Players/Bands that just aren't my cup of tea...

[string1399]

Everybody is entitled to their own likes and dislikes, and there doesn't necessarily have to be a good reason for it either. My ears know what they like at the moment, good or bad. And it's okay for you to have personal tastes, too.

[mrklab]

Originally Posted by StevenL

Funny, some of the bands/musicians being discussed I've loved AND hated at different points in my life. The Beatles were off my radar when I was there during the time, but later I discovered them and quite enjoyed a lot of their stuff. Stones: same thing. Used to hate Blue Cheese, now I love it. I think to "get" a particular music style, you just have to be in the right place at the right time, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, chemically? One may or may not "get there" with any particular music, food, etc. One may not even care to try to get there.

And some old curmudgeons are still arguing over whether Paul or John was the best Beatle. And can't abide any other opinion.

+1...This is right on the money!

[stephenT]

Originally Posted by drplayer

Well good for you....apparently you don't have any limitations with regards to rudeness either. Maybe next time you should follow your initial instincts and not waste your time responding?

Thanks and knowing myself like I do, I kinda doubt that. I see it as my obligation to stand up for the poor misunderstood artists who are subjected to online critisim.

[jumbomumbo]

ooops wrong thread!

[drplayer]

Originally Posted by talkgtr

I see it as my obligation to stand up for the poor misunderstood artists who are subjected to online critisim.

You must have A LOT of time to kill! But hey, somebody has to do it...just imagine all the sleep they'd be losing worrying about the comments on the AGF, if you weren't here to defend them.

[KasperT]

Originally Posted by drplayer

No, I get what you're saying, at THAT is the intent of my post. I am clearly in the minority, as The Beatles sit atop almost every list of best bands ever. So, I SHOULD like them, right...just don't really. So, what am I missing??? I've listened to their catalog, read historical articles, etc. They just don't do it for me. That said, let's not give them all too much credit, they neither "revolutioned" psychedelic rock or "spearheaded" the hard-rock movement. That credit goes to Hendrix, Cream, Jefferson Airplane, The Doors and Grateful Dead among other less notables; however, they certainly helped to popularize it. As for diluting their accomplishments...wasn't trying to do that either, but thought it interesting that another artist got bashed on here recently for cheesy songs aimed at young girls and commercial success, yet The Beatles got their start the same way. They evolved along their journey and so will/has the other artist...thanks.

It's OK if you don't like them. If it were me I would be worried but it's fine to not like the Beatles. It's not fine to misrepresent things however and I disagree with what you've written about them. They most certainly revolutionized rock more than once, I think terms are being confused here. The music of the Grateful Dead wasn't powerful enough to change music- the Beatles were required for such a feat. Psychedelia- they released Rubber Soul in 1965 as a result of their dabbling with LSD, when the Grateful Dead were still known as the Warlocks. They were on the ground floor and accomplished more than any other. This after they changed music with that earlier pop sound of theirs.

Speaking of musical evolution the journey the Beatles took more closely reminds of Beethoven than generic pop star #1. Beethoven and Beatles knew they had a place in history and led the way by experimenting more and more with music, to the point that often people either liked their earlier music or their later material. I don't believe it possible to underestimate the influence the Beatles have had on music, not to mention their influence of English speaking culture in general. Any attempt at marginalizing their accomplishments is foolhardy.

And they really aught to teach this in school.

[eyesore]

at this point in my life ;I 'm sick of singer /songwriters.i'd rather listen to instrumental jazz ...but mostly ;I'd rather just play the guitar.

[Jukie]

I have never cared for Joni Mitchell either.

[reholli]

Originally Posted by drplayer

I should like them, as they are guitar/music icons. I've spent hours listening to them...tryng to see what others see, and trying to like them; but, they just don't "do it" for me...something is simply missing in their music for me....

I stopped reading after the part I highlighted, where you've spent hours listening (apparently deliberately) to musicians you don't like.

