Customer Discussions > Music forum

Elvis Presley


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2012 1:36:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 7, 2012 3:05:24 AM PDT
Hinch says:
zlh67

There's also a big difference in disliking a certain artist or music, and bashing an artist into the ground.

There are quite a few artists I don't care for, but I just say I don't care for their music and leave it at that. I don't make personal attacks against the artist.

"Hate" is a very strong word. With statements like "The more I listen to John Lennon the more I hate him" and some of the others things that were said I can't help but think it's more than just his music he doesn't like.

I know quite a few people who don't like The Beatles or John Lennon, and it doesnt make me think there must be political or other reasons they dislike their music. No artist is liked by everyone and no one likes everything.

With some people it's not enough to just dislike a certain music.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2012 2:49:48 AM PDT
Hey! I like William Hung! He's the most talented act that's ever come out of AMERICAN IDOL! A gorgeous voice that rivals that of David Hasselhoff, Telly Savalas, or John Travolta! No other AI alumni even comes close to Hung's ability. (seriously, I'm saying this straight.)

Posted on Aug 7, 2012 5:47:16 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 7, 2012 6:25:08 AM PDT
D. Mok says:
> D Mok seems to find any excuse to take a thread on to John Lennon and then hammer him like he's William Hung or something.

Wrong. William Hung had comedic value. John Lennon did not.

William Hung didn't leech his success off a much more talented, genius-level partner, and then attack that partner once they broke up. John Lennon did.

William Hung didn't say he was bigger than Jesus. John Lennon did.

William Hung didn't invite a tuneless, clueless, tone-deaf, arrogant female singer to ruin every single performance. If you look at Yoko Ono during "Memphis, Tennessee", you'll see that she wasn't even waiting for a right spot for her "parts". She picked up the microphone and was itching to do something, never mind that Chuck Berry was still singing the crucial chorus to the song and that her screeching would just cover him up. She stopped banging her drum and then picked it back up mid-verse -- which means either her drumming was irrelevant (couldn't be heard anyway), or she didn't care that she was dropping and picking up the part when it wasn't right for the arrangement. That is a sign of a hack who isn't trying to make the band sound good, but is trying to show off and get attention at the expense of everybody else. Yet John Lennon seems enamoured with every "note" she screams and plays and lets it go, just because he's sleeping with her.

> But please detail it a bit more than "boring".

I've given far more details than I can count. You just don't want to hear or believe it. Not that I care.

Bad lyrics that could've been written by a 14-year-old. Monotone singing. Flat rhythms. Arrangements that go nowhere. Songs without build, structure, dynamics, or arrangements. Backwards songwriting that apes '50s rock and roll but doesn't improve on it, and ends up a pale imitation of Buddy Holly, Leiber/Stoller and Little Richard. A guy who writes "Beautiful Boy (Darling Boy)" and "My Mummy's Dead" has the gall to accuse Paul McCartney of being saccharine? Rancid arrogance. And you actually accuse Bono (who engages in hands-on charity work, much of which isn't "sexy" at all) in the face of John Lennon's overwhelming narcissism?

When Bono wrote songs about his mother's death ("I Will Follow", "Tomorrow"), they are rich in imagery, put you into the real location, and don't tell you how to interpret them -- so that a listener can adopt the songs to relate to his/her own life freely. Like T.S. Eliot or John Keats, Bono painted pictures and evoked the real experience, rather than telling you exactly what happens: "There's somebody knocking at the door/There's a black car parked at the side of the road/Don't go to the door, don't go to the door". It could've been about an old man waiting for death; it could be the dead mother's spirit in the house, unseen by her child. That's good writing, carrying multiple meanings.

