|
Post by gobshite on Dec 28, 2017 16:38:06 GMT
I'm not meaning to give you a hard time about that; I did check the site but it started to do my head in pretty quick. I honestly don't get why anyone cares how "wrong" Rolling Stone is. I also don't believe they had much influence over the "pantheon". Programmers at FM stations like WNEW, WMMS, WBCN, etc. influenced more people in their local markets than Rolling Stone did nationwide. The Stooges (big favorite of mine) aren't in the pantheon because the sound was way too wild for those guys to put in between Bad Company and ELP.
Sorry for letting the inner SHite escape there. ^^
|
|
|
Post by graucho on Dec 28, 2017 19:46:00 GMT
Holy Fuck look at page 27 and Maccafan: "This is what I mean by some just totally IGNORING THE FACTS and being DISHONEST! How on Earth is the SECOND MOST SUCCESSFUL band of the ENTIRE 70s, the band that BROKE AND SET WORLD RECORDS, it wasn't even the band that was more successful (the Bee Gees) that broke and set those records! It wasn't any other band you can name that did it, not the Stones, Led Zep, the Who, Queen, anyone else that did it, it was WINGS! So how are they subject to having the bar raised too high?! If anything Wings raised the bar! As I said NO ONE ELSE was breaking and setting those world records! It wasn't just because he's Paul McCartney either, because if the music wasn't good no one would have KEPT SHOWING UP! The music couldn't be FAKED! It seems with this band, for whatever reason, some just will not give credit where it's due?! Personally I have absolutely no problem with calling Wings a backup band, after all they were PAUL McCARTNEY and WINGS! My point and by McCartney's own STATED GOAL, VIEW and WORDS, they were a BAND! The first version was RAW, the second CONQUERED THE WORLD, the last WRAPPED IT ALL UP! All three were very good, and deserve WAY MORE CREDIT than they have EVER RECEIVED! I watched ROCKSHOW again the other night, and that band was TIGHT, HOT AND ROCKIN! WINGS at their absolute best, one of the greatest bands of the 70s!" What a fucking psychopath Maccafan makes Mark David Chapman seem balanced and impartial.
|
|
|
Post by hugofuguzev on Dec 29, 2017 6:26:07 GMT
Holy Fuck look at page 27 and Maccafan: "This is what I mean by some just totally IGNORING THE FACTS and being DISHONEST! How on Earth is the SECOND MOST SUCCESSFUL band of the ENTIRE 70s, the band that BROKE AND SET WORLD RECORDS, it wasn't even the band that was more successful (the Bee Gees) that broke and set those records! It wasn't any other band you can name that did it, not the Stones, Led Zep, the Who, Queen, anyone else that did it, it was WINGS! So how are they subject to having the bar raised too high?! If anything Wings raised the bar! As I said NO ONE ELSE was breaking and setting those world records! It wasn't just because he's Paul McCartney either, because if the music wasn't good no one would have KEPT SHOWING UP! The music couldn't be FAKED! It seems with this band, for whatever reason, some just will not give credit where it's due?! Personally I have absolutely no problem with calling Wings a backup band, after all they were PAUL McCARTNEY and WINGS! My point and by McCartney's own STATED GOAL, VIEW and WORDS, they were a BAND! The first version was RAW, the second CONQUERED THE WORLD, the last WRAPPED IT ALL UP! All three were very good, and deserve WAY MORE CREDIT than they have EVER RECEIVED! I watched ROCKSHOW again the other night, and that band was TIGHT, HOT AND ROCKIN! WINGS at their absolute best, one of the greatest bands of the 70s!" What a fucking psychopath Maccafan makes Mark David Chapman seem balanced and impartial. Maccafan should have been booted from the fucking site years ago. "Psychopath" is an understatement when it comes to that fuckin' guy and his hyperzealous McCartney worship...
|
|
|
Post by AnalogRearEnd on Dec 29, 2017 6:49:01 GMT
Nah, the psychos get to stay. You act like a somewhat functional human being though? BANNED!
|
|
|
Post by krabapple on Jan 3, 2018 6:43:31 GMT
This week I spent two/three posts on Facebook arguing with an irate doof who said no critic should ever use the word 'flawed' when judging a piece music unless there is a literal flaw (e.g., flubbed note).
Two guesses what band, and bonus points for guessing the album, he was defending.
|
|
|
Post by krabapple on Jan 3, 2018 21:23:29 GMT
Irate doof being irate on Facebook means most likely Beatles. And probably getting his panties in a twist because someone had the temerity to criticize the sacred Sgt. Pepper. Did I win? Nope. Go sadder/more niche.
|
|
|
Post by audiopro on Jan 3, 2018 22:29:47 GMT
The Beatles with Tony Sheridan?
|
|
|
Post by thisonehurts on Jan 3, 2018 22:39:49 GMT
It's either The Monkees' Good Times or one of those Chicago albums with Roman numerals after it.
I'll go for XXXVI.
|
|
|
Post by Wanklein on Jan 3, 2018 23:09:22 GMT
Has to be classic rock or SHitey
Dark Side of the Fucking Moon or
TOTO IV (not flawed just shit) or
The Rutles or
Quatermass
|
|
|
Post by gobshite on Jan 3, 2018 23:16:50 GMT
There are only two albums relevant to music history -- Sgt. Pepper and Pet Sounds -- and one has been ruled out.
|
|
|
Post by Wanklein on Jan 3, 2018 23:27:01 GMT
Forgot about that crap
|
|
|
Post by graucho on Jan 4, 2018 0:36:05 GMT
Is it a Stephen Wilson remix?
|
|
|
Post by Boozin' Susan on Jan 4, 2018 1:15:48 GMT
How about that new "More of the Monkees" reissue? It's a hot discussion topic in SHiteland right now.
(But, that is assuming krabapple would have reason to engage with a Monkees fan, which I doubt.)
|
|
|
Post by Ago on Jan 4, 2018 8:00:57 GMT
Is it a Gryphon or East Of Eden CD?
|
|
daved
Better than Steve
Posts: 10,547
|
Post by daved on Jan 4, 2018 9:59:29 GMT
Nope. Go sadder/more niche. Rush? And, uh, some fucking Rush album or other? (Hey! I just realized that I cannot name the title of a single Rush album off the top of my head. "The one with that stupid looking sleeve" can apply to all of their records, so that doesn't help.) Or maybe that Bowie "Heroes" TRAGIC DEBACLE the SHites have been hyperventilating over? Why you hatin’?
|
|