Shocking I know but....
Replies
-
I cant stand Pink Flyod, Greatful Dead and Phish. that has to be the music they play in Hell.
WHAT? How can anyone not stand Pink Flyod?! :sad: What do you listen to then?
just about everything else(rock, rap, jazz, pop,top 40, etc....). except for a lot of country...i like very little of it.
Interesting. I'm in the exact same boat as you - except I like the bands you can't stand :laugh:
At first I thought you were going to say you were a country fanatic, and then I would have done this :huh: (No offense country fans - it's just not my thing)0 -
So the Author said it wasn't about that.... yet you think it is.... wat
A lot of people who grew up with it try to ascribe a hidden deeper meaning to it. What it was is fifty shades of grey, for kids, without the dirtiness.
It is no Lord of the Rings.0 -
Simple question. Beatles came out in the early 60's and faded in the early 70's. That was about 50 years ago. Paul McCartner is STILL touring to sold-out concerts.
Can you name one band that will be even recognizeable in 5, maybe 10 years?
I had this discussion with my younger brother 5 years ago - he swore "Live" and "Toad the Wet Sprocket" would survive the test of time. When was the last time you heard them on the radio?
The Beatles and Rolling Stones created what passes for Rock n' Roll today. Today, we have one-hit wonders who's chief talent seems to be the use of a drum machine, auto-synth vocals, and chosing scantily clad women to dance and perform suggestively to their music.
Love them; hate them ... whatever ... you have to respect them for what they accomplished.0 -
So the Author said it wasn't about that.... yet you think it is.... wat
A lot of people who grew up with it try to ascribe a hidden deeper meaning to it. What it was is fifty shades of grey, for kids, without the dirtiness.
It is no Lord of the Rings.
I was 22 when the first book was published and didn't read them until two years ago.
I won't even address the other comment. It's ridiculous on its face.0 -
Simple question. Beatles came out in the early 60's and faded in the early 70's. That was about 50 years ago. Paul McCartner is STILL touring to sold-out concerts.
Can you name one band that will be even recognizeable in 5, maybe 10 years?
I had this discussion with my younger brother 5 years ago - he swore "Live" and "Toad the Wet Sprocket" would survive the test of time. When was the last time you heard them on the radio?
The Beatles and Rolling Stones created what passes for Rock n' Roll today. Today, we have one-hit wonders who's chief talent seems to be the use of a drum machine, auto-synth vocals, and chosing scantily clad women to dance and perform suggestively to their music.
Love them; hate them ... whatever ... you have to respect them for what they accomplished.
I actually saw Live in concert a few weeks ago.0 -
So the Author said it wasn't about that.... yet you think it is.... wat
A lot of people who grew up with it try to ascribe a hidden deeper meaning to it. What it was is fifty shades of grey, for kids, without the dirtiness.
It is no Lord of the Rings.
I was 22 when the first book was published and didn't read them until two years ago.
I won't even address the other comment. It's ridiculous on its face.
wait are you trying to say Potter is equal or better than Lord of the Rings? i really, really hope not.
Potter fans really want it to be equated with the better works of fiction. thats why they try to shoehorn theories into it.
they should just accept it for what it is...its fantastic young adult, kids, juvenile...whatever fiction and thats it. nothing wrong with that.0 -
Simple question. Beatles came out in the early 60's and faded in the early 70's. That was about 50 years ago. Paul McCartner is STILL touring to sold-out concerts.
Can you name one band that will be even recognizeable in 5, maybe 10 years?
I had this discussion with my younger brother 5 years ago - he swore "Live" and "Toad the Wet Sprocket" would survive the test of time. When was the last time you heard them on the radio?
The Beatles and Rolling Stones created what passes for Rock n' Roll today. Today, we have one-hit wonders who's chief talent seems to be the use of a drum machine, auto-synth vocals, and chosing scantily clad women to dance and perform suggestively to their music.
