Page 3 of 3

Posted: 25 May 2007, 17:46
by m1kee50
Terry D wrote:I find him hypocritical based on the books I've read. Sub-human was an Alan Partridge jibe. I suppose you would have to live at that time. In years to come people will wonder aloud about the magic of hearing the dirges of James Blunt and ask what is was like to be there when he released 'You're Beautiful'.

I find The Beatles dull and it constantly amazes me that when you say this to people they scream at you for 45 minutes along the lines of 'How dare you say The Beatles are crap, I bet you listen to Fiddy Cent don't you!'

Then you point out that you actually said they are dull, not crap, then you tell the person to go away.

To go back to the topic, people are saying Calzaghe-Kessler is made for the 16th of September.

Fair play to Warren if it is and he might let it out on Sunday in his NOTW 'column'.

I would not be too self-congratulatory though if I was him. So he will have a made a competitive fight, that is his job.
REVOLVER is not dull IMO.

Posted: 26 May 2007, 02:20
by Carbo
wildwaylon wrote:
hitman_hatton1 wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote: I'm not a fan of Dylan either, but he's a good wordsmith.
dylan was a terrific tunesmith as well.

any of his mid 60's albums are essentials. :TU:
Dylan songs were better done by others, the Byrds really knew how to translate and get the best out of Dylans writing - Dylan and Kristofferson have a lot in common, both brilliant writers but neither had much of a voice - Dylan took his name from Dylan Thomas seeing himself as a poet as well as a songwriter - Lay lady lay was the best of his earlier work.
The Byrds are a great band. A great band. But saying that Dylan's songs were better when covered by others is rather like saying that Champagne is better when mixed with Cassis. Sure, we all like the sparkle of a Kia Royale, but, it rather misses the point, doesn't it?

Freewhellin', The Times They Are A-Changin', Bringin' it All Back Home, Highway 61 Revisited, Blonde On Blonde, and Blood on the Tracks, are all legitimate contenders for inclusion on a list of the greatest 100 albums of all time, and a few could probably walk into the top 20.

Posted: 26 May 2007, 02:25
by m1kee50
Carbo wrote:
wildwaylon wrote:
hitman_hatton1 wrote: dylan was a terrific tunesmith as well.

any of his mid 60's albums are essentials. :TU:
Dylan songs were better done by others, the Byrds really knew how to translate and get the best out of Dylans writing - Dylan and Kristofferson have a lot in common, both brilliant writers but neither had much of a voice - Dylan took his name from Dylan Thomas seeing himself as a poet as well as a songwriter - Lay lady lay was the best of his earlier work.
The Byrds are a great band. A great band. But saying that Dylan's songs were better when covered by others is rather like saying that Champagne is better when mixed with Cassis. Sure, we all like the sparkle of a Kia Royale, but, it rather misses the point, doesn't it?

Freewhellin', The Times They Are A-Changin', Bringin' it All Back Home, Highway 61 Revisited, Blonde On Blonde, and Blood on the Tracks, are all legitimate contenders for inclusion on a list of the greatest 100 albums of all time, and a few could probably walk into the top 20.
Highway 61 revisited was covered by a singer called PJ Harvey, its worth listening to

Posted: 05 Jun 2007, 16:56
by stujones
Bucks Fizz on a boxing thread?!

Brilliant stuff.

Anyone seen the Rock Profile of Bucks Fizz (Matt Lucas and David Walliams).... Its absolutely hilarious.