When John Lennon wrote songs about his mother's death, they basically say, "My mummy's dead and I'm sad, sad, sad". You hear it once and you get 100 per cent of the meaning. (Yeah, like there's going to be a different reaction to your mother's death?) This is lowest-common-denominator writing worthy of a 15-year-old Jewel Kilcher, the kind of lyric that takes two minutes to write (and I'd know -- I'm a songwriter). Like soap operas, it's dumbed-down "art" designed for consumption by people who couldn't be bothered to work harder at something richer. It's the "work" of a hack writer.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2012 7:55:23 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 7, 2012 7:58:59 AM PDT
dallas says:
Hinch
Some people just to hate an artist they must not have any life to speak of .If I dislike an artist I just don't listen to them and I move on to an artist I like no big deal.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2012 7:55:29 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 7, 2012 9:45:12 AM PDT
zlh67 says:
Ha, ok, so William Hung is BETTER than John Lennon. Thanks for clarifying.

Oh, and Lennon "leeched" his success off of McCartney? Get real, dude. Lennon wrote and sang plenty of Beatles classics and whether you happen to like the song or not, "Imagine" stands as great of an accomplishment as anything he did in the Beatles, but, I guess people only like that because it came from that guy that used to play with Paul McCartney, right? Tell ya what: ask PAUL if he feels Lennon was merely riding on his coat-tails and watch him laugh you out of the room.

All you do with your rants is confirm that there's clearly something personal with Lennon and that's fine, but let's call it what it is. Not everything he did was worthy of praise, but if half of what he did was as flat out devoid of talent as you say, I don't think his work would connect with as many people as it did (and continues to do). And I'm not talking about mindless pop fans who don't know any better, but many of rock and roll's greatest artists clearly see something in his work (and him) that you don't. You're not a fan though, so no big whoop, but it's just funny how worked up you get about the guy, that's all.

And I guess part of your hatred seems to stem from your claim that Lennon said he was bigger than Jesus, but you might better check your facts. What he said was "We're (the Beatles) more popular than Jesus right now," and if your big brain understands and cares to look at context, you'd see the difference. He never said that he as an individual or the Beatles as a band were better than Jesus or Buddah or anything else, or that they SHOULD be bigger than Jesus, just that at that time, the kids seemed to be responding more to Beatles music than they did to organized religion. But if as a Christian, you disagree with that and want to HATE John Lennon for it... well, hopefully you'll understand if I snicker just a little bit at the irony just oozing from that.

Regarding Lennon's song "Mother" and "My Mummy's Dead", there's more than one way to skin a cat. While waxing poetic in very general terms about loss as a concept and coming up with fancy metaphors and great rhymes to communicate one's feelings about death and loss is certainly a valid (and even traditional) way of approaching it, just coming out and saying it completely direct is another approach. Some might even call it "brave" or "ballsy". You don't appreciate it and that's great, but to say it's wrong or the work of a hack shows your lack of appreciation for different writing styles. As said before, you have your rule book and how things ought to be done, on what's "good", "correct" and if that's what you want to buy and like, I say that's just TERRIFIC. But to rant about how bad anyone who does it differently shows the difference between an artist like Lennon and someone such as yourself. He went outside the lines and you not only don't get it, you hate him for it. Lol.

Regarding Yoko, I have no defense of Lennon. ;-)

Posted on Aug 7, 2012 8:33:39 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 7, 2012 8:42:45 AM PDT
D. Mok says:
> just that at that time, the kids seemed to be responding more to Beatles music than they did to organized religion.

What a crock of ****.
Do you see pregnant mothers strapping on a bomb for The Beatles? They do for religion.
Do you see people abstaining from sex for life, out of devotion to The Beatles? They do for religion.
Do you see nations starting wars for The Beatles? They do for religion.
Do you see people fighting for The Beatles to be taught to their children in school? They do for religion.

Just the fact that John Lennon thought The Beatles were even close to the level of a religion, in terms of social significance, only showed how arrogant and deluded he was -- as well as his legion of attempted apologists.

> to say it's wrong or the work of a hack shows your lack of appreciation for different writing styles.

Yeah, yeah, typical. Trying to excuse bad art by claiming it's "different". A guitar player playing one open E note for 120 minutes straight isn't just "different". He's just bad. And even more so if he doesn't realize how bad he is. "Open-mindedness" doesn't mean blindly liking everything, like sheep. "Open-mindedness" means giving it a chance. And I've given John Lennon so many chances, it makes me sick how many hours of my life I've wasted trying to find something worthy in the insufferable noises he made.

