The Watchman's response to my post blurs the distinction between "personal preferences" and "personal opinion." One can "prefer" to listen to a certain piece but not have the "opinion" that it is a high quality of artistry.

Of course opinions matter in evaluating an artist's work. And personal preferences can certainly shape opinions. Even Shakespeare was in relatively low regard in the 1700's due to the preferences of the time, until he was revived through fresh interpretations in the late 1800's. So perhaps we have very little disagreement about quality and more of a difference in tastes.

Just 2 more comments, unrelated. Brittany's song "Oops, I Did It Again" is great pop music. However, she herself had very little to do with the strength of that song, since her interpretation is formulaic, and since her primary appeal to her audience is blonde hair, breast implants and suggestive dancing.
That said, her music generally sucks. LOL

I take no offense, and am not surprised, that some folks do not like the Beatles. However, I am surprised that anyone would have trouble naming 10 of their songs (as a group or as individual artists).

Is there really anyone who can read the list below (40 songs) and not pick out 10 that he/she knows (or could hum)?

I Wanna Hold Your Hand
Can't Buy Me Love
She Loves You (Yeh Yeh Yeh)
Twist and Shout
Yesterday

A Hard Day's Night
Eight Days a Week
Norwegian Wood
Michelle
Nowhere Man

If I Fell
Ticket to Ride
Help!
Hello, Goodbye
Penny Lane

Eight Days a Week
Eleanor Rigby
Lady Madonna
Strawberry Fields Forever
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds

All You Need Is Love
Yellow Submarine
When I'm Sixty-Four
Fool on the Hill
Revolution

Hey Jude
Here Comes the Sun
Something
Come Together
Get Back

Let it Be
The Long and Winding Road
Give Peace a Chance
Live and Let Die
Happy Christmas (War is Over)

My Sweet Lord
Imagine
Band on the Run
(Just Like) Starting Over
Woman

Moreover, the above list does not include ANY songs from St. Pepper's or the White Album, two of their best.

I'd be interested in knowing The Watchman's count of songs recognized, and the count of any other non-Beatles fan.

I'm perfectly willing to be educated on this one! LOL




------------------
"And the laughter came too easy for life to pass me by."

2M2L,

'Imagine', which happens to be one of my all time favourite songs, was written by John
Lennon who IMO was the real talent in the
Beatles. Yes, I admit I recognise several
of the titles in your post but I couldn't sing or even hum most of them. Some I've
never even heard of. Sorry.

2M2L,

'Imagine', which happens to be one of my all time favourite songs, was written by John
Lennon who IMO was the real talent in the
Beatles. Yes, I admit I recognise several
of the titles in your post but I couldn't sing or even hum most of them. Some I've
never even heard of. Sorry.

2M2L,
Boy do I feel stupid...I can actually hum some and get thru most of the words of all but four of the songs on your list!!! I have been wracking my brain to come up with more than 3!!! I even had a couple of them for piano lesson pieces to learn and didn't remember them til I saw the list. I never owned any of their albums, tho, so maybe that's my problem. Or maybe I'm just getting old http://www.corfid.com/ubb/smile.gif
SheilaB

SheilaB,

its not you at all. Its the songs http://www.corfid.com/ubb/wink.gif

Now I bet you have no trouble with a
Gord composition.

SheilaB,

its not you at all. Its the songs http://www.corfid.com/ubb/wink.gif

Now I bet you have no trouble with a
Gord composition.

I'm gonna duck out of this thread and get into some Tchaikovsky. He's been dead for 110 years and so is a lot less controversial.

quote:Originally posted by Brian 57:
I'm gonna duck out of this thread and get into some Tchaikovsky. He's been dead for 110 years and so is a lot less controversial.

Chicken http://www.corfid.com/ubb/smile.gif


Hey 2Much2Lose, you have Eight Days A Week twice, but I still knew most of the songs listed. You could replace one of your Eight Days with In My Life or This Boy - two of my particular favorites. I could never say I was a huge Beatles fan, but I like a lot (most that I'm familiar with)of their songs and certainly respect the talent

You sure are right, Silver Heels!

