Reply With Quote
you also get all pissy when someone calls your threads stupid, princess.
Why are you such a thin skinned pussy?
I'm not doubting your knowledge of specific genres of music . . . I just don't know. You haven't exhibited an understanding that I view as deep or varied. All music is connected. You can't just categorically dismiss entire genres of music because they don't fit in your comfort zone. Personally, I don't think what I consider to be a very narrow and limited collection of preferences, to having a expanded understanding of music.
It's fine though, I understand that not everyone is going to like the same things and some people just settle into what they like and get comfortable, stop searching, don't feel it's worthwhile to revisit, or deem something as not worthwhile after a very limited/precursory listen. I prefer it that way. I don't want to be one of those people who view record sales, chart success and grammy awards as an important factor. I'll just use my ears, my heart and my soul.
you also get all pissy when someone calls your threads stupid, princess.
Why are you such a thin skinned pussy?
Dude, have you paid any attention at all to what I've been saying.....all this time? My first love is them old primitive blues, so there goes chart success and hit records. Chart success...?????? I brought that up...obviously...to make the point about band success in todays music business. If we do go there then The Clash do pale in comparison to a ton of bands. Not that $$$$$$ is everything.
You have never heard of.....Kid Cole, Jack Ranger, Louisiana Johnny & Kid Beecher, Seth Richards, Bo Jones and a ton of other old obscure blues cats from the 20's and 30's (don't pretend you do, ok) I have all that old lost stuff. And I'm concerned with chart success? I go with where the music takes me, that old lost stuff takes me back in time, back to old juke joints and dusty Mississippi/southern roads, cotton fields, the KKK, straight razors, being indoors by sundown. A whole other world, that I can only visit when listening to those like Buster Johnson, The Nugrape Twins, Elizabeth Johnson etc.
It's all about mood. Who better to drink beer with in some kicker bar than Hank Williams?
I have heard a ton of punk over the years, I know lots of people who like the music. I've heard enought of it to know it's not for me, is that ok with you?
Last edited by Avante; 06-18-2013 at 02:56 PM.
Either awards, chart success and record sales are a valid argument when discussing to value of music, or they aren't. You can't have it both ways.
And you've gone back to your rampant, erroneous assumptions and condescending bull again . . . already. You are not trustworthy. This is why we will never have a meaningful exchange.
Sure you can. It's simply...so who was the more successful? And then...but who do you like better? See how easy that was?
Until it finally dawns on you.....here's a guy who has been into this stuff since the 50's and has a ton of books on the subject along with thousands of tapes/records and CD's.......yep, we will never have a meaningful exchange.
That's not how you were using the argument and you know it. You were using the chart success, awards and record sales to specically make a case for the Eagles being better than the Clash . . . it's all right here on this thread, bubba.
And when it dawns on you that this makes you superior to absolutely no one . . .
The Eagles are the better band when it comes to success in the music business. They are more talented and that's very obvious. But...better...is all in the ear of the listener.
Superior no, more knowledgeable...yes.
Go ahead man talk to me about those great prewar St.Louis piano players.
So why the do you spend all your time arguing whether one is better than the other?
That's very different than what you were saying.
No.
I've heard a few . . . Peetie Wheatstraw, Speckled Red . . . a few others. I know the style was ragtime influenced blues which gave it that "roll" sound.
In my opinion the Eagles are by far the better band and their success backs that up, but....some disagree.
So if I started listening to music in the 50's and have read a ton of books on the subject as well as owning thousands of records/tapes.CD's I;m no more knowledgeable than anyone else......right?
You cannot talk prewar St.Louis piano players without talking Roosevelt Sykes and Walter Davis. Henry Brown and Lee Green also much be mentioned. I thought you said you could hang? How about those early St.Louis guitar pickers?
I do.
Not as far as I can tell. Maybe about a few specific things, but not enough to give you the air of importance and superiority that you laughingly carry around this place.
I am just honestly mentioning what players I have heard that I can recall at this particular time. I'll leave the almanac lists to you.
You aren't interested in a discussion. It's all about proving your knowledge. How have you lived so long without figuring out that nobody likes talking to a blowhard braggart know-it-all?
Well when you can talk about bands/artists that nobody here as ever heard of....hmmmmm?
I don't brag until challenged, you really haven't figured that out? Didn't you tell me you could school me in all those genres you darkened, well....no you can't. And how you think you can is....???? It goes no further back than where I can with all those those. I go as far back as it goes and you are going to school me....how?
Ever read these books...The Art of Rock and Roll, how about...The Sound in the City? And you are going to school me on rock and roll, hahahaha!!!!!!!!
I can do that same thing with all that music I mentioned, I've done the work. I have the books and read them all.
Their success does not back up any opinion.
Again with the erroneous assumptions. We never progress further than this because I can see where this is going and you aren't worth my time. I only want to have a meaningful exchange with someone I respect. Not some ing clown who wants to dominate the discussion and be condescending all the time. How is that an enjoyable way to spend my time?
Just as I suspected, you're all talk and no action. You haven't backed up anything. Trust me little man, you would get totally destroyed if you did have the balls to take me on. So cool this stupid..."I'd school you"...ok? No you would not, , you don't even know those St.Louis piano players.
Oh yeah, I couldn't care less how you spend your time.
Last edited by Avante; 06-18-2013 at 04:48 PM.
If I admit that you know more about pre-war blues than I do, (which, if you were paying attention, you would know I never claimed to) will you take that as your little moral victory and kindly shut the up about it and maybe give me enough credit that I could intelligently converse on a wide and varied musical topics? If you could do that, there is a possibility, however slight, that we could have a civil, mutually respectful conversation one of these days.
Just for the record, I have no faith in your ability to do any of that because, as you have proven time and time again, you have no interest in a real conversation, but I figured I would be the better man and put it out there. Once.
I have no interest in real conversation with someone who can't see my passion for music and can't figure out when you've been into something for over 50 years ya just might know something about it. When you start dealing in reality is when we can talk, right now it's that old internet bull you're playing...."he knows a lot of I must try and hassle him"....which is immature and childish.
Long time music lover here guy...ok? Read tons of books on the music, have the music.
That's not why I'm "hassling" you, fool. Why do you insist on being so obtuse? Are you really this dense?
Me too. Probably different books, different music . . . it's not a contest.
Knowledge that does not include an ability to intelligently discuss the topic in depth is not, and will never be, at all impressive to me. Book knowledge is worthless without critical thinking skills.
And no matter how many times you construct that strawman, no one on these boards, at all, in the history of forever, has ever told you that you can't like the things you like or that you have to like the things you don't. Your continued conflation of what you like and what you know is one of the main reasons people doubt your musical sophistication.
Once you've made it clear that you are not overwelmed by the lyrics, the vocals or musical skills of a band what more can really be said? I've heard it all before as far as their lyrics go, Strummer pales in comparison to a ton of better singers and nobody could confuse their musical skills to one of the elite bands. How many ways can that be said?
This is good?
This is good.
Last edited by Avante; 06-18-2013 at 10:01 PM.
smh . . . Straight To stomps all over that recycled blues rock. You say the Clash didn't do anything new? That Savoy Brown track isn't anything that tons of bands . . . Blue Cheer, Canned Heat, Humble Pie, etc. . . . didn't do before and better. Dud.
You wanna hear an interesting take on "them ol' blues" . . .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions