plaid What would you like to hear a Plaid remix of..

[magdog]

errr, don't want to get into that debate.. it's really deep and i just can't be arsed :)

 

hehe, brit pop... it's all shite mate :)

 

ok, no worries mate. it's a deep load of bullshit, tho, imo. :)

 

btw, what about Brit Synth Pop? that shite too, magdog?

Cheers mate, i don't think this is the right place to debate such a subject.. i have read and heard some interviews with artists from some of those 60's bands.. quite shocking.

 

Nahh, i still enjoy listening to The Human League, Vince Clarke, Gary Numan, New Order, Soft Cell and alike :)

[Guest sirch]

errr, don't want to get into that debate.. it's really deep and i just can't be arsed :)

 

hehe, brit pop... it's all shite mate :)

 

ok, no worries mate. it's a deep load of bullshit, tho, imo. :)

 

btw, what about Brit Synth Pop? that shite too, magdog?

Cheers mate, i don't think this is the right place to debate such a subject.. i have read and heard some interviews with artists from some of those 60's bands.. quite shocking.

 

Nahh, i still enjoy listening to The Human League, Vince Clarke, Gary Numan, New Order, Soft Cell and alike :)

 

yeah, maybe in the general discussion area would be better. or hit me up with some linkage via PM! :)

 

so, it's just all the british guitar pased pop bands that are shite, lol, yeah?

i would sorta of half agree with that actually :)

[magdog]

errr, don't want to get into that debate.. it's really deep and i just can't be arsed :)

 

hehe, brit pop... it's all shite mate :)

 

ok, no worries mate. it's a deep load of bullshit, tho, imo. :)

 

btw, what about Brit Synth Pop? that shite too, magdog?

Cheers mate, i don't think this is the right place to debate such a subject.. i have read and heard some interviews with artists from some of those 60's bands.. quite shocking.

 

Nahh, i still enjoy listening to The Human League, Vince Clarke, Gary Numan, New Order, Soft Cell and alike :)

 

yeah, maybe in the general discussion area would be better. or hit me up with some linkage via PM! :)

 

so, it's just all the british guitar pased pop bands that are shite, lol, yeah?

i would sorta of half agree with that actually :)

Cool... i'll try and get back to you a.s.a.p. with some info!

 

Yes mate, you know, all that 60's and on ward guitar based rubbish.. beatles, stones, gerry and the pacemakers. This world would be a much better place without it imo. It's simply prototype manufactured music for the masses which continues to this present day. The band members really annoy me too.. bunch of t***s the lot of em :)

[Guest sirch]

This world would be a much better place without it imo. It's simply prototype manufactured music for the masses which continues to this present day.

 

can't really agree with you there dude. The Beatles did some brilliant, original and innovative stuff from '66 onwards!

some of it might have been distilled down a bit into more of a 'pop' format than other bands of the 60's,

but i don't think that period of their career was completely manufactured music for the masses!!

the fact that guitar based 4 piece bands still rule a lot of the mainstream music world to this day, 40 years later, is what is really sad, imo,

not what The Beatles were doing in the late 60's! you can't really blame them for that! they didn't have a whole bunch of Roland gear in those days lol. i think The Beatles are/were great. whether they were twats in their personal lives or not. :)

and i don't believe the whole false Paul conspiracy nonsense. that, like a lot of other shit, was dreamt up by people who'd taken too much LSD, imo.

[magdog]

Hmmm, i see were you're coming from mate, but, beatles (biggest band in the world) + emi (largest label in the world) = masses. Whether they dressed it as cool music or not.. The plan worked.

 

btw, just to let you know, i'm not only into electronic music. I've listened to classical music for many years and it's all i've been listening to for the greatest part of 2010.. those people need not the synth :)

 

hehe.. false paul :) accept it dude, real pauls brown bread.

[Guest sirch]

Hmmm, i see were you're coming from mate, but, beatles (biggest band in the world) + emi (largest label in the world) = masses. Whether they dressed it as cool music or not.. The plan worked.

 

what plan, tho? to sell records?

The Beatles were REAL artists, not like todays pop acts who can't write, play or sing a note!!

Beatles wrote, played, performed all their own material.

the whole "cool" thing i think lies with the label and promo and all that after the music's been made.

the bottom line is The Beatles were good artists, imo, and wrote some wicked tunes, popular and of the time or not. doesn't matter to me :)

you say you like The Human League, yeah? well how cheesy and poppy was "Don't You Want Me Baby?" ?? lol. that was a song of the times aswell.

but they also did some wicked off-the-wall experimental stuff too.

 

hehe.. false paul :) accept it dude, real pauls brown bread.

 

it's funny then how they managed to find another man who looked exactly the same, spoke, sang and sounded exactly the same, could write, play and perform songs exactly the same.. lol.. and who went on to write a load of other good songs and age to look exactly how you'd expect and think Paul would look, lol.. nah, i just don't buy it mate. whether emi has all that money or not. it's all a bit toooooooo 'Dave Ickey' to me :)

[Caretstik]

beatles (biggest band in the world) + emi (largest label in the world) = masses.

That doesn't automatically mean 'shit' or 'manufactured'.

[YEK]

madonna?

[Caretstik]

'Young Liars' (TV On The Radio). It could just work.

[magdog]

beatles (biggest band in the world) + emi (largest label in the world) = masses.

That doesn't automatically mean 'shit' or 'manufactured'.

beatles (biggest band in the world) + emi (largest label in the world) = masses.

 

does to me.

[magdog]

Hmmm, i see were you're coming from mate, but, beatles (biggest band in the world) + emi (largest label in the world) = masses. Whether they dressed it as cool music or not.. The plan worked.

 

what plan, tho? to sell records?

The Beatles were REAL artists, not like todays pop acts who can't write, play or sing a note!!

Beatles wrote, played, performed all their own material.

the whole "cool" thing i think lies with the label and promo and all that after the music's been made.

the bottom line is The Beatles were good artists, imo, and wrote some wicked tunes, popular and of the time or not. doesn't matter to me :)

you say you like The Human League, yeah? well how cheesy and poppy was "Don't You Want Me Baby?" ?? lol. that was a song of the times aswell.

but they also did some wicked off-the-wall experimental stuff too.

 

hehe.. false paul :) accept it dude, real pauls brown bread.

 

it's funny then how they managed to find another man who looked exactly the same, spoke, sang and sounded exactly the same, could write, play and perform songs exactly the same.. lol.. and who went on to write a load of other good songs and age to look exactly how you'd expect and think Paul would look, lol.. nah, i just don't buy it mate. whether emi has all that money or not. it's all a bit toooooooo 'Dave Ickey' to me :)

i knew this would happen.. me and my big mouth.

 

i simpley said i hate the beatles.. i really don't want to be dragged into a "who done it" string.

david (weird) icke.. oh dear, oh dear.

 

put it this way.. nahh... fuck it, i can't be arsed.

[magdog]

the beatles consided aleister crowley a hero.. enough said.

[magdog]

another thing.. you need to learn what the music business is all about.

[magdog]

umm... looks like that bullshit squeeky clean image of the beatles still works too.

[Guest sirch]

the beatles consided aleister crowley a hero.. enough said.

 

errmmm, so did The (early) Black Dog/ Plaid ?? no ? :)

[Guest sirch]

umm... looks like that bullshit squeeky clean image of the beatles still works too.

 

i think they only had that sort of image in their early career. it's preety obvious and well known that they all did a tonne of acid,

pills/speed (early days), and hash/weed.. etc. etc. etc. and it's a well known fact that John Lennon was a smack head towards the end of the 60's !! isn't it? or did i imagine things like 'Happiness is a Warm Gun', etc. lol, they were hardly "squeeky clean", mate.. not during the best parts of their career, 65-70, imo. fs they were all sneaking off for spliffs during the filming of 'Help'.. lol, and got stoned in Buckingham Palace.... or do you reckon that was all bullshit, part of the secret emi master plan, maybe?? ..to get everybody on drugs and buying pop music? (lol) :)

[Caretstik]

beatles (biggest band in the world) + emi (largest label in the world) = masses.

That doesn't automatically mean 'shit' or 'manufactured'.

beatles (biggest band in the world) + emi (largest label in the world) = masses.

 

does to me.

Why? Seems a bit of a sweeping generalisation to equate popularity with artifice. Sometimes independently produced and distributed music sells fuckloads as well.

[magdog]

the beatles consided aleister crowley a hero.. enough said.

 

errmmm, so did The (early) Black Dog/ Plaid ?? no ? :)

errrrr.. errrrrr. yeah.

 

shit

 

:)

[magdog]

umm... looks like that bullshit squeeky clean image of the beatles still works too.

 

i think they only had that sort of image in their early career. it's preety obvious and well known that they all did a tonne of acid,

pills/speed (early days), and hash/weed.. etc. etc. etc. and it's a well known fact that John Lennon was a smack head towards the end of the 60's !! isn't it? or did i imagine things like 'Happiness is a Warm Gun', etc. lol, they were hardly "squeeky clean", mate.. not during the best parts of their career, 65-70, imo. fs they were all sneaking off for spliffs during the filming of 'Help'.. lol, and got stoned in Buckingham Palace.... or do you reckon that was all bullshit, part of the secret emi master plan, maybe?? ..to get everybody on drugs and buying pop music? (lol) :)

I hear you mate.

 

Here's a crazy thought of my own. What if all these so called drug taking rock stars wasn't taking drugs at all.. ok, some, but not as much as was portrayed. I know (or have known) a lot of people that have taken lots of drugs for many years and they are either death (R.I.P.) or looking like 60 year olds. The rock stars of yesteryear are still busier than men half their age.. just seems weird to me mate. Among many, many other things that involve these people.

 

It's not an emi master plan :) they just play their role like the beatles.

 

Have to admit.. the world changed after the 60's and rock 'n' roll.

[magdog]

beatles (biggest band in the world) + emi (largest label in the world) = masses.

That doesn't automatically mean 'shit' or 'manufactured'.

beatles (biggest band in the world) + emi (largest label in the world) = masses.

 

does to me.

Why? Seems a bit of a sweeping generalisation to equate popularity with artifice. Sometimes independently produced and distributed music sells fuckloads as well.

My quote was.

 

"beatles (biggest band in the world) + emi (largest label in the world) = masses."

 

Thats not what i would call a sweeping generalisation mate.

 

"Sometimes independently produced and distributed music sells fuckloads as well."

 

yes, true. but thats not the manufactured music i'm taking about.

[Caretstik]

Sorry, I honestly can't see what you're trying to get at (and I'm not trying to flame you). So are you saying that you just think that The Beatles were manufactured or shit because they were popular? If not, then what's the relevance of their being on EMI? Sorry if I'm just coming across as dense.

[Guest sirch]

 

Here's a crazy thought of my own. What if all these so called drug taking rock stars wasn't taking drugs at all.. ok, some, but not as much as was portrayed. I know (or have known) a lot of people that have taken lots of drugs for many years and they are either death (R.I.P.) or looking like 60 year olds. The rock stars of yesteryear are still busier than men half their age.. just seems weird to me mate. Among many, many other things that involve these people.

 

i get what you're saying mate. but i don't think i agree. obviously if you hit the harder stuffs at a young age you're not gonna last very long.

but look at Keith Richards, and Mick Jagger, for example. they caned it HARD. so did Paul Macartney. not as hard as John or George, though. and there's loads of 'famous' people still around today who've been hard drinkers and drug abusers for most of their adult lives..

but anyway, it's an interesting theory. i've caned it fairly hard since my teens. nowhere near as much as a 60's Rock'n'Roll star, though! but, weed and hash, for example, is one drug that's waaaaaaaay stronger now than it was in the 60's.. as i'm sure you're aware.. and i still get asked for ID when i buy alcohol, lol, so... i don't think the theory is 100% correct. but then i've never done Heroin or Crack, or Meph, or anything proper proper hard. :)

 

Have to admit.. the world changed after the 60's and rock 'n' roll.

 

yeah, definitely. i don't think we'd of had any sort of electronic Rave-olution if the 60's hadn't happened.... and without drugs like Cannabis and E. :)

[Guest sirch]

meant "Meth". see that's how un-hardcore i am really, :)

[kaini]

oh look, it's yet another beatles argument, only this time it's in the plaid subforum.

[Guest sirch]

oh look, it's yet another beatles argument, only this time it's in the plaid subforum.

 

oh look there's yet another poinltess, useless, comment from kaini, that contributes nothing.

only this time it's in the Plaid subforum.

 

and it's hardly an "arguement". more of a discussion, really.