[slimey]

Years and years ago I went to see Mott the Hoople at Lancaster university in England. An unknown band opened for them , blew the whole audience away, performance and musicianship were stella . I felt sorry for Hoople having to try to follow them. The band was called Queen and they are still by far the best live show I ever saw. It was just mind blowing. Shortly afterwards they became known.
Last fall my wife and I went to see Tommy E in Minneapolis . My wife's a keyboard and flute player. She's not a huge guitar fan, she can however play and strum triad chords quite well. She went as a sacrifice for me. She sat on the edge of her chair through out the concert and is now one of the biggest Tommy fans going.
I think one of the best things about Paul Simon is he's not sat on his Laurels and done the same thing over and over, he's an accomplished guitar player and has written some great songs.
It's interesting to me that there's no right or wrong in music, some of my favs are others idea of torture.
My wife loves Dan Fogelberg and his music grates on me so much I will literally become angry if I can't get away from the sound, no other artist creates such an intense reaction in me, positive or negative. I literally become violent. ( I'm normally quite a mild mannered old fart )
Different strokes I guess.

[drplayer]

Originally Posted by KasperT

It's not fine to misrepresent things however and I disagree with what you've written about them. They most certainly revolutionized rock more than once, I think terms are being confused here.

Nothing misrepresented...I said they didn't revolutionize psychedelic rock, and I stand by that comment.

Originally Posted by KasperT

The music of the Grateful Dead wasn't powerful enough to change music- the Beatles were required for such a feat. Psychedelia- they released Rubber Soul in 1965 as a result of their dabbling with LSD, when the Grateful Dead were still known as the Warlocks. They were on the ground floor and accomplished more than any other.

Well, there are about a billion Dead-Heads that would disagree. Regardless, I wouldn't consider Rubber Soul a psychedelic rock album, as it was mostly inspired by Dylan. Jefferson Airplane, Grateful Dead, Hendrix, Cream, The Doors, and many other less notables were all ahead of The Beatles in this genre. Certainly their involvement with psychedelic rock (Sgt. Pepper album maybe) helped to popularize it, but I'm not sure the movement lasted long enough to be revolutionized. Maybe just a matter of semantics?

Originally Posted by KasperT

I don't believe it possible to underestimate the influence the Beatles have had on music, not to mention their influence of English speaking culture in general. Any attempt at marginalizing their accomplishments is foolhardy.

I certainly have not done that...they are iconic for sure and a part of Americana.

[drplayer]

Originally Posted by reholli

I stopped reading after the part I highlighted, where you've spent hours listening (apparently deliberately) to musicians you don't like.

Good point, I don't blame you! I'm a slow study I guess...it took me 20-30 times before I realized I didn't like scotch either.

[KasperT]

Originally Posted by drplayer

Nothing misrepresented...I said they didn't revolutionize psychedelic rock, and I stand by that comment.

They certainly did and saying they didn't won't change that.

Originally Posted by drplayer

Well, there are about a billion Dead-Heads that would disagree. Regardless, I wouldn't consider Rubber Soul a psychedelic rock album, as it was mostly inspired by Dylan. Jefferson Airplane, Grateful Dead, Hendrix, Cream, The Doors, and many other less notables were all ahead of The Beatles in this genre. Certainly their involvement with psychedelic rock (Sgt. Pepper album maybe) helped to popularize it, but I'm not sure the movement lasted long enough to be revolutionized. Maybe just a matter of semantics?

There aren't a billion Deadheads, and the Grateful Dead has always inspired a sub-sub culture of rock, not affecting rock via maintaining a parallel niche. Rubber Soul was the beginning of psychedelia- that's what it looked and sounded like. Not to mention the music the Grateful Dead produced was arguably less psychedelic in nature than even the early Beatles offerings.

Originally Posted by drplayer

I certainly have not done that...they are iconic for sure and a part of Americana.

Er, OK.

[KasperT]

You know what I don't like my own tone there. Let me back up and just agree to disagree with you on these issues and wish you a good day.

[DesolationAngel]

Originally Posted by KasperT

You know what I don't like my own tone there. Let me back up and just agree to disagree with you on these issues and wish you a good day.

This needs printing and framing... possibly the first time anyone has ever backtracked in a forum about anything, anywhere on the internet. Ever. In the history of everything.

Takes big ones... well played KasperT