I mean, come on.....it all depends on your mood, btw who cares which live song you do like the best or which top 7 albums, or who is a better harmonica-player Brian or Mick?

For me at one moment 'Confessing The Blues' is the best and then, 2 hours later, I think 'no no it has got to be Dead Flowers'.

Come On, please let us stop with 'the best this' and 'top whatever that'

You're right...who cares what you like or when you like it.

That's the best idea, EVER !!

My thread's better than your thread.

while I agree with what you write in principal I think a better solution would be to just not read any "best this" threads...

Come on............ we are just doing our time............ you'd better could mention the D.I.G size topic

__________________________

i always enjoy reading ppl's faves or least faves - no explanation needed. i love lots of crap and don't like alot of what others like - and it's just fun to read the variances in tastes. it's when ppl start trying to convince people that what they like is "the best" as though they have superior tastes that it loses the fun aspect. nobody has any better taste than anyone else.

ROCKMAN

Ah, there we do have 'The Notorious Rockman'!

Ahhhhhhhhhhh keeffriffhard ....
Dont play that song ....Don't even think about it or it'll be in ya head ALL day!!!



ROCKMAN

THE BEST OF BRITISH..The Rolling Stones

Quote
StonesTod
i always enjoy reading ppl's faves or least faves - no explanation needed. i love lots of crap and don't like alot of what others like - and it's just fun to read the variances in tastes. it's when ppl start trying to convince people that what they like is "the best" as though they have superior tastes that it loses the fun aspect. nobody has any better taste than anyone else.

Agreed, but. No superior taste, just the acknowledgement that something is of a higher quality than something else. It's simply not only a matter of personal taste. Otherwise we could say: they are all the same (as for writers, painters, composers, guitarists etc.), but they aren't, as we all know very well. Some amateur painter isn't as good as Van Gogh or Rembrandt just because someone likes the paintings of the amateur more than the Van Goghs or Rembrandts. It's an art in itself to be able to explain why Van Gogh and Rembrandt are better than a random amateur painter in your street. I once have written something about a version of YCAGWYW and the result was that an expert like HM (yes he is!) said that because of that little piece he could listen with other ears to that version than before (no jokes about the new ears of HM please). I mean: it's also interesting when people can clarify why they love something so much, otherwise than saying: It rocks (even forgetting that it's all about the roll, like Keith justly said). Vice versa it's also interesting when people can say some more than only: 100 years ago is a shit song.

Well, just an opinion.

well my dearest Rockman, on this side of the planet the day is almost gone

WHOA!!! ..well in that case .... You'll be tossin & turnin' .. dreamin it all night lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
StonesTod
i always enjoy reading ppl's faves or least faves - no explanation needed. i love lots of crap and don't like alot of what others like - and it's just fun to read the variances in tastes. it's when ppl start trying to convince people that what they like is "the best" as though they have superior tastes that it loses the fun aspect. nobody has any better taste than anyone else.

Agreed, but. No superior taste, just the acknowledgement that something is of a higher quality than something else. It's simply not only a matter of personal taste. Otherwise we could say: they are all the same (as for writers, painters, composers, guitarists etc.), but they aren't, as we all know very well. Some amateur painter isn't as good as Van Gogh or Rembrandt just because someone likes the paintings of the amateur more than the Van Goghs or Rembrandts. It's an art in itself to be able to explain why Van Gogh and Rembrandt are better than a random amateur painter in your street. I once have written something about a version of YCAGWYW and the result was that an expert like HM (yes he is!) said that because of that little piece he could listen with other ears to that version than before (no jokes about the new ears of HM please). I mean: it's also interesting when people can clarify why they love something so much, otherwise than saying: It rocks (even forgetting that it's all about the roll, like Keith justly said). Vice versa it's also interesting when people can say some more than only: 100 years ago is a shit song.

Well, just an opinion.

Kleermaker, your opinions are always welcome, you have something to say

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
StonesTod
i always enjoy reading ppl's faves or least faves - no explanation needed. i love lots of crap and don't like alot of what others like - and it's just fun to read the variances in tastes. it's when ppl start trying to convince people that what they like is "the best" as though they have superior tastes that it loses the fun aspect. nobody has any better taste than anyone else.

