Micahrichardsatemybaby wrote:
1 - reply to my post above where you directly contradict yourself.
Quite simple. I was exaggerating for effect, and didn't expect someone to come along who thinks that you can argue about personal preferences in music as if there's some objective truth in it. I think the Beatles early stuff is shit in the context of best bands ever (though not biggest bands ever). It doesn't mean I think it's shit, just average (though obviously in reality some shit, some average and a few decent tracks). I also said they were overrated. Which could quite easily mean I think they're only the second best band of all time rather than the best.
Micahrichardsatemybaby wrote:
2 - kindly point out to me with quotes, or you can infer if you like, where I suggest they're the greatest ever. Or my favourite band.
I didn't say you did. I simply said you're arguing like a fanboy whose favourite band has been criticised. In other words, as if you can objectively prove that they're a great/shit/average band, and taking any criticism
waaay too seriously.
Micahrichardsatemybaby wrote:
3 - your viewpoint just smacks of ignorance. When did music have to be complex to make it influential, or make a band big? You're confusing the issue due to your dislike (may be a little strong) of the Beatles
See, now you seem to be mistaking my giving an opinion as a statement of fact. The music I happen to rate most highly is generally more complex than most of The Beatles stuff. That's the type of music I enjoy listening to when I specifically sit down just to listen to music. So I think it's better, obviously (not bigger).
If I was a troll, you'd be very easy to wind up.