Red Mosquito

I personally find quantity to be the most overrated and overused yardstick in music. Sure, there are times when it's useful, and it can be nice to marvel at, but Pearl Jam, Eric Clapton, and the Clash could've put out a billion albums and never reached the level of impact and influence that Nirvana, Jimi Hendrix, or the Sex Pistols had through very limited outputs.

Fair enough, and I don't want to speak for bada, but it doesn't sound like he's saying that five albums of okay work by The Beatles trounces Chuck Berry's classics. I don't think there's anything wrong with using consistency as a yardstick if it's consistently a high quality.

bada wrote:

harmless wrote:The quantity of anything isn't very important. I could musically innovate right now, in my living room, but nobody would be here to make it a single so it wouldn't go in the history books.

Like I said the quantity of amazing songs by the Beatles is an important yard stick for ME and if you are producing music that amazing in your living room and no one gets to hear it that a sad thing for the world. Good night my friend.

If a tree innovates in a forest, and no one hears it, does it make a Beatle?

theplatypus wrote:Stip's schtick used to be "Metacritic says I'm right". Now it's "neuropsychology says I'm right". Not sure which I prefer.

Scientific metacritic.

digster wrote:Fair enough, and I don't want to speak to bada, but it doesn't sound like he's saying that five albums of okay work by The Beatles trounces Chuck Berry's classics. I don't think there's anything wrong with using consistency as a yardstick if it's consistently a high quality.

I don't think it is. A lot of it is good, but just as much of it is very "meh" and relies on the Beatles' already-established sound. To an extent it's arguable that, at some point, people began to buy The Beatles stuff because it sounded like The Beatles. They didn't innovate in every single song they wrote. For everything else, there's taste.

Self-realized and metacritically redeemed.

I've got "Anthology 2" and "Anthology 3," the albums that made a fan of me, on deck for this evening. Looking forward to hearing a bunch of great songs I haven't listened to for far too long.

I love lamp.

Kevin Davis wrote:I've got "Anthology 2" and "Anthology 3," the albums that made a fan of me, on deck for this evening. Looking forward to hearing a bunch of great songs I haven't listened to for far too long.

Excellent.

I haven't listened to those sets in years, I might revisit them soon.

Call me crazy but I'm thinking this outtake of "Teddy Boy" from "Anthology 3" might finally be the little confection that finally turns Stip Fab:

Unlikely

People tend to think of the Beatles as the bottleneck through which nearly all pop music from before became pop music after. I don't think so, specifically when it comes to a huge chunk of rock.

But you can always trust Stip to tell you the real reason you like or don't like something.

This solo recording of George demoing "All Things Must Pass" for the "Get Back" album is a delight.

Kevin Davis wrote:This solo recording of George demoing "All Things Must Pass" for the "Get Back" album is a delight.

All Things Must Pass would be my favourite Beatle album. Even the last side with Phil Collins playing drums is a nice mindless curiosity.

Man, what a treat this is. I remember when I first started buying up the Beatles' proper albums, it took me a while to get used to all the orchestral overdubs and sound effects after having cut my teeth on these considerably rawer outtakes; revisiting these now after having become better accustomed to the regular versions makes me feel like the band is in my living room giving me a personal concert. This "Octopus's Garden" is just a fantastic ensemble performance--the four instruments conversing perfectly, each one with such presence. And of course it's tough to beat a solo version of "Something."

BurtReynolds wrote:People tend to think of the Beatles as the bottleneck through which nearly all pop music from before became pop music after. I don't think so, specifically when it comes to a huge chunk of rock.

But you can always trust Stip to tell you the real reason you like or don't like something.

Someone has to do it!

stip wrote: We have a tendency to assume that people develop preferences and make decisions in an acontextual vacuum. This assumption goes back hundreds of years...All of modern economics was built upon this assumption.

1.) please link to the last paper published in a mainstream, peer-reviewed economics journal that you read in its entirety
2.) please link to one paper published in the last thirty years in a mainstream, peer-reviewed economics journal in which such an assumption is explicit

feel free to move this to a more appropriate thread

I'm still not even sure that applies. I understand what stip's saying about context influencing how people approach the Beatles, and could see context determining whether you give a band a shot...I don't see it turning The Beatles into someone's favorite band, or even a favored one.

--- wrote:

stip wrote: We have a tendency to assume that people develop preferences and make decisions in an acontextual vacuum. This assumption goes back hundreds of years...All of modern economics was built upon this assumption.

1.) please link to the last paper published in a mainstream, peer-reviewed economics journal that you read in its entirety
2.) please link to one paper published in the last thirty years in a mainstream, peer-reviewed economics journal in which such an assumption is explicit

feel free to move this to a more appropriate thread

I am using the term modern in the broad sense (in the way that modern philosophy began several hundred years ago), as opposed to contemporary (which would be more recent stuff). It's probably not the most artfully phrased distinction, but I'm used to it. Correct me if I am wrong, but neo classical economics assumes that man is rational, and the idea of rationality being bounded is really just an insight about 30-40 years old and still at least somewhat controversial within economics as a discipline.

Basically my point is that almost all of modern western civilization is built on the idea that we are rational, largely unencumbered, decision makers. How is this remotely controversial?

digster wrote:I'm still not even sure that applies. I understand what stip's saying about context influencing how people approach the Beatles, and could see context determining whether you give a band a shot...I don't see it turning The Beatles into someone's favorite band, or even a favored one.

Don't think of it as causal. Think of it as influencing. Extra weight on a scale.