Agreed, but. No superior taste, just the acknowledgement that something is of a higher quality than something else. It's simply not only a matter of personal taste. Otherwise we could say: they are all the same (as for writers, painters, composers, guitarists etc.), but they aren't, as we all know very well. Some amateur painter isn't as good as Van Gogh or Rembrandt just because someone likes the paintings of the amateur more than the Van Goghs or Rembrandts. It's an art in itself to be able to explain why Van Gogh and Rembrandt are better than a random amateur painter in your street. I once have written something about a version of YCAGWYW and the result was that an expert like HM (yes he is!) said that because of that little piece he could listen with other ears to that version than before (no jokes about the new ears of HM please). I mean: it's also interesting when people can clarify why they love something so much, otherwise than saying: It rocks (even forgetting that it's all about the roll, like Keith justly said). Vice versa it's also interesting when people can say some more than only: 100 years ago is a shit song.

Well, just an opinion.

i respect your opinion, but disagree. it's good if you like it; it's not if you don't. it's all personal. no universally acceptable way of determining whether something is better or more superior or whatever. just it does just come down to personal tastes. period.

Hey that was a cool explanation kleermaker....You Rock



ROCKMAN

yeah I think now it's about time to make a top 10 about you IORR-ians. Personally I do have a big fave for Rockman & Kleermaker. O man, where's the screwdriver with a little drop of orangejuice?

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
StonesTod
i always enjoy reading ppl's faves or least faves - no explanation needed. i love lots of crap and don't like alot of what others like - and it's just fun to read the variances in tastes. it's when ppl start trying to convince people that what they like is "the best" as though they have superior tastes that it loses the fun aspect. nobody has any better taste than anyone else.

Agreed, but. No superior taste, just the acknowledgement that something is of a higher quality than something else. It's simply not only a matter of personal taste. Otherwise we could say: they are all the same (as for writers, painters, composers, guitarists etc.), but they aren't, as we all know very well. Some amateur painter isn't as good as Van Gogh or Rembrandt just because someone likes the paintings of the amateur more than the Van Goghs or Rembrandts. It's an art in itself to be able to explain why Van Gogh and Rembrandt are better than a random amateur painter in your street. I once have written something about a version of YCAGWYW and the result was that an expert like HM (yes he is!) said that because of that little piece he could listen with other ears to that version than before (no jokes about the new ears of HM please). I mean: it's also interesting when people can clarify why they love something so much, otherwise than saying: It rocks (even forgetting that it's all about the roll, like Keith justly said). Vice versa it's also interesting when people can say some more than only: 100 years ago is a shit song.

Well, just an opinion.

i respect your opinion, but disagree. it's good if you like it; it's not if you don't. it's all personal. no universally acceptable way of determining whether something is better or more superior or whatever. just it does just come down to personal tastes. period.

Okay, your "period" is clear. No further discussion. Only one thing yet. Like many others I'm able to acknowledge that something that I don't like can be very good, as I said concerning J.S. Bach. The same with Mondriaan. I can see that his paintings are great, though they're absolutely not my cup of tea. So, however difficult to define, let alone objecively prove, there is something that makes the difference.

Quote
StonesTod
it's when ppl start trying to convince people that what they like is "the best" as though they have superior tastes that it loses the fun aspect. nobody has any better taste than anyone else.

Or when certain people try to convince other people that songs that they like are "turds that can't be polished." It goes both ways......practice what you preach....there's a cliche you should appreciate

Quote
keeffriffhard
I mean, come on.....it all depends on your mood, btw who cares which live song you do like the best or which top 7 albums, or who is a better harmonica-player Brian or Mick?

For me at one moment 'Confessing The Blues' is the best and then, 2 hours later, I think 'no no it has got to be Dead Flowers'.

Come On, please let us stop with 'the best this' and 'top whatever that'

I think half the time people do it is because theyre bored-Best of treads..just like alot of these voting polls that come out every few weeks.

Quote
lucasd4

Quote
StonesTod
it's when ppl start trying to convince people that what they like is "the best" as though they have superior tastes that it loses the fun aspect. nobody has any better taste than anyone else.

