Originally posted by prnYes - 1969🙂
[b]The seventies??????
The Beatles were already famous when they first performed in the US in 1964. (I was too lazy to look up how long before that they started. So shoot me.)
Rolling Stones -- mid 1960's Certainly big by 1965. (same comment as for Beatles)
The Who -- from http://www.thewho.net/index.php?modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=in ...[text shortened]... tml#a 1964
Moody Blues -- 1964
Procol Harum -- 1967
The seventies??????
Paul[/b]
Originally posted by Brother EdwinBy chosen field, do you mean the "watered-down trite trash sh-t into the mouths of the general populus through the asses of mtv and corporate america" genre?
I am not fans of eather. But I respect them as good artists in there chosen fields.
What do you expect little girls to listen to? Britney Spears is both a role modal and makes music that is appropreate for a young audience.
And Jacko has good music to dance to and is a execlent performer.
Originally posted by darvlayI mean fun music that dosent focus on death, rage and rebellion, even if they are relevent/true and can be entertaining to people.
By chosen field, do you mean the "watered-down trite trash sh-t into the mouths of the general populus through the asses of mtv and corporate america" genre?
Michal Jackson is not "waterd-down", and althow Britney used to be like that, she is quite different now.
Originally posted by darvlayAlthow some music make me feel like throwing up, Ricky Martin, Westlife Blue and other boybands, Michal Jackson and Britney Spears are far above them.
By chosen field, do you mean the "watered-down trite trash sh-t into the mouths of the general populus through the asses of mtv and corporate america" genre?
Originally posted by Brother Edwindeath, rage and rebellion? a lot of the MOST watered-down stuff available out there is ripe with this kind of worn out content...
I mean fun music that dosent focus on death, rage and rebellion, even if they are relevent/true and can be entertaining to people.
Michal Jackson is not "waterd-down", and althow Britney used to be like that, she is quite different now.
nothing aginst your tastes Brother Ed but I think you can find music out there which is much more enjoyable, satisfying and thought provoking without having to subscribe to the garbage being thrown out there by the radio and mtv.
And Brittany will always be the same clueless, untalented trollop no matter how many image enhancements she's had from her record company.
Originally posted by darvlayI dont like much of the stuff out now anyway. I only like about 3 songs by Britney. Abot 6 songs by Michal Jackson.
death, rage and rebellion? a lot of the MOST watered-down stuff available out there is ripe with this kind of worn out content...
nothing aginst your tastes Brother Ed but I think you can find music out there which is much more enjoyable, satisfying and thought provoking without having to subscribe to the garbage being thrown out there by the radio and m ...[text shortened]... ss, untalented trollop no matter how many image enhancements she's had from her record company.
I listen to a huge viarity of music from a huge viarity of periods.
yo,
when listing all those 70s bands, i'm aware that many of them may have been born (possibly with other names at times) in the 60s. I don't deny that....BUT, it's the 70's when they came to fruition!
I also don't deny the sweeping DOMINATION of the Beatles. They are unparalleled for great songs and hits. But I'm not going to buy into the 60s simply for them and a few other great bands. The 70s were a treasure trove in my *humble* opinion.
And Michael Jackson?? hey, you gotta give it up for Quincy Jones on Michael's stuff. Yes, it's POP music, but NO WAY is it as bad as the current boy-band stuff (i think someone earlier mentioned that). You're basically ripping on Quincy when you say that. Remember, Quincy is responsible for many Stevie Wonder hits as well (though Stevie is credited with writing almost everything he did --as well as played almost every instrument in the recording studio).
If you were to ask me, friends, we're in a black hole of rock/pop music these days. It's more about the dollar these days than it has ever been. Of course, there are many shooting stars: Dave Matthews, L. Kravitz (earlier), Seal (earlier), Wilco, Cake, some would say Phish (though not me).
BUT look at these names (they make more money heads and shoulders over the others today): B. Spears, C. Aguilera, J. Simpson, Cher, R. Martin, C. Dion (permanent Vegas fixture), etc. etc. And what is the pattern here?? These people are all single-person acts run by a management team/engineering team/agent/exclusive recording studio agreement/Viacom-MTV agreements/ etc. etc. And sadly, this is much of what blugeons the radio waves in THIS decade.
soap box has now come to an end ....Peace, 🙄
steely
Originally posted by steelydanone rec just for mentioning wilco...
yo,
when listing all those 70s bands, i'm aware that many of them may have been born (possibly with other names at times) in the 60s. I don't deny that....BUT, it's the 70's when they came to fruition!
I also don't deny the sweeping DOMINATION of the Beatles. They are unparalleled for great songs and hits. But I'm not going to buy into the ...[text shortened]... geons the radio waves in THIS decade.
soap box has now come to an end ....Peace, 🙄
steely
minus one rec for putting dave matthews in the same sentence!
just kidding, here's your rec...
Originally posted by Jackobritney(god bless her soul) has not get taken her husbands name but still may do. if she did then she would become britney federline...possibly the worst name for a pop star ever. On that note, what, in your eyes( the public's that is) is the worst name for a band/musician ever? freddie😀
well not ms spears now, got married but i dont know the name now
David