anyone up for a group hug? ...didn't think so.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-01 21:51 by StonesTod.

>The first Spice Girls album gets 4 and a half stars. A higher rating than most stones albums. Using this as a yardstick as well as the fact that (like Bon Jovi's slippery when wet) it sold more copies than any album the Stones have ever released, this therefore means (according to some of the logic expressed in this thread) that the spice girls and bon jovi are greater than the Stones and Bob Dylan.


Bravo Gazza. It sure is taking FrankM an inordinate amount of time to respond to this. He must be researching more meaningless statistics.

sdstonesguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So it's A & B. He did say it...but didn't know
> that the " " marks meant I was quoting
> him...further, he didn't know "last 20 years" came
> out as such: 2006 - 20 = 1986 (Sept 1).

It doesn't really matter since you lose either way. I still haven't had a response by anyone about the five stinkers Dylan came out with since 1980.

I come here to make reasonable arguments like some of the other people here. You however seem to be in need of some mental help so I can't argue with an idiot such as yourself. Later.

"I honestly think some people here just argue for the sake of arguing."

Apparently:

"I come here to make reasonable arguments like some of the other people here."

We are not impressed.

Glam Descendant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >The first Spice Girls album gets 4 and a half
> stars. A higher rating than most stones albums.
> Using this as a yardstick as well as the fact that
> (like Bon Jovi's slippery when wet) it sold more
> copies than any album the Stones have ever
> released, this therefore means (according to some
> of the logic expressed in this thread) that the
> spice girls and bon jovi are greater than the
> Stones and Bob Dylan.
>
>
> Bravo Gazza. It sure is taking FrankM an
> inordinate amount of time to respond to this. He
> must be researching more meaningless statistics.

It would only mean that to an idiot. One album does not a career make. Compare all the Spice Girl albums to all the the Stones albums and what do you get? You guys keep talking about the Spice Girls so maybe you are closet fans.

Anyway I can't argue with people like this. You aren't even staying on subject- you are looking to argue because you have nothing else better to do so I bid you goodbye and hope you find happier days in the future.

"doesn't really matter since you lose either way. I still haven't had a response by anyone about the five stinkers Dylan came out with since 1980."

You said last 20 years...really Frank...if you want to be a liar...be a better one...you stink at your lies.

Frank, I'm not going to spend time arguing as you obviously don't know crap about Prince, my point was that the answer to 'Has he done all those things? No I didn't think so' is a resounding YES. (please go to allmusic.com for further confirmation. Better yet, listen to Prince (whom I never stated to be better than either the Stones or Dylan BTW))

FrankM Wrote:
I come here to make reasonable arguments like some of the other people here. You however seem to be in need of some mental help so I can't argue with an idiot such as yourself. Later.



Re: OT Dylan's Modern Times
Posted by: FrankM (IP Logged)
Date: August 31, 2006 09:58PM


ooh name calling- what are you fourteen? They should have some kind of age limit in this forum to keep teenyboppers like you out. Grow up.

I guess that means your arguments are worthless if you have to resort to name calling. Better luck next time.




FRANK - what happened to your no naming calling policy? I guess it's better luck next time FOR YOU!

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It doesn't really matter since you lose either
> way. I still haven't had a response by anyone
> about the five stinkers Dylan came out with since
> 1980.

Several of those albums are not stinkers.
And Dylan did magnicent tours, even though the album released prior to that wasn't good. Shot Of Love is a very good (but not excellent) album, but the tour of 81 was amazing.
There were also some tremendous concerts in 1990, and some bad ones...he was like rollercoaster in the 80s and early 90s.
If you only measure the "sales" of his albums, it's a useless conversation. It would be like measuring a grand guitar of how many chords have been played on it....or something like that.
There's also the studio-bootlegs that show terrific sides of Dylan, even from not-so-good-albums. He left out Blind Willie McTell from Infidels, and Series Of Dreams/Dignity off Oh Mercy. And he released MTV Unplugged, instead of Supper Club. And what about "Dylan & The Dead"? He did much better gigs in 87-88, especially 88.

>Compare all the Spice Girl albums to all the the Stones albums and what do you get?


Uh, it appears you get a higher average rating on AMG than the Stones or Dylan. That is the yardstick, right?

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> at least I can spell.

I agree. At least you can spell. Your posts contain impeccably spelled bollocks.

Oh my god you people are strange. Do any of you think for yourself or is this some kind of cult I have walked into. You all follow each others posts and seem to think in unison. Frightening. Very Strange. Maybe you should try to think on your own for a change instead of acting like lunatics.

Anyway I will go now since some of you people seem to be a little on the bizzare side- not all of you.

'I still haven't had a response by anyone about the five stinkers Dylan came out with since 1980.'
The response is that the masterpieces (sic) he's put out since completely eclipse his 'stinkers'. To put it in stats, having one 1* album and one 5* album is not the same thing as having two 3* albums (gitit?).

And to get back on topic, I love Modern Times, favorite at the moment is Spirit on the Water (so beautiful and sweet). Better to my ears than L&T, which I never got into completely.

.....looks like he's up against the ropes again trying to count how many fingers his trainer is holding up....Cindy and Glam knocked him silly....just take a guess Frank, say "two fingers"

'Maybe you should try to think on your own for a change'---> Sorry to pile it on, but this from the man whose only arguments are ratings from AMG and silly top 100 music magazine lists?

FrankM Wrote:
>
> It would only mean that to an idiot.

Indeed. Which is exactly my point when throwing out meaningless stuff such as sales figures and AMG ratings as the definitive yardstick of quality. Do keep up.

One album
> does not a career make. Compare all the Spice Girl
> albums to all the the Stones albums and what do
> you get? You guys keep talking about the Spice
> Girls so maybe you are closet fans.

WHOOSH

I believe thats the first time I've ever mentioned them. But feel free to do a search through all my posts in the archives if you wish, just in case.


>
> Anyway I can't argue with people like this.

Correct.

You
> aren't even staying on subject-


I believe you were the first one to mention AMG and the one who took this thread off the subject when I dared mention Bob's burst of consistent greatness in the mid 60's. Let alone (quite bizarrely) bringing concert ticket sales into the discussion to back up an argument about the quality of an artist's recorded output.

you are looking to
> argue because you have nothing else better to do
> so I bid you goodbye and hope you find happier
> days in the future.

Oh come on, its been fun!! Best thread on here in ages!!

Standing-eight count!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-01 22:15 by Gazza.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh my god you people are strange. Do any of you
> think for yourself or is this some kind of cult I
> have walked into. You all follow each others posts
> and seem to think in unison. Frightening. Very
> Strange. Maybe you should try to think on your own
> for a change instead of acting like lunatics.
>
> Anyway I will go now since some of you people seem
> to be a little on the bizzare side- not all of
> you.


I have had hangnails go away faster. how can we miss you if you won't go away?

Next time one of those bastids comes along that calls us a bunch of brain-washed Stones fanatics who worship the ground they walk on, that they can do no wrong - we need to forward them this thread.

The Altamont of 2006.

Pie1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 'I still haven't had a response by anyone about
> the five stinkers Dylan came out with since
> 1980.'
> The response is that the masterpieces (sic) he's
> put out since completely eclipse his 'stinkers'.
> To put it in stats, having one 1* album and one 5*
> album is not the same thing as having two 3*
> albums (gitit?).
>
> And to get back on topic, I love Modern Times,
> favorite at the moment is Spirit on the Water (so
> beautiful and sweet). Better to my ears than L&T,
> which I never got into completely.

Ok this is it my final post on this topic- I mean it this time. The only thing that knocked me silly is the way you people all blindly follow each other as if you can't think on your own. I go by the ratings to some degree but still the ultimate decision to buy or not is mine. You can all try thinking on your own too.

And in response to the other post. Two three star albums are better than a five star and a one star. You can at least listen to both of the three star albums.

"You can hang back or fight your best on the frontline...sing a little bit of these workingmans blues"

Amen to a great debate - still not sure who won!

don't let the door hit you on the way out, mate!

Hey guys, I think I have to pee, but I'm not sure.

Do you guys know if I have to pee? I'm afraid I can't think for myself.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go to the Rolling Stone immortals list my
> uninformed friend. They list the greatest artists
> of all time. Where is Prince? Where are the
> Stones. This was voted on by top musicians in the
> industry which have a lot more creditibility than
> some misguided soul who thinks Prince is better
> than the Stones. Thanks for the laugh man.

Well, I decided to look at the Rolling Stones "Immortals" list that you are so impressed by. It is subtitled "The 100 Greatest Artists of All Time." Because, by golly, if Frankie thinks this survey is something special, then I owe it to myself to check it out, to be educated by a smart guy like Frankie, who really knows it all.

As I suspected, the list is highly subjective, and sometimes it looks pretty foolish. The Stones are ranked #4, which I'm okay with, because I've never once argued that I think their 60s and 70s work is over-rated. Quite the contrary, it is great great music.

But the Stones are only #4, behind Elvis, Dylan and the Beatles.

The Beatles? Okay, I guess, though I think the Stones are better.

Dylan? Yeah, I buy that, Dylan put out more great albums over 40+ years than the Stones did.

But Elvis?!? That makes me question the basic criteria of the Immortals poll. Elvis was a fine singer and a superstar, a cultural icon, but was he really a _great_ singer? Maybe. But he never wrote any of his hit songs. He couldn't play a guitar worth a damn. And _he's_ number 3?

And why is Elvis number 3, and a universally acknowledged genius like Miles Davis is #88? What the hell kind of poll is this?!?

You could get a decent argument from some that The Who were a better band than the Rolling Stones. I wouldn't agree with that Who fan since I like the Stones more than the Who, but I'd at least agree that a hardcore fan of The Who has a reasonable basis to prefer them over the Stones. Yet the Who ranks #29.

Now where is Prince on this list?

Judging from your idiotic disparaging comments about the worth of Prince's music, I figured he was nowhere to be found on your beloved list.

And lo and behold, there was Prince at #28. Ahead of the Who, Neil Young, John Lennon as a solo artist, David Bowie, Van Morrison, The Byrds, The Clash, Howlin' Wolf, Eric Clapton as a solo artist, Cream, The Everly Brothers, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, Allman Brothers, Aerosmith, Sex Pistols, The Police, Frank Zappa, and on and on and on. All of _them_ are great artists, immortals, and Frankie, I'd bet you wouldn't dismiss the musical genius of most of those artists, as you so casually dismissed Prince and his music.

But the Rolling Stone "Immortals" list, voted by the greats of rock and roll, validates Prince as one of the Immortals. Why not you, Frankie?

Still care to make the argument that Prince is not an acknowledged musical immortal, respected by his peers? If so, you will be refuting your own goddam survey, Frankie boy.

Every artist who has been going 40 odd years are going to have good times and bad times. I just believe Bob is still a very credible artist.

highanddry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> But Elvis?!? That makes me question the basic
> criteria of the Immortals poll. Elvis was a fine
> singer and a superstar, a cultural icon, but was
> he really a _great_ singer? Maybe. But he never
> wrote any of his hit songs. He couldn't play a
> guitar worth a damn. And _he's_ number 3?
>
> And why is Elvis number 3, and a universally
> acknowledged genius like Miles Davis is #88? What
> the hell kind of poll is this?!?



Oh Christ - not this again. Yes - he really was a great singer. I think most people on here agreed a few weeks back (except Reptile) that the fact the he did not write his own songs does not lessen his value and/or greatness.

CindyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey guys, I think I have to pee, but I'm not
> sure.
>
> Do you guys know if I have to pee? I'm afraid I
> can't think for myself.


I checked the All Pee Guide and it seems you're OK. Fire away!

Let me know how many stars you thought it was worth when you get back



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-01 22:33 by Gazza.

Hey thanks Gazza,

It was starting to hurt.


We piss anywhere!

CindyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Oh Christ - not this again. Yes - he really was
> a great singer. I think most people on here
> agreed a few weeks back (except Reptile) that the
> fact the he did not write his own songs does not
> lessen his value and/or greatness.


Then you need to be sentenced to a week in isolation listening to Elvis sing his immortal cinematic classic song "Do The Clam" on repeat on your iPod, and _then_ tell me the writing one's own songs and relying strictly on the material someone provides doesn't diminish one's greatness.

And there's a LOT of "Do The Clam"'s in Elvis' recorded ouevre.

As you may remember from last Friday night,Cindy, that is quite correct



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-01 22:53 by Gazza.