn't unpopular. This is wrong. Perhaps you giggled at your "boy band" analogy. Excellent. But when you say there's nothing original or revolutionary about The Beatles, you're either uniformed or on a fishing trip

And I love The Ramones, so that isn't affecting this post.

I have held my 'boy band' analogy for many years. This unpopular opinion is not new to me. I would estimate it to be approximately 15 years old with me. I did not 'giggle' when I wrote it because I have believed it for many years now.I still don't see what was revolutionary about the MUSIC of the Beatles. Take away everything... then listen to the music ONLY of both bands. Then consider the context of the time this music was released. What did the Beatles Revolutionize??? Musically... I just don't see it.

1. They wrote their own songs. If you can't see how that revolutionized pop music, then you're fishing.2. The entire world music scene can be traced back to George Harrison's experimentation with Indian Music

3. Music structure. Before the Beatles, rock and roll was little more than major chord progressions, usually 3 chords. The Beatles wrote songs in minor keys, yes even the "boy band" early music. If I Fell has an opening that is in a minor key and not repeated in any other part of the song. Songs also switched from major to minor keys in the same song. Unheard of in pop music at the time and far beyond anything the Ramones ever dreamed of.

4. Harmonies. Even an untrained ear can hear the harmonies of the Beatles. What they might not be aware of is how INTRICATE and complex some of these harmonies are. Uncommonly complex for rock and roll.

5. Multi track recordings. The complexity of something like Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road set the scene for the 70's Prog music scene. I would argue that the Beatles practically invented this genre.

6. Instrumentation. The Beatles added instrumentation to the rock and roll vocabulary that hadn't been done. Indian instruments, classical instruments, mellotron, ect.

7. Tommorrow Never Knows is practically the first techno song.

8. Helter Skelter predated the Ramones by a decade and is louder and rawer than anything the Ramones ever dreamed of

9. First feedback on any record = I Feel Fine

10. Every musical style you can think of, the Beatles did it.

Anything else?? I can probably keep going.

Methinks you doth protest too much. I'm more convinced than ever that the Beatles are over-rated.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

I'm just gonna say it, and I don't care what anyone thinks. I liked Dennis Miller on Monday Night Football.

I thought the Theisman ESPN trio was great on SNF

me too

I enjoyed them, as well, and never really got the Theisman hate.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

The opinion of anyone that uses the "slippery slope" argument should be dismissed out of hand. It's the lowest form of political discourse, to be used only by morons who are trying to sound smart.

Careful, if you dismiss everyone who uses a slippery slope argument out of hand, next you'll be dismissing all strawman arguments and then Occam's Razor and Schrodinger's Cat. Seriously, where will it end???!

good one

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Personally, I think 1600-1750 stands out as a great era of music...

IMHO 2nd only to 1859-2009.

 

[bostonfred]

The two surest ways to kill a good thread are to talk about the Beatles and to argue with beee on his terms.

 

[perry147]

Even today it happens. Everywhere I look, conservatives bring up deep concerns about the national debt.

Why weren't conservatives as concerned with the debt when GWB was in office? He wasn't exactly fiscally disciplined.

The emperors cloths are made of the finest silk in all the land.

 

[perry147]

...

The winner of todays political landscape is which side can get a discrediting label that will stick to the other side. It doesn't even have to be true, it just has to stick.

This is nothing new for it has been true since the early years of the republic, and I think in most democracies/republics also. JFK lied about the US missile gap with the USSR to stir up fear in the voting public, and he was on the Senate committee that had access to this info.

Thanks Saint-Man. I honestly did not know about the missile gap story, very interesting.

 

[NCCommish]

Even today it happens. Everywhere I look, conservatives bring up deep concerns about the national debt.

Why weren't conservatives as concerned with the debt when GWB was in office? He wasn't exactly fiscally disciplined.

The emperors cloths are made of the finest silk in all the land.

No see when Bush deficit spent it was OK because he was saving the economy. Now you can't save the economy that way.

 

[Jutz]

Horrible post.

Again, this isn't unpopular. This is wrong. Perhaps you giggled at your "boy band" analogy. Excellent. But when you say there's nothing original or revolutionary about The Beatles, you're either uniformed or on a fishing trip

And I love The Ramones, so that isn't affecting this post.

