cover me impressed

RDubbs says:

Okay, Dougie, You Asked for It!

Although I prefer The Rolling Stones to them, I do not recall ever trashing The Beatles. I did once write, in jest, that The Beatles lyrics were sophomoric and lacked substance (or something to that effect). You quickly responded with a spirited defense of the brilliance of The Beatles to which I replied my statement was utter gibberish supposed to be taken as a joke. So, in a word “No”, I am not a detractor of The Beatles. Unless, of course, preferring The Stones to them qualifies as detraction.

Likewise, I have said I do not hold The Who to the lofty standards that virtually all of my friends do. I just don’t. And although I prefer The Who to U2 I made a very similar statement regarding the Irish guys: by all means I consider both The Who and U2 to be good bands but I don’t feel the hero-worship that most everyone does. I will say that it is interesting during those two debates (i.e. superiority of The Who and U2) you and Arnie really stressed the fact that both bands featured incredibly talented musicians and their bodies of work greatly influenced the direction of the music world; these attributes were proof of their grandeur. Yet when used a similar premise regarding Elvis Presley, you simply dismissed my argument as irrelevant. Elvis had an incredible voice, in fact one of the best in the music world. And I provided you with about 30 quotes from some of your favorite musicians, each fawning over the impact and influence Elvis had on their careers. A list that included the venerable John Lennon. Your response was that Elvis did not actually influence these musicians’ work much (?) and that John Lennon did not actually mean what he was quoted as saying (???). My argument was not about getting you, or anyone else, to enjoy Elvis’ music. You either like a musician’s work or you don’t (Although I imagine the extent of your knowledge of Elvis’ catalog begins and ends with a handful of his overplayed radio mega-hits). During the Elvis debate all I was doing was putting forth the same argument you and Arnie gave to me regarding The Who and U2. But at the end of the day, regardless of the level of talent, influence on future trends in the music world, or sheer size of their following, a person either enjoys listening to a musician/band or they don’t. And, although I have learned to enjoy The Who a lot more than I ever have before (thanks primarily to you and Arnie), I just don’t regularly find myself craving a turn of one of their CDs. Same goes for U2. I really like their first two albums and they have a few songs that I truly love but that is about it. Not enough to be fawn-worthy.

As for Led Zeppelin they truly suck. I understand that they were great musicians. Okay, that is impressive. Their music, not so much. I guess in their “defense” you could say that having stolen most of their lyrics and music from others they should not be blamed for their inane catalog. But sorry, they still polluted the airways with their ultra-hip crap.

And Jimi? I’m embarrassed to say that I have not listened to a lot of the man’s work. Other than his standards, I’m familiar with very little of his catalog. I like most everything of the man’s work that I’ve heard. And even a greenhorn like myself, totally devoid of musical expertise, can readily detect the brilliance of Hendrix’s guitar work. Thus, sorry, but I doubt that I’ll be questioning his guitar expertise anytime in the foreseeable future.