> If I dislike an artist I just don't listen to them and I move on to an artist I like no big deal.

That's your right. But to some of us, music matters. A simple "I hate" isn't enough. In the same way, a simple "I love" isn't enough, either. I figure out the whys.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2012 9:08:41 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 7, 2012 9:21:44 AM PDT
zlh67 says:
Dmok, Lennon was referring to KIDS specifically in England and at the time of the comment, I would wager that there were more kids buying Beatles records and chasing them around Liverpool than there were lining up to get in church. Again, context is a wonderful thing.

Re, me "trying to excuse bad art by claiming it's "different"", I would say you are labeling art as "bad" because it's different. You've proven over an' over that you have your preconceived notions of what "good" should be, and anything outside the lines is automatically "bad". It's not how DMok likes it or would do it, so it MUST be "bad", right?

Wrong.

And you can explain till you're blue in the face why you think it's "bad", but that by no means proves that it is (no more than me saying why I like it proves that it's "good").

If you wanna hate Lennon, that's your right, but at least get your facts straight on why you hate him and don't think for a second that just because you hate his music means that it's devoid of any positives for those that appreciate it.

Posted on Aug 7, 2012 9:18:30 AM PDT
D. Mok says:
> Lennon was referring to KIDS specifically in England and at the time of the comment

Still struggling to prove Lennon was right? There are 2.3 billion Christians on the planet. The Beatles have sold *maybe* 1 billion records, and that's spread out over 40 years, and that also counts one person who bought 20 copies of Beatles records, which means there aren't possibly one billion Beatles fans on the planet. How many of those brainwashed Beatlemania converts from 1966 still had that level of fervour, say, 10 years after? Far fewer than people who subscribe to a religion for life.

This was a lost argument the minute John Lennon opened his big mouth. Live with it.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2012 9:22:20 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 7, 2012 9:23:59 AM PDT
Hey says:
This is wrong on so many levels. So very many. If you honestly think that William Hung is better than John Lennon, you really have to re-examine what you're saying.

Yoko Ono is not John Lennon and she is completely independent from the topic at hand. Whatever your opinion of her is, it still has nothing to do with the songwriting on John's Plastic Ono Band album. It's simply an Ad Hominem attack and is not valid as an argument. Then you use "My Mummy's Dead" as an argument against the album as well? That song is 49 seconds long and not a good representative of his work. "Beautiful Boy (Darling Boy)" is another song that was written for his then INFANT SON. Notice how the two songs you picked are not ones that often sited as his best work? That's called Cherry Picking.

I like Paul McCartney but yes, a lot of his work is very saccharine. "Honey Pie" from The White Album? I love the song but it's a smaltzy throwback to Vaudevillian days and rooted deep in a nostalgia for the past that you accuse Lennon of having. Yes, Lennon was an arrogant jerk. He'd also be the first person to tell you that, as he had in multiple interviews. Bono has the overabundance of arrogance but he thinks he's humble. That is the difference there as well. I'd rather talk to the jerk who knows he's the jerk than the jerk who thinks he's great.

Dislike Lennon all you want, but your arguments do not hold water.

EDIT: Also, I'm done with this argument. It's not worth the time or effort.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2012 9:28:51 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 7, 2012 9:29:55 AM PDT
Severin says:
As for the Beatles being "more popular than Jesus right now" look at it from Lennon's point of view. Girls were screaming their heads off at concerts, wetting themselves and fainting. Were they doing that in church? I don't think so. Also people in wheelchairs were brought to their concerts, Lennon hated it because he thought people expected them to heal the lame. The height of Beatlemania was unreal.

As for Lennon riding McCartney's coattails that's nonsense. Lennon wrote the majority of their early hits and the more interesting tracks after they stopped touring. McCartney's tracks on Sgt. Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour are dull whereas Lennon's are unique, more innovative and stand up far better to repeated listening. McCartney would spends hours and hours recording his tracks, layers of piano, etc. while Lennon thought it more important to nail the heart of the song. True McCartney is the better musician and producer but he isn't as expressive and he rarely writes from the heart. He crafts little snapshots of make-believe people, I rank him 3rd in the Beatles.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2012 9:35:27 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 7, 2012 9:42:36 AM PDT
zlh67 says:
Oh, brother. Man, you're down in the weeds now. I never said Lennon was CORRECT, I just clarified the statement itself based on adding a little context. You and so many other bright people -- like the KKK -- want to take one piece of an out of context statement as Lennon standing on top of the mountain and declaring, "I *AM* God!" or "The Beatles are better than Jesus!" when it was nothing of the sort.

Even now, you're comparing his statment, that the Beatles meant more to KIDS in ENGLAND at that moment, to him saying that there are more people around the entire world TODAY that like the Beatles more than they do Christianity. It's ludicrous to think that he said such a thing and if you ever bothered to look into the matter at all, you'd see that.

http://beatlesnumber9.com/biggerjesus.html

I thought you were smarter than that, but I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong.

I could care less if Lennon was CORRECT in what he said (and for the record, I don't believe he was, because nearly 50 years later, Christianity is still alive and well, although in general I share his disdain for Christianity and organized religion). However, let's at least get the statement itself quoted accurately and with a little context instead of leaping into a frenzy over what you think he might have meant based on one line from an in-depth conversation.

** And with that, I'll take a cue from Eric Strande and make my exit here. This conversation is truly not worth the time or effort.

Posted on Aug 7, 2012 9:46:32 AM PDT
D. Mok says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Aug 7, 2012 3:40:39 PM PDT
Music Luver says:
He hates Lennon because his hero Boner doesn't get the same accolades.
Bono has done charity work. And he has no problem letting others know he did. So he raised a ton of money. Lennon gave of himself.
Lennon has done charitible things and Yoko still does in his name.
Plus you like to put something he said or did in one era and place it in the context of another.

The whole Jesus thing was dispelled and worked out decades ago.
Most people don't even give it a second thought anymore.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2012 3:58:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 7, 2012 4:01:21 PM PDT
DKPete says:
zlh67...I'm not going to comment on anything D.Mok had been saying about Lennon because nothing is going to turn his thoughts around in the least. This man's mind is as made up as it gets.

That said, great post on your part..and the final sentence is hysterical!! The ONLY defense I have for Lennon concerning Yoko is that, overall, John was a pretty unhappy guy-and some of the time, i question whether he even knew, outright, what he was so miserable about. He grew up, for the most part, without a physically present dad and only had a brief relatiosnhip with his mother.

I get all that as much as one can get it without having experienced it firsthand. I've had friends who have had, at best, questionable relationships with their parents and ended up being raised by ONE Gandparent or an Uncle; both of these guys turned out fine and basically satisfied with their lives.

It may be remotely possible that much of the emptiness John felt as he got older was based on inherent insecurities which he, himself, may not even have even been aware of.

..and now we come to Yoko. Somehow, someway, whatever uniqueness she possesed filled Lennon's sense of emptiness and insecurity. As it's often been suggested, she filled the role of mother and lover for him.

In this sense, I think he can be forgiven for falling for her as rock hard as he did. It can happen to anybody for any multitude of reasons. This, however, doessn't make her any more likeable; Even though i fully appreciate her efforts in keeping John's material intact and re-issuing it in superb form (I'm referring to the Peter Cobbin remixes), I tend to question her motives-especially based on some the things I've read repeatedly concerning her artistic AND personal motives during the time of the "big comeback" in 1980.

I won't, however, question John's affinity for her recorded work anymore than I will question D.Mok's hatred for John's. Lennon's gravitation to her "work" was as much an integration of his blind love for HER as anything else. Again...something which can happen to anybody...
....so, D.Mok, while you have every right to hate Lennon, his music and whatever else, you really don't have the same right to put down HIS love for Yoko's stuff-regardless of what you may think of it (which is also your clear, entitled choice).