I have held my 'boy band' analogy for many years. This unpopular opinion is not new to me. I would estimate it to be approximately 15 years old with me. I did not 'giggle' when I wrote it because I have believed it for many years now.I still don't see what was revolutionary about the MUSIC of the Beatles. Take away everything... then listen to the music ONLY of both bands. Then consider the context of the time this music was released. What did the Beatles Revolutionize??? Musically... I just don't see it.

So which 'boy bands' were around when the Beatles took the scene?

You got me there... I would concede that point that they were revolutionary in that they were the first 'boy band'.

 

[NCCommish]

Jutz is reeling them in. At least I truly hope he is fishing.

 

[Weapon of Mass Instruction]

There should be no welfare without work. Unless you are paralyzed, all welfare should require a work component.

You can do something. Pick up trash. Restock library books. Sweep the sidewalk. Paint over graffitti. Dig ditches. Fill potholes. Make PB&J sammiches for the homeless. Wash the fleet of cars at city hall. Trim bushes. Mow grass.

We get something for our money, you get money.

You just took away most of the jobs we have people do on community service. And it should be pointed out that the welfare rolls have been trimmed quite a lot, you are mostly down to those who can't work. The welfare queen is long dead if she ever existed in any numbers to start with.

Bolded part is not true at all, not even close. My wife teaches 1st grade. The problem is as bad as ever as she sees these moms with 6 kids on welfare sitting around eating cheetohs all day.Part 2: If you are receiving unemployment you should do some sort of work, too.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Subtle humor is wasted on the masses, who would rather be sworn at or told to get er done.

 

[Jutz]

Horrible post.

Again, this isn't unpopular. This is wrong. Perhaps you giggled at your "boy band" analogy. Excellent. But when you say there's nothing original or revolutionary about The Beatles, you're either uniformed or on a fishing trip

And I love The Ramones, so that isn't affecting this post.

I have held my 'boy band' analogy for many years. This unpopular opinion is not new to me. I would estimate it to be approximately 15 years old with me. I did not 'giggle' when I wrote it because I have believed it for many years now.I still don't see what was revolutionary about the MUSIC of the Beatles. Take away everything... then listen to the music ONLY of both bands. Then consider the context of the time this music was released. What did the Beatles Revolutionize??? Musically... I just don't see it.

The innovations The Beatles and George Martin came up with are myriad, and that is an established fact. I'm going to remind myself that you actually think The Ramones are more innovative than The Beatles and just drop this argument as a pointless endeavor.

I do not think the Ramones were more innovative then the Beatles. I have said repeatedly they are more revolutionary then the Beatles... as in they started the revolution that was punk music. As far as innovation with music goes... as in playing different styles and trying different things... I could never argue the Ramones were better then the Beatles in that respect. I don't even think I could argue the Ramones were good musicians. All I am saying is that the Ramones revolutionized music by starting a new genere... the Beatles started getting girls to scream at them in masses never seen before but the music didn't do much at all...

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Horrible post.

Again, this isn't unpopular. This is wrong. Perhaps you giggled at your "boy band" analogy. Excellent. But when you say there's nothing original or revolutionary about The Beatles, you're either uniformed or on a fishing trip

And I love The Ramones, so that isn't affecting this post.

I have held my 'boy band' analogy for many years. This unpopular opinion is not new to me. I would estimate it to be approximately 15 years old with me. I did not 'giggle' when I wrote it because I have believed it for many years now.I still don't see what was revolutionary about the MUSIC of the Beatles. Take away everything... then listen to the music ONLY of both bands. Then consider the context of the time this music was released. What did the Beatles Revolutionize??? Musically... I just don't see it.

The innovations The Beatles and George Martin came up with are myriad, and that is an established fact. I'm going to remind myself that you actually think The Ramones are more innovative than The Beatles and just drop this argument as a pointless endeavor.

I do not think the Ramones were more innovative then the Beatles. I have said repeatedly they are more revolutionary then the Beatles... as in they started the revolution that was punk music. As far as innovation with music goes... as in playing different styles and trying different things... I could never argue the Ramones were better then the Beatles in that respect. I don't even think I could argue the Ramones were good musicians. All I am saying is that the Ramones revolutionized music by starting a new genere... the Beatles started getting girls to scream at them in masses never seen before but the music didn't do much at all...

But you just conceded that the Beatles started the revolution that was boy band music. In which case, they are not less revolutionary than the Ramones, they are on equal revolutionary footing.