...and is he the best singer/songwriter ever? I analyzed my own personal collection and voted 'yes'...for me! I have most of his albums and, except for Neil Diamond, no other individual artist or group even comes close. By category...only my Christmas albums take up more space!
SheilaB

I THINK TAHT EVERYBODY HERE IS ONE THING. JUST LOVERS OF GOOD MUSIC PERIOD. ALL ABOVE MENTIONED ARTIST ARE GREAT IN THERE OWN WAY. I JUST GOT THE LAST 2 GORD ALBUMS FIRST TIME I EVER HEARD THEM WOW WHAT GOOD STUFF ESPECIALLY SHADOWS. I ENJOY READING EVERYONES COMMENTS.

I THINK TAHT EVERYBODY HERE IS ONE THING. JUST LOVERS OF GOOD MUSIC PERIOD. ALL ABOVE MENTIONED ARTIST ARE GREAT IN THERE OWN WAY. I JUST GOT THE LAST 2 GORD ALBUMS FIRST TIME I EVER HEARD THEM WOW WHAT GOOD STUFF ESPECIALLY SHADOWS. I ENJOY READING EVERYONES COMMENTS.

Watchman,
I couldn't have said it better myself. Wish you were going to Toronto, I'd love to shake your hand.
Kudos for giving them a try, that would certainly have sheer torture for me.
Peace all!
Kim

Watchman,
I couldn't have said it better myself. Wish you were going to Toronto, I'd love to shake your hand.
Kudos for giving them a try, that would certainly have sheer torture for me.
Peace all!
Kim

quote:Originally posted by TheWatchman:
Personally, I don't see how anybody can even attempt to say that the Beatles are a better band in any way shape or form. They just don't have what it takes to sustain. They got famous because they came to the US with a new style that was happening in England at the time. They were simple liasons, nothing more. If another band had come over first and been a hit, The Beatles would have not got off the ground. They lack any substance and true writing talent to make it in the US without the "new phenomina" stuff that made them famous.

[This message has been edited by TheWatchman (edited August 31, 2002).]

Watchman, I enjoy your posts immensely--they're always well-written, and always thought-provoking. However, in this instance, I respectfully suggest you're missing the point...at least of what I've written previously, anyway. When I wrote my response to the original post, I was trying to say that there are at least two ways (actually many more) of looking at a question. You're making subjective opinions, and that's fine. On a subjective basis, Gordon Lightfoot will always be my favorite songwriter too. What I was getting at is that it's an interesting exercise to try and take an objective approach. If you don't like the Beatles, that's fine. I don't care for Dylan, to take another example, myself. But viewed in their historical context, I can recognize and accept how groundbreakingly important they were.

To take an example from another artistic medium, it seems to be generally accepted that the greatest American film ever made was Citizen Kane. It shows up repeatedly in different critical assessements (like the American Film Institute's, for example) as #1. When I watch it, if I look at it objectively in its historical context, then I can agree: it probably is the greatest film ever made...a quantum leap in filmmaking techniques. But if I just look at as a film, on a subjective basis...well, yeah--I like it, but it will never be my favorite film of all time.

As another example, we look at the paintings from the Impressionist period today and generally think they're pretty, gentle, fairly harmless paintings of Parisian street scenes, the French countryside, lilyponds, etc. But at the time they were working, the Impressionists were considered absolute renegades who were trashing what was then accepted as art.

So, as I say, subjectively, I agree with you 100%: you tell me I'm only allowed one CD on my desert island, and I'll tell you it's going to be Lightfoot (for god's sake, don't ask me to name which one--I got enough troubles!). http://www.corfid.com/ubb/smile.gifBut when you talk about great popular songwriters on an objective basis, then you have to start thinking about people like Dylan, Lennon/McCartney, Gershwin, Cole Porter, Joni Mitchell, Paul Simon, and many, many others. Of the six names I listed (pretty much at random), I like three of them and am so-so on the other three. But there's no denying their importance, nor that of many others.

Personally, I try to avoid comparing people--if I start comparing Lightfoot to, for example, James Taylor, well, I'm sure there are plenty of James Taylor fans willing to convince me that I'm wrong and they're right! But when it comes to subjectivity, there IS no right and wrong...just what works for each of us.

The latter section of your quote indicates to me you might want to do a little research into pop music of the late 50s/early 60s to better understand the Beatles in their historical context. There are number of good books out there on the subject.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I was in no way suggesting the Beatles, Dylan or anybody else is "better" than Lightfoot, and that you should be converted into thinking so. I have had people beat me over the head with Dylan for years: the assumption seems to be that if I like Lightfoot, I must like Dylan. And yet, he just doesn't DO anything for me. I mean, I like his Oh Mercy album, for example, but the cover versions I've heard of the songs on that album ("Ring Them Bells" by GL, and Baez for example, or Joan Osborne's "Man in the Long Black Coat") appeal to me more than Dylan's original recordings!). And yet, I have to admit his influence on nearly all the songwriters that have followed him is nearly incalculable: even Lightfoot acknowledges him as a formative influence.

On a slightly related note, I received the CDs of Shadows and Salute, and had Salute playing in the car so loud, I think the sun roof opened by itself. I wonder if this voids the warranty... http://www.corfid.com/ubb/smile.gif
Derek




[This message has been edited by telekidd (edited September 01, 2002).]

quote:Originally posted by TheWatchman:
Personally, I don't see how anybody can even attempt to say that the Beatles are a better band in any way shape or form. They just don't have what it takes to sustain. They got famous because they came to the US with a new style that was happening in England at the time. They were simple liasons, nothing more. If another band had come over first and been a hit, The Beatles would have not got off the ground. They lack any substance and true writing talent to make it in the US without the "new phenomina" stuff that made them famous.

[This message has been edited by TheWatchman (edited August 31, 2002).]

Watchman, I enjoy your posts immensely--they're always well-written, and always thought-provoking. However, in this instance, I respectfully suggest you're missing the point...at least of what I've written previously, anyway. When I wrote my response to the original post, I was trying to say that there are at least two ways (actually many more) of looking at a question. You're making subjective opinions, and that's fine. On a subjective basis, Gordon Lightfoot will always be my favorite songwriter too. What I was getting at is that it's an interesting exercise to try and take an objective approach. If you don't like the Beatles, that's fine. I don't care for Dylan, to take another example, myself. But viewed in their historical context, I can recognize and accept how groundbreakingly important they were.

To take an example from another artistic medium, it seems to be generally accepted that the greatest American film ever made was Citizen Kane. It shows up repeatedly in different critical assessements (like the American Film Institute's, for example) as #1. When I watch it, if I look at it objectively in its historical context, then I can agree: it probably is the greatest film ever made...a quantum leap in filmmaking techniques. But if I just look at as a film, on a subjective basis...well, yeah--I like it, but it will never be my favorite film of all time.

As another example, we look at the paintings from the Impressionist period today and generally think they're pretty, gentle, fairly harmless paintings of Parisian street scenes, the French countryside, lilyponds, etc. But at the time they were working, the Impressionists were considered absolute renegades who were trashing what was then accepted as art.

So, as I say, subjectively, I agree with you 100%: you tell me I'm only allowed one CD on my desert island, and I'll tell you it's going to be Lightfoot (for god's sake, don't ask me to name which one--I got enough troubles!). http://www.corfid.com/ubb/smile.gifBut when you talk about great popular songwriters on an objective basis, then you have to start thinking about people like Dylan, Lennon/McCartney, Gershwin, Cole Porter, Joni Mitchell, Paul Simon, and many, many others. Of the six names I listed (pretty much at random), I like three of them and am so-so on the other three. But there's no denying their importance, nor that of many others.

Personally, I try to avoid comparing people--if I start comparing Lightfoot to, for example, James Taylor, well, I'm sure there are plenty of James Taylor fans willing to convince me that I'm wrong and they're right! But when it comes to subjectivity, there IS no right and wrong...just what works for each of us.

The latter section of your quote indicates to me you might want to do a little research into pop music of the late 50s/early 60s to better understand the Beatles in their historical context. There are number of good books out there on the subject.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I was in no way suggesting the Beatles, Dylan or anybody else is "better" than Lightfoot, and that you should be converted into thinking so. I have had people beat me over the head with Dylan for years: the assumption seems to be that if I like Lightfoot, I must like Dylan. And yet, he just doesn't DO anything for me. I mean, I like his Oh Mercy album, for example, but the cover versions I've heard of the songs on that album ("Ring Them Bells" by GL, and Baez for example, or Joan Osborne's "Man in the Long Black Coat") appeal to me more than Dylan's original recordings!). And yet, I have to admit his influence on nearly all the songwriters that have followed him is nearly incalculable: even Lightfoot acknowledges him as a formative influence.

On a slightly related note, I received the CDs of Shadows and Salute, and had Salute playing in the car so loud, I think the sun roof opened by itself. I wonder if this voids the warranty... http://www.corfid.com/ubb/smile.gif
Derek




[This message has been edited by telekidd (edited September 01, 2002).]

Watchman,
Your opinion that the Beatles "lack any substance and true writing talent" is painful. I'm tempted to list the many tunes which clearly make Lightfoot the greatest writer ever (songs about go-go girls, trout, moss, Sea World, etc), but the following lyrics should convince any doubter that Lightfoot has no equal: "I'd do anything for you, You'd do anything for me, We'd do anything for love." Simply stunning. (I know the response to this post: the Beatles wrote about piggies, raccoons, walruses and octopuses! For whatever it's worth, I've sold off all of my Beatles discs, but to this day retain all of my Lightfoot, whose music I adore, for the most part. The Beatles just got too wacko with the drugs, egos and wayward spiritual quests...)

Watchman,
Your opinion that the Beatles "lack any substance and true writing talent" is painful. I'm tempted to list the many tunes which clearly make Lightfoot the greatest writer ever (songs about go-go girls, trout, moss, Sea World, etc), but the following lyrics should convince any doubter that Lightfoot has no equal: "I'd do anything for you, You'd do anything for me, We'd do anything for love." Simply stunning. (I know the response to this post: the Beatles wrote about piggies, raccoons, walruses and octopuses! For whatever it's worth, I've sold off all of my Beatles discs, but to this day retain all of my Lightfoot, whose music I adore, for the most part. The Beatles just got too wacko with the drugs, egos and wayward spiritual quests...)

I went to high school in the 80s, do not own a single beatles cd, but I can hum/sing along to all but two of the songs listed by 2M2L. The beatles get/got so much airplay, I think it would be hard not to. I love music in general, and I do think that GL is the best, but I enjoy other music as well. Of course this is just my opinion. However, I'm sure there are the appropriate websites for those who want to sing the praises of the beatles/lennon.

I went to high school in the 80s, do not own a single beatles cd, but I can hum/sing along to all but two of the songs listed by 2M2L. The beatles get/got so much airplay, I think it would be hard not to. I love music in general, and I do think that GL is the best, but I enjoy other music as well. Of course this is just my opinion. However, I'm sure there are the appropriate websites for those who want to sing the praises of the beatles/lennon.

I went to high school in the 80s, do not own a single beatles cd, but I can hum/sing along to all but two of the songs listed by 2M2L. The beatles get/got so much airplay, I think it would be hard not to. I love music in general, and I do think that GL is the best, but I enjoy other music as well. Of course this is just my opinion. However, I'm sure there are the appropriate websites for those who want to sing the praises of the beatles/lennon.

I went to high school in the 80s, do not own a single beatles cd, but I can hum/sing along to all but two of the songs listed by 2M2L. The beatles get/got so much airplay, I think it would be hard not to. I love music in general, and I do think that GL is the best, but I enjoy other music as well. Of course this is just my opinion. However, I'm sure there are the appropriate websites for those who want to sing the praises of the beatles/lennon.

quote:Originally posted by lavender:
I went to high school in the 80s, do not own a single beatles cd, but I can hum/sing along to all but two of the songs listed by 2M2L. The beatles get/got so much airplay, I think it would be hard not to. I love music in general, and I do think that GL is the best, but I enjoy other music as well. Of course this is just my opinion. However, I'm sure there are the appropriate websites for those who want to sing the praises of the beatles/lennon.

Lavender, I'm sure there are other websites to discuss the Beatles and I respect, but don't agree with your opinion that this isn't one of them. We can all go on and on about how Lightfoot is the "greatest" singer/songwriter/etc. If we didn't feel that way we wouldn't keep coming back to huddle around this cyber-water cooler. But sometimes "Gord is great" evolves into other topics that enhance our opinion of Lightfoot - or sometimes explains it - and there are times when this includes, heaven forbid, our appreciation (or lack there of) of other artists. After all you can only read what you already know so many times before it loses something. It's more fun to read things that are thought provoking, that generate discussion and the sharing of differing opinions. The circle is small - it always comes back to the fact that we all appreciate the music and talents of Gordon Lightfoot (albeit to differing degrees)

The wonderful thing about this message board is that if you're not in tune with a particular thread, you can start another one. With the diverse knowledge and ideas of the folks that hang out here, there is always participation in just about every conceivable topic presented and there is usually more than one going on - something for everyone, so to speak.

I think the best all round writers are GL and Willie Nelson

I think the best all round writers are GL and Willie Nelson