Love them; hate them ... whatever ... you have to respect them for what they accomplished.
"Avenged Sevenfold" and "Muse" will still be relevant in decades to come... but these bands have already been around for years so they might not count.
"Live" and "Toad the Wet Sprocket" weren't even relevant 5 years ago. Your brother seems a bit out of touch.0 -
This thread is full of people that offer nothing to society....
The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Star Wars and LOTR should have never been mentioned in a negative light, if god existed, SHE would strike you down....
there, fixed it for ya0 -
Simple question. Beatles came out in the early 60's and faded in the early 70's. That was about 50 years ago. Paul McCartner is STILL touring to sold-out concerts.
Can you name one band that will be even recognizeable in 5, maybe 10 years?
I had this discussion with my younger brother 5 years ago - he swore "Live" and "Toad the Wet Sprocket" would survive the test of time. When was the last time you heard them on the radio?
The Beatles and Rolling Stones created what passes for Rock n' Roll today. Today, we have one-hit wonders who's chief talent seems to be the use of a drum machine, auto-synth vocals, and chosing scantily clad women to dance and perform suggestively to their music.
Love them; hate them ... whatever ... you have to respect them for what they accomplished.
im going to guess Justin Timberlake will be going strong for decades.0 -
I can not tell how old you are. You obviously are not old enough to appreciate classic rock, which is a real shame. Pink Floyd is an acquired taste, but the Beatles? I am stunned that you can not find one song that you can love.
However, maybe you are a country and bluegrass lover. As they are at odds with classic rock, your comment makes perfect sense.
ETA: Bohemian Rhapsody? Really? Again, I am stunned. Freddy Mercury had an amazing voice.0 -
Harry Potter
Lord of the Rings
Star Wars
My heart breaks for you.
You must not know joy :[
Agreed! I love my science fiction and fantasy! Great escape from my stressful life.0 -
So the Author said it wasn't about that.... yet you think it is.... wat
A lot of people who grew up with it try to ascribe a hidden deeper meaning to it. What it was is fifty shades of grey, for kids, without the dirtiness.
It is no Lord of the Rings.
I was 22 when the first book was published and didn't read them until two years ago.
I won't even address the other comment. It's ridiculous on its face.
wait are you trying to say Potter is equal or better than Lord of the Rings? i really, really hope not.
Potter fans really want it to be equated with the better works of fiction. thats why they try to shoehorn theories into it.
they should just accept it for what it is...its fantastic young adult, kids, juvenile...whatever fiction and thats it. nothing wrong with that.
Harry Potter is equal to or better than LOTR?!?! Into what alternate reality have I stumbled & how do I escape?0 -
Harry Potter
Lord of the Rings
Star Wars
My heart breaks for you.
You must not know joy :[
This x's 1000 -
So the Author said it wasn't about that.... yet you think it is.... wat
A lot of people who grew up with it try to ascribe a hidden deeper meaning to it. What it was is fifty shades of grey, for kids, without the dirtiness.
It is no Lord of the Rings.
I was 22 when the first book was published and didn't read them until two years ago.
I won't even address the other comment. It's ridiculous on its face.
wait are you trying to say Potter is equal or better than Lord of the Rings? i really, really hope not.
Potter fans really want it to be equated with the better works of fiction. thats why they try to shoehorn theories into it.
they should just accept it for what it is...its fantastic young adult, kids, juvenile...whatever fiction and thats it. nothing wrong with that.
Harry Potter is equal to or better than LOTR?!?! Into what alternate reality have I stumbled & how do I escape?
This whole thread makes me want to rage quit my life....0 -
I have never seen any of the godfather movies. I don't worry that I am missing anything really.0
-
So the Author said it wasn't about that.... yet you think it is.... wat
A lot of people who grew up with it try to ascribe a hidden deeper meaning to it. What it was is fifty shades of grey, for kids, without the dirtiness.