Posted on Aug 7, 2012 4:00:56 PM PDT
D. Mok says:
> you really don't have the same right to put down HIS love for Yoko's stuff-

Watch me.
Besides, you have every right to disagree if you love Yoko Ono's noise so much. So go listen to it. Nobody's stopping you.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2012 4:06:39 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 7, 2012 4:07:19 PM PDT
DKPete says:
Sorry, disagree. What you're basically saying is that it's okay to put someone down for what they like just because you, yourself, don't like it. Am I reading you correctly? Or is it, like the other guys are saying, some kind of a personal vendetta going on here on your part aginst Lennon? And, if THAT's the case, I'd love to hear what that is-and i will sincerely do so open mindedly and without responding aggressively for the sake of it.

But any way you cut it, to put someone down for whatever "art" THEY are drawn to (for WHATEVER reason) is plainly wrong.

Posted on Aug 7, 2012 4:18:36 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 7, 2012 5:35:28 PM PDT
D. Mok says:
> But any way you cut it, to put someone down for whatever "art" THEY are drawn to (for WHATEVER reason) is plainly wrong.

Not if that "art" is infringing on somebody else. Yoko Ono ruined Chuck Berry's performance for her own selfish reasons. And if somebody drove by your house at 4AM blasting gangsta rap or death metal at top volume, he deserves to be attacked. It's not about taste.

A baby babbles non-stop on a plane. To the mother, it's adorable. To the strangers on the plane who are trying to sleep, it's noise. Doesn't mean the mother is wrong for considering it adorable. But if the mother tries to convince everybody they should love the noise, you can bet they'll react negatively towards her. It's not within her right to tell the other people to like it. And the others have a perfect right to be angry and to criticize.

Posted on Aug 7, 2012 4:56:52 PM PDT
doodah man says:
Seems any discussion about Elvis eventually comes down to William Hu...,, umm, I mean, the Beatles.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2012 5:05:32 PM PDT
Severin says:
That's because they're still the only group bigger than Jesus. Oops.

Posted on Aug 7, 2012 5:41:02 PM PDT
Music Luver says:
Lennon is a demi God we all know that. ;-) Just ask Elvis Fan.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2012 6:05:29 PM PDT
Hinch says:
Another good post. I especially like 'if as a Christian you disagree....and want to hate...'

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2012 6:21:23 PM PDT
Hinch says:
Music Luver....re: the last 2 lines in you post. I believe I remember not long after Lennon's comments, at least one of the top Cardinals in the Catholic Church defended Lennon by saying his Jesus comments were correct.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2012 6:24:26 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 7, 2012 6:25:24 PM PDT
Elvis Presley is currently the bassist/vocalist for
the Twin-Cities punk band Dillinger Four.

He has been credited as St. Patrick, #51, Lenny
Kravitz, and Perseus Hercules on their releases in
order to avoid recognition.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2012 6:47:06 PM PDT
DKPete says:
The people on the plane have no choice but to deal with it. Lousy comparison. Had Check Berry wanted to, he could have cut the performance right then and there and walk off the stage-the man was NEVER known to pull his punches. On the other hand, if his choice to continue his performance was out of courtesy to Lennon, then that's fine too and he's to be admired for that.

I, too, feel that Yoko's screeching (during a sraright-ahead song performance) is a nuisance; she did the same thing during the Plastic Ono Band's performance of Cold Turkey at the Live Peace in Toronto show (it ruined, further, what was already a pretty shoddy performance, to be honest). But this isn't the point. Lennon had every right to support her for whatever reasons he had-whoever didn't like it didn't have to perform with him (and her). And as far as you not liking it, unlike the people on the plane, all you had to do is turn off your TV set or stereo and walk away from it.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2012 8:27:02 PM PDT
Music Luver says:
Hinch, I would not doubt that.
I mean think back...what was on our minds more back then?

Religious ed.? Or Beatles '65?

I know my mom wasn't strapping on a bomb for them.. LOL! But she did get me out of bed in Feb '64 so I could see them on Sullivan. She said, "this is something you have to see".

This Chuck Berry thing..wasn't that the Mike Douglas show?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Music forum
Participants:  84
Total posts:  2079
Initial post:  Aug 4, 2012
Latest post:  Feb 3, 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions