I don't 'get' Bowie at all.

Backslapping time. Well done us. We are fantastic.
Bungo the Mungo

Postby Bungo the Mungo » 18 Sep 2005, 12:32

Nancy (Class Of 1997) wrote:I oftenly don't get Metallica and it's not that big thing. You can't get into each and every artist/band around, can you?


I missed this, first time 'round. 'Oftenly' is me new favourite word. Brilliant! I have to get it into conversation, and soon. Thanks Nancy!!

The Modernist

Postby The Modernist » 18 Sep 2005, 12:34

Diamond Dog wrote:
Eek A Modernist! wrote:I wonder why we don't get lively debates like this on here now though, if you look at the replies for recent threads there's not been one for ages to really capture people's imaginations.


It's because I don't start as many threads as I once did. 8-)


Actually it was Jethro who started this one wasn't it? I liked the way he said he was going out to do some shopping or something and would post later, then just left everyone to attack each other like wild dogs. Top stuff!

The Modernist

Postby The Modernist » 18 Sep 2005, 12:35

John Coan wrote:
Nancy (Class Of 1997) wrote:I oftenly don't get Metallica and it's not that big thing. You can't get into each and every artist/band around, can you?


I missed this, first time 'round. 'Oftenly' is me new favourite word. Brilliant! I have to get it into conversation, and soon. Thanks Nancy!!


Although hopefully you won't have to endure a conversation about Mettalica when you do John!

Bungo the Mungo

Postby Bungo the Mungo » 18 Sep 2005, 12:40

Eek A Modernist! wrote:
John Coan wrote:
Nancy (Class Of 1997) wrote:I oftenly don't get Metallica and it's not that big thing. You can't get into each and every artist/band around, can you?


I missed this, first time 'round. 'Oftenly' is me new favourite word. Brilliant! I have to get it into conversation, and soon. Thanks Nancy!!


Although hopefully you won't have to endure a conversation about Mettalica when you do John!


Lord help us! They are the worst band around. Hell, I have to take back me comments about Tangerine Dream on another thread now....

User avatar
NancyL21st
Miss Eldritch
Posts: 15150
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 23:32

Postby NancyL21st » 18 Sep 2005, 14:46

John Coan wrote:
Nancy (Class Of 1997) wrote:I oftenly don't get Metallica and it's not that big thing. You can't get into each and every artist/band around, can you?


I missed this, first time 'round. 'Oftenly' is me new favourite word. Brilliant! I have to get it into conversation, and soon. Thanks Nancy!!


:shock:

*gulp*

You're (ahem) welcome, John!

My unintentional mistake on that matter. It should've been "often" I know.

As for Metallica, I like just a couple of their songs and that's all. I hardly can listen to them at all. Very very hard.
...Pick me up
Pin me down
Beg enough
Shoot me down...

- - - - -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBZDzjCwf2w
Cabaret Voltaire in Zagreb, Croatia (Sep 28th 1990)

User avatar
LeBaron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 42404
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Postby LeBaron » 18 Sep 2005, 15:00

Jimmy Jazz wrote:There's nothing to "get" You like it or not.


Yes, and half are right while the other half are wrong. Such rampant, casual relativism must be stamped out at any cost!
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

Bungo the Mungo

Postby Bungo the Mungo » 18 Sep 2005, 15:23

Baron wrote:
Jimmy Jazz wrote:There's nothing to "get" You like it or not.


Yes, and half are right while the other half are wrong. Such rampant, casual relativism must be stamped out at any cost!


YES

User avatar
LeBaron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 42404
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Postby LeBaron » 18 Sep 2005, 15:36

Jimmy Jazz wrote:
Baron wrote:
Jimmy Jazz wrote:There's nothing to "get" You like it or not.


Yes, and half are right while the other half are wrong. Such rampant, casual relativism must be stamped out at any cost!


Ok for a bit of stirring up then. You know what people actually mean when they say 'they don't get it' don't you ? They don't mean ; I am stupid, therefore I don't get it.


No, the people who don't get it are the ones who have not been fooled. However, in the presence of other people who are otherwise sane, those who haven't been fooled are being charitable to question whether or not they might be missing some angle.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
LeBaron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 42404
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Postby LeBaron » 18 Sep 2005, 17:20

Jimmy Jazz wrote:
Baron wrote:
Jimmy Jazz wrote:
Baron wrote:
Jimmy Jazz wrote:There's nothing to "get" You like it or not.


Yes, and half are right while the other half are wrong. Such rampant, casual relativism must be stamped out at any cost!


Ok for a bit of stirring up then. You know what people actually mean when they say 'they don't get it' don't you ? They don't mean ; I am stupid, therefore I don't get it.


