Reply With Quote
I can get a 9.0 on pitchfork. Just say that I'm indie, grow a neckbeard and make music.
Yeah, two classic albums that have consistently received high ratings from a variety of critics, with Pitchfork - who are arguably the toughest critics out there - giving the albums a 9.3 and 8.8 respectively upon their reissue.
Terrible albums!
I can get a 9.0 on pitchfork. Just say that I'm indie, grow a neckbeard and make music.
But pre-1965 Beatles weren't Indie and didn't have neckbeards, so...
Katy Perry has two huge beautiful bouncing ties which is timeless.
Eclipse is just flat out gery.
If you would rather listen to the Beegees than Nickelback or the Monkees over Lady Gaga then fine. Personally I think its all crap. What this really boils down to though is that YOU do not like the music now. Your attempt at social criticism is just complete fail.
Whats funny is that you fail to notice that the people back in 1967 thought that the Monkees were worth buying more than the most revolutionary rock album ever produced demonstrates that the general taste in music has always been . I think only 2 Beatles albums ever produced were in the top 5 sold in that particular year.
You use the Beatles to speak of how great music was back then but society back then did not even consider them the best. Oh and your either lying or stupid because if you had those charts in front of you then you would know that the Beatles are a horrid example to use.
My comment on your at ude is an observation. One which you do not deny.
I have never understood why people with your at ude dont just stick your head in the oven and get it over with. Everything sucks now and all the good stuff is in the past after all.
Till she gets old.
I remember watching the Monkees after school. If I were younger I'd be defending my taste in music because it is what I know and grew up with. Era's people..different era's.
What kind of drugs are you are on? The Beatles were the most popular band of their era.
In 1964, they had 3 records in the top 5 with the year's number 1 record.
1965, they had 3 records in the top 10 with the year's number 2 record, behind Elvis.
1966 they once again had 3 records in the top 10 with the year's number 1.
1967 you already covered. Nice move in cherry picking a year the Beatles didn't dominate.
1968, 2 records in the top 10 with the year's number 1.
1969, 1 record in the top 10.
1970, their last hurrah Let It Be placed number 4, with Paul McCartney's debut ranking ahead of it at number 3.
Society didn't consider them the best and they're a horrid example to use! Even though they had the most number 1 records and singles during their run.
I never said or even implied "it all sucks now." Indie rock is still going strong and the 2000s have arguably been the strongest decade for Foreign cinema since the 60s.
And yeah, the general taste in popular culture has always been , but it's tier than it's ever been, and I've provided countless examples showing that. My point is that, collectively speaking, past artists from music to film to literature have produced better material than the artists working today, and that consumer taste has gotten progressively worse over the years.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 07-02-2010 at 09:46 PM.
I got my kids Beatles Rock Band and introduced them to some of the best music evah!! They love them!!! Beatles rock baby!!
timeless.
The Monkees are actually a respected band, so I'm not sure what Lumpkins was trying to prove with that example. Just because he doesn't like it doesn't mean it is without merit.
I really can't stand swing and ragtime, but I realize it's musical sophistication and the huge influence the likes of Duke Ellington and Count Basie had on some of my favorite Jazz artists like Miles Davis and John Coltrane. Swing has a lot of merit even though I can barely stomach it.
Gaga, Perry, Bieber, Drake, Nickelback, on the other hand, are absolute garbage totally devoid of any redeeming qualities.
I hate the Drake!! yeah the mOnkees had some cool tunes.
and lets not hate on 1978...
There is really no point if you are just going to lie.
1964: http://web.archive.org/web/200712110...bums&year=1964
1) o Dolly 2) Peter Paul and Mary 3) Al Hirt 4) Barabara Streisand 5) West Side Story
1965:
http://web.archive.org/web/200712110...bums&year=1965
No #1 here
1966:
http://web.archive.org/web/200712110...bums&year=1966
Youre still full of
1968:
http://web.archive.org/web/200712140...bums&year=1968
Hendrix was #1 dumbass
1969:
http://web.archive.org/web/200712110...bums&year=1969
Not in the top 5
1970:
http://web.archive.org/web/200712110...bums&year=1970
#4 was Abbey Road and when McCartney heads Chicago who actually did get #3 let me know.
I am still looking for a single #1 album. They got #2 in 1965 behind Mary Poppins at least.
Whats really sad here is that you think you are the gold standard when it comes to taste. You do not even know what the you are talking about.
By who? You?
They didn't play their own instruments and lipsynced at their concerts.
At least they were on TV.
They were a gimmick band trying to entice teenage girls. Thats like saying Nsync is a respected band.
Well, the book I have in front of me shows different, and it's published by Billboard themselves. Also, I think my book is more accurate than your link. It's a well known fact that the Beatles had a total of 15 number one albums.
Doesn't matter though, the Beatles were still the best selling act of the 60s, which obliterates your claim that "society didn't think they were the best back then."
Here's some more info for you:
Total Weeks On Chart = 1,278
This is a record, NO act has had more weeks on the chart.
Number Ones = 15
This tops the list of "Most number Ones by any act", with the Rolling Stones 5 albums behind them in 2nd place.
Total Weeks At Number One = 175
A clear record, with no-one else coming anywhere near this total.
Most weeks at Number 1 in one year = 40
This was in 1964, in 1963 they were number one for 34 weeks, and 1967 for 26 weeks.
The record is by "South Pacific", which managed the whole of 1959 at number one (all 52 weeks).
Most number 1 albums in one year = 3
The Beatles did this in 1965, the feat was equalled by T.Rex in 1972.
(The Beatles had two number one's in a year on five occasions)
Album spending the longest at Number one, "Please Please Me" = 30 weeks
This is fourth in the all-time list.
Most Consecutive weeks at Number one, "Please Please Me" = 30 weeks
Second to "South Pacific", but the Beatles are 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th behind it.
Consecutive number one hit albums = 7
This is beaten by Abba and Led Zeppelin both with 8 consecutive number ones.
First EVER album to debut at number one = "Help !"
The Beatles then entered straight in at number 1 a total of 6 times.
Self-replacement at the top = 2
The Beatles are the only band to twice knock themselves off the top of the chart.
Total weeks at the top of album and singles chart at the same time = 45 weeks
This is over double the number of any other act.
Most consecutive weeks at the top of album and singles chart at the same time = 7 weeks
Once again a record, although a few have come close.
The most chart domination at ANY time in history = 12th December 1963
For THREE weeks, The Beatles had :
The number 1 and 2 top singles.
The number 1 and 2 top E.P.'s
The number 1 and 2 top albums.
The only ever "double-whammy" in history !! - 23rd July 1964
The Beatles knocked the Rolling Stones off the top slot in the Singles AND album charts.
Consecutive Christmas Number One albums = 3
1963-1965
The Beatles ARE the artist with the highest album sales in total in the U.S.
They have sold almost 107,000,000 albums in the U.S. (Garth Brooks is 2nd with 92,000,000)
Gold Albums
Paul McCartney has been awarded 17 in the U.K. (and 20 in the U.S.)
The Beatles been awarded 14 in the U.K.
Chart Information by The Guinness Book Of British Hit Albums
http://www.jpgr.co.uk/stats_trivia_a.html
But society never thought they were the best and they're a horrid example to use!!!
Apparently you do not understand that being #1 on the chart at a particular time and being #1 overall for the year are not the same thing. Did you notice that the Rolling Stones werent tops overall on any of those years? Again you do not know what the you are talking about.
I will trust links I can see over your mythical book.
Want more pictures?
Oh and another thing, that link you showed was of British album sales so its all worthless like the rest of your drivel.
Lets get back to you saying the Monkees are a respected band. That was real entertainment there.
Blah, blah, blah. Show me the Beatles aren't the best selling artist of their era then. You claimed "society didn't think they were best" and I countered with sales numbers proving otherwise.
And quit trying to deflect because you're getting your owned.
Now go to in' bed:
"If you enjoy old music, you may enjoy reminiscing about the past 10 best selling artists of the 60’s. This list includes singers from both the country and rock categories. Most of these artists you will surely recognize, even today.
1. The Beatles: The Beatles were an English band that came from Liverpool. They are known as one of the most popular commercial and acclaimed pop groups to date. In the 1960’s they had such hits as: “A Hard’s Days Night” and “Help.”
http://www.mademan.com/mm/10-best-se...tists-60s.html
Society didn't think they were best back then!!!
Now youre getting petulant. I gave links from billboards archives showing your numbers were . It says on the bottom of your other link that those figures are from the Guiness Book of BRITISH Album Sales.Blah, blah, blah. Show me the Beatles aren't the best selling artist of their era then. You claimed "society didn't think they were best" and I countered with sales numbers proving otherwise.
And quit trying to deflect because you're getting your owned.
Now go to in' bed:
"If you enjoy old music, you may enjoy reminiscing about the past 10 best selling artists of the 60’s. This list includes singers from both the country and rock categories. Most of these artists you will surely recognize, even today.
1. The Beatles: The Beatles were an English band that came from Liverpool. They are known as one of the most popular commercial and acclaimed pop groups to date. In the 1960’s they had such hits as: “A Hard’s Days Night” and “Help.”
http://www.mademan.com/mm/10-best-se...tists-60s.html
Society didn't think they were best back then!!!
Then you had this gem:
Really after that you have no place talking about anyones taste in music or anything else for that matter.
I advise a head in the oven or a nice bus fire.
MOAR:
The Beatles dominated the top ten best-selling albums list for the 1960s with six albums in the chart. But there were also signs of listening tastes moving away from pop and towards a more harder rock sound shown by the two Led Zeppelin albums. The band was to do well in the top ten albums of the 1970s chart as well.
http://50s-60s-pop-music.suite101.co...s-of-the-1960s
Top 10 List on the Ten Top Best Selling Albums of the 1960s
1 - The Beatles - White Album The Beatles (1968 )
2 - Led Zeppelin II - Led Zeppelin (1969)
3 - Abbey Road - The Beatles (1969)
4 - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - The Beatles (1967)
5 - Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin (1969)
6 - Magical Mystery Tour - The Beatles (1967)
7 - Rubber Soul - The Beatles (1965)
8 - More Of the Monkees - The Monkees (1967)
9 - The Monkees - The Monkees (1967)
10 - Revolver - The Beatles (1966)
http://www.watchmojo.com/top_10/list...ales_1960s.htm
Society didn't think they were best back then!!!
Again dumbass, there is a difference between overall sales and sales during a particular year.
I am done with this you think the Monkees are worthy of respect and thats all I need to know.
Since when is Britain not considered part of society? You said, "society didn't consider them the best back then."
And in all my posts in this thread, you'll find I don't single out any particular country.
"Mainstream consumers" extends to Europe, Japan, Canada, etc...
And yeah, the Monkees are respected. Not as much as The Beatles, The Who, The Kinks, Stones, etc, but they have received a good amount of critical praise and influenced bands like the Sex Pistols and the Replacements.
And for yourself I'd consider a lobotomy or bashing your head against a hard surface, because any kind of surgery or damage to your brain would likely be an improvement of how in' re ed you've been in this conversation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
