Whose runaway popularity don't you get?

Love Keith and crew. Talk about standing the rest of time! Aren’t they touring again soon?

The Masked Singer

annielou said:
Love Keith and crew. Talk about standing the rest of time! Aren’t they touring again soon?

 You know, its weird.  When I was 20 I loved the Stones and couldn't stand the Beatles.  Over the last 30 years, The Beatles have grown on me tremendously and, while I still enjoy the Stones on occasion, I find those occasions to be less and less frequent. Not sure why that is although I wonder whether I might like the Stones a lot better if they had broken up in 1970 (or even 1975).

Robert_Casotto said:
Chris Stapleton is Country.  If you think he sucks you mustn’t have ever heard him.

 exception that proves the rule.

and who is Chris Stapleton?

Klinker said:

annielou said:
Love Keith and crew. Talk about standing the rest of time! Aren’t they touring again soon?

 You know, its weird.  When I was 20 I loved the Stones and couldn't stand the Beatles.  Over the last 30 years, The Beatles have grown on me tremendously and, while I still enjoy the Stones on occasion, I find those occasions to be less and less frequent. Not sure why that is although I wonder whether I might like the Stones a lot better if they had broken up in 1970 (or even 1975).

The Stones were pretty good early on. Great, inventive songs. Nothing good since the early 70's though.

I used to like the Stones more than the Beatles years ago as well; but I think their more hard rock raunchy macho sexualized style appeals to youth, and as we age, the Beatles have other creative sides that appeal to a wider range of interests, though the Stones were incredible on a few albums and classics.

Klinker said:

annielou said:
Love Keith and crew. Talk about standing the rest of time! Aren’t they touring again soon?

 You know, its weird.  When I was 20 I loved the Stones and couldn't stand the Beatles.  Over the last 30 years, The Beatles have grown on me tremendously and, while I still enjoy the Stones on occasion, I find those occasions to be less and less frequent. Not sure why that is although I wonder whether I might like the Stones a lot better if they had broken up in 1970 (or even 1975).

Thank God this thread was started.  There wasn't nearly enough on line to argue about.

FilmCarp said:
Thank God this thread was started.  There wasn't nearly enough on line to argue about.

 I completely disagree with you and you couldn't be more wrong. 

mrincredible said:

FilmCarp said:
Thank God this thread was started.  There wasn't nearly enough on line to argue about.

 I completely disagree with you and you couldn't be more wrong. 

 Yer both wrong

drummerboy said:

mrincredible said:

FilmCarp said:
Thank God this thread was started.  There wasn't nearly enough on line to argue about.

 I completely disagree with you and you couldn't be more wrong. 

 Yer both wrong

 You're the most wrongest.

love them but overall Black Sabbath overrated.  Priest much better.

For me, Billy J demonstrates the distinction between matters of taste and I-don't-get-it-what-are-they-thinking bad. His was the first concert I ever saw and I had an infatuation in my early rock music listening years.  It has long worn off and time has not been kind to my thinking about him.  With the exception of one obscure instrumental that I stream from time to time, I experience no waves of nostalgia driven listening of Captain Jack etc.  It's not great, to say the least.

Yet I "get" his popularity.  There's soooo much worse in the rock, pop world.

Likewise, saying the Beatles or Stones are overrated, or that you are just sick of their old ***** (as I sometimes am), is not the same as "not getting it."  Gosh, were not talking about Air Supply or the Kardashians.  

bub, why are you all out of love?

mrincredible said:

drummerboy said:

mrincredible said:

FilmCarp said:
Thank God this thread was started.  There wasn't nearly enough on line to argue about.

 I completely disagree with you and you couldn't be more wrong. 

 Yer both wrong

 You're the most wrongest.

 Maybe you're right.

drummerboy said:

mrincredible said:

drummerboy said:

mrincredible said:

FilmCarp said:
Thank God this thread was started.  There wasn't nearly enough on line to argue about.

 I completely disagree with you and you couldn't be more wrong. 

 Yer both wrong

 You're the most wrongest.

 Maybe you're right.

 That would be incredible. 

This description of Air Supply, from a music web site that rates them the 10th worst music act of all time, nails it:

10 AIR SUPPLY

The sound of eunuchs sobbing

Disproving the theory that lightning never strikes twice in the same place, Air Supply contained not one but two mewling, lovesick softies whose name was Russell. In the early '80s, the Australian duo's gutless ballads � music so remorselessly fey it made Journey sound like Danzig � sent a generation of jilted lovers toppling into depression that was as clinical as the Russells' music. Mercifully, though, by the end of the decade, the pair had cried themselves to sleep.

Appalling fact Determined to ruin the festive season, Air Supply once recorded a Christmas album.

Worst CD The Christmas Album (Arista, 1987)

What music site is it. Do they also rate the best music acts? Would love to see it.

annielou said:
What music site is it. Do they also rate the best music acts? Would love to see it.

 If it makes you happy, if it touches you somehow, you should listen to it.  No harm done.  

And you're every woman in the world to me.

By popular demand

bub said:

annielou said:
What music site is it. Do they also rate the best music acts? Would love to see it.

 If it makes you happy, if it touches you somehow, you should listen to it.  No harm done.  
And you're every woman in the world to me.

Don’t know what actually means. You referenced a site that rates music acts and I’m wondering who is in the top ten, not the bottom ten. 

annielou said:

bub said:

annielou said:
What music site is it. Do they also rate the best music acts? Would love to see it.

 If it makes you happy, if it touches you somehow, you should listen to it.  No harm done.  
And you're every woman in the world to me.

Don’t know what actually means. You referenced a site that rates music acts and I’m wondering who is in the top ten, not the bottom ten. 

 It was on a list of the 50 worst, according to the obscure site.  There was no "best" list as far as I know.  If you care about their opinions, I'm sure you can Google the words I pasted and find it.

annielou said:
they did not sing very well 

 this is really not true. At least with regard to the rock/pop genre. In a time before autotune and even before stage monitors, The Beatles sang very tight, beautifully blended harmonies.  It was the trademark of their sound from the beginning, and it was what set them apart from the other groups of their day. 

https://youtu.be/2tIKWpwtjgY

I'm not going to touch the Beatles discussion.

I do not get the popularity of Billy Joel and it appears from the above discussion, I am not alone. I think his music is puerile, boring and not at all clever.

On the other hand, I don't care for the music of Bruce either but I can see why others might like it.

ml1 said:

annielou said:
they did not sing very well 

 this is really not true. At least with regard to the rock/pop genre. In a time before autotune and even before stage monitors, The Beatles sang very tight, beautifully blended harmonies.  It was the trademark of their sound from the beginning, and it was what set them apart from the other groups of their day. 
https://youtu.be/2tIKWpwtjgY

 Didn’t the Everly Brothers do this beautifully and The Beach Boys? Pretty indeed but not that special.

hmm, yeah, I guess The Beatles were kinda the big suck. Fooled us, I guess.

annielou said:

ml1 said:

annielou said:
they did not sing very well 

 this is really not true. At least with regard to the rock/pop genre. In a time before autotune and even before stage monitors, The Beatles sang very tight, beautifully blended harmonies.  It was the trademark of their sound from the beginning, and it was what set them apart from the other groups of their day. 
https://youtu.be/2tIKWpwtjgY

 Didn’t the Everly Brothers do this beautifully and The Beach Boys? Pretty indeed but not that special.

 I meant their British contemporaries. 

I'm not going to try to convince you to like The Beatles' music. You like what you like. But it's simply objectively wrong for anyone to suggest that they couldn't sing. 

ml1 said:

annielou said:

ml1 said:

annielou said:
they did not sing very well 

 this is really not true. At least with regard to the rock/pop genre. In a time before autotune and even before stage monitors, The Beatles sang very tight, beautifully blended harmonies.  It was the trademark of their sound from the beginning, and it was what set them apart from the other groups of their day. 
https://youtu.be/2tIKWpwtjgY

 Didn’t the Everly Brothers do this beautifully and The Beach Boys? Pretty indeed but not that special.

 I meant their British contemporaries. 


I'm not going to try to convince you to like The Beatles' music. You like what you like. But it's simply objectively wrong for anyone to suggest that they couldn't sing. 

 Not. Going.To. Touch. This.

https://youtu.be/hL0tnrl2L_U

The_Soulful_Mr_T said:
I'm not going to touch the Beatles discussion.

I do not get the popularity of Billy Joel and it appears from the above discussion, I am not alone. I think his music is puerile, boring and not at all clever.

On the other hand, I don't care for the music of Bruce either but I can see why others might like it.

I'm not a big Bruce fan either, but I don't begrudge his popularity. I get why people like him.

Billy Joel, OTOH, should have been a one hit wonder.

There’s quite a few artists who are not great singers. Some voices just grate my ears, like McCartney’s. But I certainly do enjoy some Beatles music. Some of it is actually inspirational. But not more so than a great many other artists both pre and post the Beatles era.