I saw Bruce Springsteen on his recent tour, enjoying it immensely.

My extensive discussion, at a minutiae level, of Springsteen, his music, his songs, etc., prompted a friend to say I had "Talmudic" interest in Bruce.

That's an interesting concept.

There's a lot of music I like, but when it comes to a deep knowledge of a band, its history, why they were "on" or "off" at this concert or that on a tour, etc., etc., I'd say that only the Stones (of course), Beatles, Who, Doors, REM, and Springsteen rise to the level of my seeking and mastering all kinds of arcane knowledge about them.

I love U2, whose career is similar to that of REM; I love Led Zeppelin, who usually are mentioned in the same breath as the Stones, Beatles, and Who. But the depth of my interest in them stops short of that "Talmudic" level.

Other than the Stones, for what other bands or acts do you claim a Talmudic level of interest?

Is this a Jewish thing ?

Quote
Bungo
Is this a Jewish thing ?

Springsteen's not jewish

I think what is meant here is "characterized by or making extremely fine distinctions; overly detailed or subtle; hairsplitting." via: [dictionary.reference.com]

Quote
dgiorr
I saw Bruce Springsteen on his recent tour, enjoying it immensely.

My extensive discussion, at a minutiae level, of Springsteen, his music, his songs, etc., prompted a friend to say I had "Talmudic" interest in Bruce.

That's an interesting concept.

There's a lot of music I like, but when it comes to a deep knowledge of a band, its history, why they were "on" or "off" at this concert or that on a tour, etc., etc., I'd say that only the Stones (of course), Beatles, Who, Doors, REM, and Springsteen rise to the level of my seeking and mastering all kinds of arcane knowledge about them.

I love U2, whose career is similar to that of REM; I love Led Zeppelin, who usually are mentioned in the same breath as the Stones, Beatles, and Who. But the depth of my interest in them stops short of that "Talmudic" level.

Other than the Stones, for what other bands or acts do you claim a Talmudic level of interest?

Interesting, never thought of it like that.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-03-01 04:24 by Tonstone.

Quote
Koen
I think what is meant here is "characterized by or making extremely fine distinctions; overly detailed or subtle; hairsplitting." via: [dictionary.reference.com]

Yeah, I just meant it in the sense of having so much natural interest in the band and its members that you pick up and retain all kinds of knowledge and arcanery about them, that a casual fan, or a "songs-only" fan, would not.

For example, a lot of fans would know that the Stones filmed "Rock and Roll Circus" and that the Who stole the show. But, common knowledge though it might be among those on this forum, only a "Talmudic" fan might have ever learned, let alone remembered, that the Who had been touring and performing steadily at the time of the taping, while the Stones hadn't been on a tour for quite a while. Or that the taping took so long that by the time the Stones did their bit, both they and the fans were tired and lethargic.

Quote
Koen
I think what is meant here is "characterized by or making extremely fine distinctions; overly detailed or subtle; hairsplitting." via: [dictionary.reference.com]

Something like this: [www.iorr.org]


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

For those with a Talmudic interest, check this link >>> [forward.com]; for an article titled THE SECRET JEWISH HISTORY OF THE ROLLING STONES (I'm not joking).

Sounds like me with Zeppelin and to a lesser extent the Stones.

Do the New Barbarians count as a different subject than the Stone? Probably not.
Besides, there was only one tour so it wasn't that difficult to master the details.
But somehow I know more about the New Barbarians than anyone really should.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-03-01 21:30 by with sssoul.