It is no Lord of the Rings.
I was 22 when the first book was published and didn't read them until two years ago.
I won't even address the other comment. It's ridiculous on its face.
wait are you trying to say Potter is equal or better than Lord of the Rings? i really, really hope not.
Potter fans really want it to be equated with the better works of fiction. thats why they try to shoehorn theories into it.
they should just accept it for what it is...its fantastic young adult, kids, juvenile...whatever fiction and thats it. nothing wrong with that.
its a "young adult" book series that was written so that kids could "grow up" with the characters each year. That is why the book get more "adult" as you get to the end of the series. Word usage and type of words used get more adult as the series goes on. Which in its aspect alone is unique and neat. But it was in fact written for a younger crowd when it started and "matured" with the characters as it went along.0 -
So the Author said it wasn't about that.... yet you think it is.... wat
A lot of people who grew up with it try to ascribe a hidden deeper meaning to it. What it was is fifty shades of grey, for kids, without the dirtiness.
It is no Lord of the Rings.
I was 22 when the first book was published and didn't read them until two years ago.
I won't even address the other comment. It's ridiculous on its face.
haha nice passive aggressive jab at me. :laugh: :laugh:0 -
I'm glad my knowledge of history and ability to read past the surface of a novel is so amusing to you. :flowerforyou:
He wasn't a specific person. He was England. As was Dumbledore. It's been a while since my last read, but I had a bunch of them figured out. Draco is Italy. That potions teacher (can't remember his name) who comes in book 6 is the US.Potter is a bunch of kids books based in fantasy.
If you can describe them that way, you can't possibly have read them.
The entire story is an analogy of WWII. I know Rowling claims she wasn't thinking of Hitler when she created Voldemort, but if you think about it, a lot of the characters take on the roles of the Allied and Axis countries and the whole "pure race" stuff even though Voldemort himself was half muggle (Hitler had Jewish ancestry) tells me she's full of it on that.
It's a great story. The first two books are a little on the young side for reading, but after that it's pretty dark and deep.
Maybe you only watched the movies, though. They aren't as detailed and leave a lot of important things out.
right because it can not be the simple good vs evil, so what hero was in WWII that Harry Potter could have been.
That is just a little stretch of the imagination. I have read all the books.
And of course it COULD be a simple good vs. evil. But it isn't.
LMFAO. you are killing me.
it is good vs evil. HOW THE **** is Draco italy? HOW THE HELL IS HARRY POTTER ENGLAND? This is the funniest thing i have heard all day.
And since WWII pretty much boils down to good vs. evil, you really aren't negating my point at all.
hehehehe. I didn't realize it was good verses evil. I mean, you'd think the good guys wouldn't reimprision pink triangle victims of the concentration camps, nor would they have sit on their haunches until Germany started invading other countries.0 -
wait are you trying to say Potter is equal or better than Lord of the Rings? i really, really hope not.
Potter fans really want it to be equated with the better works of fiction. thats why they try to shoehorn theories into it.
they should just accept it for what it is...its fantastic young adult, kids, juvenile...whatever fiction and thats it. nothing wrong with that.
I'm pretty sure people were saying the same thing about LOTR back in the 1930's. LOTR classified as young adult fantasy fiction. Personally, I don't think the two are comparable. But no one really gave a flying crap about LOTR until Peter Jackson came along. Both have carved out their place in the history of literature and pop culture.0 -
WWII does not boil down to Good vs. Evil. It boiled down to a lot of people with different ideals of what the world should be. Saying the opposite side from that that you're on is evil is somewhat close minded.
You're right. It's just a difference of opinion to torture, starve and gas 12 million people simply for being the wrong religion, having the wrong political leanings or having the wrong sexual orientation.
Just a difference of ideals about the world there. How close-minded of me to call it evil.
I think we all agree that was evil. I think we aren't sure about who was good.0 -
He wrote The Hobbit as a bedtime story for his very young children.wait are you trying to say Potter is equal or better than Lord of the Rings? i really, really hope not.