No, the people who don't get it are the ones who have not been fooled. However, in the presence of other people who are otherwise sane, those who haven't been fooled are being charitable to question whether or not they might be missing some angle.


Whereas they should be wondering if they are missing ears...


I see you, too, have had some Kool Aid.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
LeBaron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 42404
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Postby LeBaron » 18 Sep 2005, 17:28

Jimmy Jazz wrote:Apparantly you don't get it. If one says about an artist of Bowie's calibre
that you 'don't get it' it is not really that what you're saying. I don't know the person who made this statement - so props if it wasn't meant that way,- but to me this sounds very snobbish.


I recommend reading the thread. Although -- admittedly -- my only contributions have been pithy bits of hilarity, such as this one, you'll find it to be very good anyway.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
LeBaron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 42404
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Postby LeBaron » 18 Sep 2005, 17:29

And it doesn't really matter if I'm being snobbish, so long as I'm right, which you can count on.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Complete Utter Ninny Troll
Posts: 169
Joined: 01 Nov 2004, 14:49
Location: Not Canada

Postby Complete Utter Ninny Troll » 11 Nov 2005, 14:59

What's to get? The guy is a fruit.
No Harm No Foul

Bungo the Mungo

Postby Bungo the Mungo » 11 Nov 2005, 18:14

Bowie's rather good, actually. I mean, I think people are either bullshitting when they say they don't like him, or they haven't heard enough.

There are some appalling moments, tho'. And I don't mean out-and-out crap like the 'Tonight' album - I'm talking about stuff off 'Hunky Dory', for example. But we've been there many times and I've been called worse names than soft Mick because of it.

No jo....

The Modernist

Postby The Modernist » 11 Nov 2005, 19:19

wade gustafson wrote:What's to get? The guy is a fruit.


You bumped this just to say that. Twat. :roll:

User avatar
Complete Utter Ninny Troll
Posts: 169
Joined: 01 Nov 2004, 14:49
Location: Not Canada

Postby Complete Utter Ninny Troll » 11 Nov 2005, 21:32

What the heck ya mean?
No Harm No Foul

User avatar
LeBaron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 42404
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Postby LeBaron » 11 Nov 2005, 21:45

The M wrote:
wade gustafson wrote:What's to get? The guy is a fruit.


You bumped this just to say that. Twat. :roll:


It was hilarious. And not wrong.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
LeBaron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 42404
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Postby LeBaron » 11 Nov 2005, 22:00

Jimmy Jazz wrote:Then again if you use the word 'heck' you must find Bowie a fruit I guess.


You're right, the gag was perfect!
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 65207
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Postby Diamond Dog » 28 May 2006, 16:45

I just knew it was here somewhere:

bhoywonder wrote:In answer to your question, I've seen Bowie live and I've seen Moghwai live. Bowie isn't fit to switch on their amps.


:lol:

Smells like victory.
Image

Mason Cooley wrote:Worried about being a dull fellow? You might develop your talent for being irritating.

User avatar
The Prof
Composing a revolutionary symphony
Posts: 44966
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:32
Location: A Metropolis of Discontent

Postby The Prof » 28 May 2006, 17:01

:lol: :lol:

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 65207
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Postby Diamond Dog » 28 May 2006, 17:03

The Prof wrote::lol: :lol:


And it is exactly in context.

The whole post:

Diamonddog wrote:The crucial line you apear to have missed repeatedly is the one that states "within that timescale" - not the whole of the 20th century, is it? At no stage (as I have shown more than adequately) have I ever mentioned the phrase "third most important artist of the 20th century". Never, not once. It's actually you that's needs to read posts, not me, and then stop this dashed annoying habit of talking to people in the most possible patronising tone in response - when in fact it's you that's in the wrong.

Third rate? If you throw up a list as arbirary as you do, don't be too surprised when people take its lowest common denominator to use as an example - Mogwai? Do they really deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Bowie, let alone be elevated to even third rate? Thought not.

As for Zeppelin being what they are - well, for me they have made music as great as any band. For me. It's an opinion. Live with it. Whether that makes them important I don't know - nor, frankly, care. But there again, I never used that phrase in the first place, did I?

Hugs and kisses.


bhoywonder wrote:
But you keep shifting the goalposts! How can I keep up if yo=u change what something means every 3rd post?

In answer to your question, I've seen Bowie live and I've seen Moghwai live. Bowie isn't fit to switch on their amps. I would wager you have never heard mogwai, certainly not more than a passing glance, and are actually making a judgemment based on prejudice.

I can't wait to see who you put at number 4.
Image

Mason Cooley wrote:Worried about being a dull fellow? You might develop your talent for being irritating.