Or when certain people try to convince other people that songs that they like are "turds that can't be polished." It goes both ways......practice what you preach....there's a cliche you should appreciate

stating an opinion is not the same as trying to convince others of that. nice try. you seem to have a thing for me - looking for a date? i'll check my calendar....

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
StonesTod
i always enjoy reading ppl's faves or least faves - no explanation needed. i love lots of crap and don't like alot of what others like - and it's just fun to read the variances in tastes. it's when ppl start trying to convince people that what they like is "the best" as though they have superior tastes that it loses the fun aspect. nobody has any better taste than anyone else.

Agreed, but. No superior taste, just the acknowledgement that something is of a higher quality than something else. It's simply not only a matter of personal taste. Otherwise we could say: they are all the same (as for writers, painters, composers, guitarists etc.), but they aren't, as we all know very well. Some amateur painter isn't as good as Van Gogh or Rembrandt just because someone likes the paintings of the amateur more than the Van Goghs or Rembrandts. It's an art in itself to be able to explain why Van Gogh and Rembrandt are better than a random amateur painter in your street. I once have written something about a version of YCAGWYW and the result was that an expert like HM (yes he is!) said that because of that little piece he could listen with other ears to that version than before (no jokes about the new ears of HM please). I mean: it's also interesting when people can clarify why they love something so much, otherwise than saying: It rocks (even forgetting that it's all about the roll, like Keith justly said). Vice versa it's also interesting when people can say some more than only: 100 years ago is a shit song.

Well, just an opinion.

i respect your opinion, but disagree. it's good if you like it; it's not if you don't. it's all personal. no universally acceptable way of determining whether something is better or more superior or whatever. just it does just come down to personal tastes. period.

Okay, your "period" is clear. No further discussion. Only one thing yet. Like many others I'm able to acknowledge that something that I don't like can be very good, as I said concerning J.S. Bach. The same with Mondriaan. I can see that his paintings are great, though they're absolutely not my cup of tea. So, however difficult to define, let alone objecively prove, there is something that makes the difference.

well, it's all in the eye or ear of the beholder, right? cliche-that! haha. anyway - as you say there's just no way to prove anything is better or worse, so why ppl bother trying is beyond me. like i said, i like a lot of what many/most people would regard as crap - montavani, conniff...lots of disposable pop and elevator music....is it bad? no - it's good, cos i like it. it works in reverse. - SOL sucks to me - someone else loves it. fab. that's the way it works with everything.

ok lucas - i'm looking at my weekend calendar - SCL and I have a date tomorrow night, but I can break it if you can make me a better offer....let's hear what you got in mind!

I have got a completely new song in mind, won't reach the top10 though

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
StonesTod
i always enjoy reading ppl's faves or least faves - no explanation needed. i love lots of crap and don't like alot of what others like - and it's just fun to read the variances in tastes. it's when ppl start trying to convince people that what they like is "the best" as though they have superior tastes that it loses the fun aspect. nobody has any better taste than anyone else.

Agreed, but. No superior taste, just the acknowledgement that something is of a higher quality than something else. It's simply not only a matter of personal taste. Otherwise we could say: they are all the same (as for writers, painters, composers, guitarists etc.), but they aren't, as we all know very well. Some amateur painter isn't as good as Van Gogh or Rembrandt just because someone likes the paintings of the amateur more than the Van Goghs or Rembrandts. It's an art in itself to be able to explain why Van Gogh and Rembrandt are better than a random amateur painter in your street. I once have written something about a version of YCAGWYW and the result was that an expert like HM (yes he is!) said that because of that little piece he could listen with other ears to that version than before (no jokes about the new ears of HM please). I mean: it's also interesting when people can clarify why they love something so much, otherwise than saying: It rocks (even forgetting that it's all about the roll, like Keith justly said). Vice versa it's also interesting when people can say some more than only: 100 years ago is a shit song.

Well, just an opinion.

i respect your opinion, but disagree. it's good if you like it; it's not if you don't. it's all personal. no universally acceptable way of determining whether something is better or more superior or whatever. just it does just come down to personal tastes. period.