Potter fans really want it to be equated with the better works of fiction. thats why they try to shoehorn theories into it.
they should just accept it for what it is...its fantastic young adult, kids, juvenile...whatever fiction and thats it. nothing wrong with that.
I'm pretty sure people were saying the same thing about LOTR back in the 1930's. LOTR classified as young adult fantasy fiction. Personally, I don't think the two are comparable. But no one really gave a flying crap about LOTR until Peter Jackson came along. Both have carved out their place in the history of literature and pop culture.0 -
wait are you trying to say Potter is equal or better than Lord of the Rings? i really, really hope not.
Potter fans really want it to be equated with the better works of fiction. thats why they try to shoehorn theories into it.
they should just accept it for what it is...its fantastic young adult, kids, juvenile...whatever fiction and thats it. nothing wrong with that.
I'm pretty sure people were saying the same thing about LOTR back in the 1930's. LOTR classified as young adult fantasy fiction. Personally, I don't think the two are comparable. But no one really gave a flying crap about LOTR until Peter Jackson came along. Both have carved out their place in the history of literature and pop culture.
what? DEFRIENDED! ...oh wait. nevermind. :noway:
LOTR has long had more than a cult following. it was big in the 60's and 70's and was the inspiration for D&D (geek reference if ever there was one). i wrote a history paper in high school circa 1983/1984 on how and why the LOTR books were an allegory to WWII.0 -
So the Author said it wasn't about that.... yet you think it is.... wat
A lot of people who grew up with it try to ascribe a hidden deeper meaning to it. What it was is fifty shades of grey, for kids, without the dirtiness.
It is no Lord of the Rings.
I was 22 when the first book was published and didn't read them until two years ago.
I won't even address the other comment. It's ridiculous on its face.
wait are you trying to say Potter is equal or better than Lord of the Rings? i really, really hope not.
Potter fans really want it to be equated with the better works of fiction. thats why they try to shoehorn theories into it.
they should just accept it for what it is...its fantastic young adult, kids, juvenile...whatever fiction and thats it. nothing wrong with that.
its a "young adult" book series that was written so that kids could "grow up" with the characters each year. That is why the book get more "adult" as you get to the end of the series. Word usage and type of words used get more adult as the series goes on. Which in its aspect alone is unique and neat. But it was in fact written for a younger crowd when it started and "matured" with the characters as it went along.
You know something else Rowling said? She said she DID NOT have an audience in mind when she wrote it and she DID NOT intend it to be for children specifically.
So if we're taking the author at face value because that's what she said, then you're wrong. :-)0 -
He wrote The Hobbit as a bedtime story for his very young children.wait are you trying to say Potter is equal or better than Lord of the Rings? i really, really hope not.
Potter fans really want it to be equated with the better works of fiction. thats why they try to shoehorn theories into it.
they should just accept it for what it is...its fantastic young adult, kids, juvenile...whatever fiction and thats it. nothing wrong with that.
I'm pretty sure people were saying the same thing about LOTR back in the 1930's. LOTR classified as young adult fantasy fiction. Personally, I don't think the two are comparable. But no one really gave a flying crap about LOTR until Peter Jackson came along. Both have carved out their place in the history of literature and pop culture.
I know... I read LOTR when I was 12. That's probably about the age of the readers that read the first Harry Potter books.
What I'm saying is that both series, LOTR and Harry Potter, have become social icons. One might have an opinion about which is better, but both will continue to be relevant in the decades to come.0 -
wait are you trying to say Potter is equal or better than Lord of the Rings? i really, really hope not.
I'm saying Harry Potter is not "50 Shades of Grey for kids."0 -
At least HP got kids reading.
The Beatles- some I can't stand, some I love.
