I was going to respond to all this but I decided to say just one thing. Adding "IMO" and the like IS tedious. If anyone thinks I'm trying to pass my opinions off as facts, then they're wrong.
But it's all right to be forceful ... so long as you can back it up.
Quoted from Frightwolf, posted August 7, 2004, 3:52pm at here
Are you sure you don't mean "How good are the songs lyrically?" Because that's the idea everyone debating with you is getting. As songs, you have to consider all the elements that helped construct the songs with the musical effects, style of singing, how it sounds, and lyrics added together. It's nice to have great lyrics (For No One and Eleanor Rigby come to mind), but -- they do not make the song!
No - a song is its lyrics + tune. All the rest you're talking about (musical effects, style of singing etc) are an artist's interpretation of the song. On Pepper, the musical effects etc are very strong and sometimes hide a song's real character.
And yes - that's my opinion. It's also an opinion shared by many Beatle fans. Not that that makes me correct: but it certainly shows that it's not an eccentric opinion.
Quoted from Maria, posted August 7, 2004, 9:41pm at here
No - a song is its lyrics + tune. All the rest you're talking about (musical effects, style of singing etc) are an artist's interpretation of the song. On Pepper, the musical effects etc are very strong and sometimes hide a song's real character.
And yes - that's my opinion. It's also an opinion shared by many Beatle fans. Not that that makes me correct: but it certainly shows that it's not an eccentric opinion.
An artist's interpretation of the song... it's an artist's right to interpret their song in their own way, isn't it? Adding musical effects is a way to provide their songs with character. Your argument isn't making much sense -- a song is EVERYTHING that composes it. Why on Earth would it be just lyrics + tune?
Quoted from Maria, posted August 7, 2004, 9:35pm at here
I was going to respond to all this but I decided to say just one thing. Adding "IMO" and the like IS tedious. If anyone thinks I'm trying to pass my opinions off as facts, then they're wrong.
I don't see what's so tedious about using up a second of my life spelling out IMO.
And by all means respond to the arrogance part and not just the being forceful part. I can see you conveniently skipped it like you did the past 1258190258109 points people have made to you.
Quoted from Frightwolf, posted August 8, 2004, 4:52am at here
An artist's interpretation of the song... it's an artist's right to interpret their song in their own way, isn't it? Adding musical effects is a way to provide their songs with character. Your argument isn't making much sense -- a song is EVERYTHING that composes it. Why on Earth would it be just lyrics + tune?
Let's see ... I see the song as different from its interpretation (the writer's or anyone's). So do you from your statement "it's an artist's right to interpret their song in their own way".
So you don't believe a song is EVERYTHING that comprises it at all! My argument makes sense all right: you can't see it, is all!
Quoted from Frightwolf, posted August 8, 2004, 4:53am at here
I don't see what's so tedious about using up a second of my life spelling out IMO.
And by all means respond to the arrogance part and not just the being forceful part. I can see you conveniently skipped it like you did the past 1258190258109 points people have made to you.
Are you trying to be foolish? One doesn't type IMO every time, because most people already KNOW it's opinion!! And if you look carefully, most people don't bother with imo very much (you yourself don't).
The second part is very interesting coming from someone who was threatened with expulsion from this board because of his attitude!! Some of us have noticed the good-boy act, and find it ... unconvincing and immature!
Quoted from Maria, posted August 8, 2004, 5:13am at here
Let's see ... I see the song as different from its interpretation (the writer's or anyone's). So do you from your statement "it's an artist's right to interpret their song in their own way".
So you don't believe a song is EVERYTHING that comprises it at all! My argument makes sense all right: you can't see it, is all!
...I'd like to speak on behalf of all the people who possibly read this -- wtf are you talking about? Do you, like, make stuff up on the go or churn it out into a toilet?
I don't see how this equation...
"An artist has the right to interpret their song in their own way = Songs are lyrics + tunes"
...makes any sense at all. Maybe you can enlighten all the people you have just alienated/confused.
Quoted from Maria, posted August 8, 2004, 5:17am at here
Are you trying to be foolish? One doesn't type IMO every time, because most people already KNOW it's opinion!! And if you look carefully, most people don't bother with imo very much (you yourself don't).
The second part is very interesting coming from someone who was threatened with expulsion from this board because of his attitude!! Some of us have noticed the good-boy act, and find it ... unconvincing and immature!
You have just proved my point -- you, once again, have avoided the arrogance remark.
And if cussing = arrogance, than Kerry is a Republican, Michael Jordan is a woman, Earth is actually a bowl of cereal, the things that fly in the air during the day are penguins, and toys come to life like in Toy Story.
Nobody else has been "fooled" or "unconvinced." I think everyone is smart enough to see a PREVIOUS statement I made on this thread which stated that YOU know how to get under people's skin. Right now I'm perfectly fine. Your logic is that I cuss 24/7. Your logic is flawed. VERY flawed.
Since you keep digging your own grave, Maria, I'll just enlighten everyone so no one forgets:
You have yet to respond to my arrogance remark or my reply to your opinion on all the Beatles song.
You keep running away and trying to turn this into a conversation about me cussing, and you're failing miserably. People are seeing through your bull and seeing how you have way too much bite and are very insulting (Janice, Indica, and even Rowdy in that Lennon thread have all seen it). You can't fool anyone -- respond to the points and maybe I'll stop being aggressive. Until then, you're doing a horrible job debating and a piss-poor job convincing anyone of anything on this thread.
Quoted from Maria, posted August 8, 2004, 5:35am at here
All the signs are there that you are losing your temper.
Look Frighty Bob, some concepts are tough, I know. I won't try anymore, as you are getting frustrated and descending to mere abuse.
It is time to remind everyone again:
You have yet to respond to anything about ANYTHING. You have avoided remarks about you being insulting and degrading, and you haven't done a good job convincing anyone that Paul's songs are filler. If anything, you've only showed people that you are extremely biased toward John.
You are trying to avoid everyone's points against you, and you, once again, are failing. Respond to my points and maybe I'll be less aggressive -- you know too little about me to say that I'm losing my temper. The cussing is still at a bare minimal, and I think you're making everyone here a bit tense.
This is so no one forgets what this debate is about. This is one of my previous replies:
"...I'd like to speak on behalf of all the people who possibly read this -- wtf are you talking about? Do you, like, make stuff up on the go or churn it out into a toilet?
I don't see how this equation...
"An artist has the right to interpret their song in their own way = Songs are lyrics + tunes"
...makes any sense at all. Maybe you can enlighten all the people you have just alienated/confused."
I also find it VERY ironic that Maria talks about abuse when she's telling EVERYONE that is disagreeing with her that they do not know what Beatles music is about, and that she'll use less complex sentences with me.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Indica
Male
Logged