Okay, your "period" is clear. No further discussion. Only one thing yet. Like many others I'm able to acknowledge that something that I don't like can be very good, as I said concerning J.S. Bach. The same with Mondriaan. I can see that his paintings are great, though they're absolutely not my cup of tea. So, however difficult to define, let alone objecively prove, there is something that makes the difference.

well, it's all in the eye or ear of the beholder, right? cliche-that! haha. anyway - as you say there's just no way to prove anything is better or worse, so why ppl bother trying is beyond me. like i said, i like a lot of what many/most people would regard as crap - montavani, conniff...lots of disposable pop and elevator music....is it bad? no - it's good, cos i like it. it works in reverse. - SOL sucks to me - someone else loves it. fab. that's the way it works with everything.

ok lucas - i'm looking at my weekend calendar - SCL and I have a date tomorrow night, but I can break it if you can make me a better offer....let's hear what you got in mind!

I disagree, though your reasoning is clear and simple. But otherwise you can't deny what I stated about Bach, Mondriaan and the acknowledgment of differences in quality regardless of one's personal taste and preference.

That Kleermaker is one hell of a guy

As we say in Holland he can talk like Brugman

__________________________

Quote
StonesTod

stating an opinion is not the same as trying to convince others of that. nice try. you seem to have a thing for me - looking for a date? i'll check my calendar....

But stating that opinion over and over in a thread IS trying to convince others. You seem to get really upset when someone likes something that you don't like. And the calendar comment is just a childish attempt to show out for your buddies and convince everyone that you're witty and clever.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
StonesTod
i always enjoy reading ppl's faves or least faves - no explanation needed. i love lots of crap and don't like alot of what others like - and it's just fun to read the variances in tastes. it's when ppl start trying to convince people that what they like is "the best" as though they have superior tastes that it loses the fun aspect. nobody has any better taste than anyone else.

Agreed, but. No superior taste, just the acknowledgement that something is of a higher quality than something else. It's simply not only a matter of personal taste. Otherwise we could say: they are all the same (as for writers, painters, composers, guitarists etc.), but they aren't, as we all know very well. Some amateur painter isn't as good as Van Gogh or Rembrandt just because someone likes the paintings of the amateur more than the Van Goghs or Rembrandts. It's an art in itself to be able to explain why Van Gogh and Rembrandt are better than a random amateur painter in your street. I once have written something about a version of YCAGWYW and the result was that an expert like HM (yes he is!) said that because of that little piece he could listen with other ears to that version than before (no jokes about the new ears of HM please). I mean: it's also interesting when people can clarify why they love something so much, otherwise than saying: It rocks (even forgetting that it's all about the roll, like Keith justly said). Vice versa it's also interesting when people can say some more than only: 100 years ago is a shit song.

Well, just an opinion.

i respect your opinion, but disagree. it's good if you like it; it's not if you don't. it's all personal. no universally acceptable way of determining whether something is better or more superior or whatever. just it does just come down to personal tastes. period.

Okay, your "period" is clear. No further discussion. Only one thing yet. Like many others I'm able to acknowledge that something that I don't like can be very good, as I said concerning J.S. Bach. The same with Mondriaan. I can see that his paintings are great, though they're absolutely not my cup of tea. So, however difficult to define, let alone objecively prove, there is something that makes the difference.

well, it's all in the eye or ear of the beholder, right? cliche-that! haha. anyway - as you say there's just no way to prove anything is better or worse, so why ppl bother trying is beyond me. like i said, i like a lot of what many/most people would regard as crap - montavani, conniff...lots of disposable pop and elevator music....is it bad? no - it's good, cos i like it. it works in reverse. - SOL sucks to me - someone else loves it. fab. that's the way it works with everything.

ok lucas - i'm looking at my weekend calendar - SCL and I have a date tomorrow night, but I can break it if you can make me a better offer....let's hear what you got in mind!

I disagree, though your reasoning is clear and simple. But otherwise you can't deny what I stated about Bach, Mondriaan and the acknowledgment of differences in quality regardless of one's personal taste and preference.

there's differences in opinion of quality, certainly. but what is the acid-test of what quality is for something so subjective? is there an empirical method of determining? i say the Stones are a quality rock'n'roll band and someone else says there aren't - how do we reconcile? we don't. it's just two opposing opinions.