I can't stand the Rolling Stones. Barf.0 -
That's what I like to hear. But I got a word of warning for all you would-be warriors. When you join my command, you take on debt. A debt you owe me personally. Each and every man under my command owes me one hundred Nazi scalps. And I want my scalps. And all y'all will git me one hundred Nazi scalps, taken from the heads of one hundred dead Nazis. Or you will die tryin'.
^^This.0 -
Sorry. I was agreeing with you and just adding a little to your point.
He wrote The Hobbit as a bedtime story for his very young children.wait are you trying to say Potter is equal or better than Lord of the Rings? i really, really hope not.
Potter fans really want it to be equated with the better works of fiction. thats why they try to shoehorn theories into it.
they should just accept it for what it is...its fantastic young adult, kids, juvenile...whatever fiction and thats it. nothing wrong with that.
I'm pretty sure people were saying the same thing about LOTR back in the 1930's. LOTR classified as young adult fantasy fiction. Personally, I don't think the two are comparable. But no one really gave a flying crap about LOTR until Peter Jackson came along. Both have carved out their place in the history of literature and pop culture.
I know... I read LOTR when I was 12. That's probably about the age of the readers that read the first Harry Potter books.
What I'm saying is that both series, LOTR and Harry Potter, have become social icons. One might have an opinion about which is better, but both will continue to be relevant in the decades to come.0 -
He wrote The Hobbit as a bedtime story for his very young children.wait are you trying to say Potter is equal or better than Lord of the Rings? i really, really hope not.
Potter fans really want it to be equated with the better works of fiction. thats why they try to shoehorn theories into it.
they should just accept it for what it is...its fantastic young adult, kids, juvenile...whatever fiction and thats it. nothing wrong with that.
I'm pretty sure people were saying the same thing about LOTR back in the 1930's. LOTR classified as young adult fantasy fiction. Personally, I don't think the two are comparable. But no one really gave a flying crap about LOTR until Peter Jackson came along. Both have carved out their place in the history of literature and pop culture.
but not the Lord of the Rings....
he said "“I find that many children become interested, even engrossed, in /The Lord of the Rings/, from about 10 onwards. I think it rather a pity, really. It was not written for them. But then I am a very ‘unvoracious’ reader, and since I can seldom bring myself to read a work twice I think of the many things that I read – too soon! Nothing, not even a (possible) deeper appreciation, for me replaces the bloom on a book, the freshness of the unread. Still what we read and when goes, like the people we meet, by ‘fate.’”0 -
wait are you trying to say Potter is equal or better than Lord of the Rings? i really, really hope not.
Potter fans really want it to be equated with the better works of fiction. thats why they try to shoehorn theories into it.
they should just accept it for what it is...its fantastic young adult, kids, juvenile...whatever fiction and thats it. nothing wrong with that.
I'm pretty sure people were saying the same thing about LOTR back in the 1930's. LOTR classified as young adult fantasy fiction. Personally, I don't think the two are comparable. But no one really gave a flying crap about LOTR until Peter Jackson came along. Both have carved out their place in the history of literature and pop culture.
what? DEFRIENDED! ...oh wait. nevermind. :noway:
LOTR has long had more than a cult following. it was big in the 60's and 70's and was the inspiration for D&D (geek reference if ever there was one). i wrote a history paper in high school circa 1983/1984 on how and why the LOTR books were an allegory to WWII.
Well I grew up in a different generation. I read LOTR (in the early 90's) because I was bored, and grew up with the Hobbit, and decided to read something else by the same author. No one told me about it or suggested it to me. My friends didn't read it. My teachers never talked about it. I had no knowledge of it whatsoever prior to picking the book up.
Of course, I loved it! But I did not hear mentioned again until the 2000's when Peter Jackson began filming. That is why I say no one really cared about it. But that is just my experience. Others might see it differently.
*PS - I'm still not sure why we aren't friends anymore. You should FR me so you can de-friend me properly for when I share such controversial opinions.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions