(Everyone's very quiet...)
Posts by Backdrifter
-
-
Well, they were a bit before my time but my googling reveals several appearances on mainstream TV shows (Morecambe and Wise, Benny Hill show, Two Ronnies), so they must have been pretty well known in the 70s
Fair enough, I don't wish to set myself up as the yardstick of 70s band recognition! As you say, they appeared on a range of 70s light entertainment TV shows, many of which my family and I watched, though I have absolutely no memory of the band. If they'd made an impact on the singles and album charts there'd be a greater chance I and others here would remember them but the wiki piece doesn't give chart placings.
Anyway, I'm guessing that regarding the trivia question it's moot as they surely don't qualify as Sredni 's "two well-known bands".
-
Just watching the BBC's coverage.
Yes I can never get my head around the electoral college system.
Early I know, but the feeling in the air watching this coverage is that it's very close in key states.
-
not sure that Design would be a "well-known band". Certainly not here in the U.S.
Here in the UK I'm not sure Design are one well-known band let alone two.
-
Today I'm off to see Saint Maud, about a carer who has a somewhat skewed agenda when it comes to looking after her patient.
This was excellent, if extremely unpleasant at times, and quite creepy. It starts with a rather intense young woman Maud beginning a new job as a private carer for a terminally ill former dancer. Maud takes her job very seriously which then takes on a disturbing aspect.
It's not exactly laugh-a-minute but is very compelling in a grim sort of way. And it's very well-made, with good performances. Worth seeing but for the squeamish I'd say, approach with caution.
-
How are our friends in the US feeling today on this important day? What's the atmosphere like in your part of the forest?
-
The frequently aforementioned oatmeal recipe.
-
You know the drawer I mean. We all have one. What else goes in that drawer apart from:
Mystery keys
Strangely shaped metal or plastic implement the purpose of which is unfathomableLoose fuses which may or may not be usable
Couple of batteries which fit no known device
Wildly out of date takeaway menusNever-used roll of green twine
Little sachets (or tiny plastic fishes) of soy sauce
-
I think Cat Stevens was one, Peter Gabriel played flute for him.
Good thought but would he count as a 'musician from a well-known band'?
-
Is it really 6 months since we posted in this thread?!
My local arts centre has just re-opened its cinemas and cafe so it was a genuine pleasure to be able to go back in there last week, enjoy a coffee and see two films for the first time in over 7 months.
I saw the documentary White Riot, about the Rock Against Racism movement that started in the late 1970s. It was part nostalgic but also unpleasant to be reminded of the odious and repulsive National Front scum who openly campaigned for the enforced removal of ethnic minorities. It also made me think about how those attitudes, which I thought had largely gone, are now in the air again and I suppose they never really went away but now have more breathing space. But for its not always being a comfortable watch it was overall an enjoyable and well-made film with some good archive work.
I then saw the latest Christopher Nolan film Tenet. I'd heard that many who've seen it found it baffling and difficult to fathom. I understood and quite liked the underlying concept of it, but struggled with some of the actual detail of the action. As you'd expect though it looks great and has some spectacular moments. But I'm not sure what I actually took away from it. It's like it's left very little impression on me. I feel that Nolan has expended all his energy on constructing a complex twisty-turny plot that is in many ways impressive, while forgetting to invest anything in emotion or character. I can't say more without spoilers and if you're thinking of seeing it it'd be best to avoid reading up on it. It's tense and exciting at times, on balance worth seeing.
Today I'm off to see Saint Maud, about a carer who has a somewhat skewed agenda when it comes to looking after her patient.
-
Crispy bacon bagel, mug of tea.
-
You assume I've been both coolly winding you guys up and jumping up and down with frustration—can't have both
I'm doing neither of those things.
Yes you are, which is why others are reacting as such. You post winking emoji-splattered comments that can clearly be potentially read as provocative - acting like the arbiter of Genesis truth, calling people indiscriminating fanboys, telling them they're dogmatic and need perspective - which are unsurprisingly interpreted as wind-ups. While also posting unwinky comments such as "the band died in 1977", mass-dismissing everything post-77 as crap and by not the same band, and saying you "resent (RESENT!) Banks, Collins and Rutherford shitting all over their legacy by touring without Gabriel and Hackett" and yet people aren't meant to see you as hopping about with your fist in the air like an irate cartoon character.
So you clearly think you can have both, while telling the rest of us we can't interpret it that way. Hmmm.
Elsewhere, Fabrizio suggested you think about how you debate and express your views. I've not seen any evidence you can or are willing to do that, but his counsel is wise.
-
Rebut away!
Just don't immediately fall into victim mode ("I'm dealing with a arrogant, pompous ass").
I don't consider myself a "victim" of anything or anyone. Simply commenting I found your remarks generally pompous and arrogant.
-
I'm sorry that I derailed this thread.
I'm not sure you did. I don't see a problem with the discussion as it panned out in the context of this thread. There are plenty of fans saying "I'm not bothering with this tour because..." with reasons similar to yours but your style of expressing yourself has helped to elongate this bit of the discussion because it inevitably causes people to want to respond.
If you'd been able to say you understood people liking the trio era and wanting to go on the tour without constantly qualifying that view with perjorative-sounding statements, everyone probably would've just moved on.
But as to your above comment, personally I don't see a problem with the current sub-discussion in and of itself, I think it has relevance.
-
No offended... to the point of resorting to personal attacks... again.
No I'm never offended by anything. You're mistaken in thinking I'm making personal attacks or that if I were, they'd be motivated by offence. If you're going to make rigid dogmatic pronouncements about the band's work and make a point of loftily explaining to people they like post-77 stuff because they're blind indiscriminating fans, you've got to expect them to rebut. My finding your "I know best" comments pompous and arrogant isn't a personal attack, it's simply my honest opinion of your sneery faux-superior stance. How could it not be?
You might do well to take the advice you gave someone else and take a long walk.
-
That isn't name-calling: way too general for that.
Sorry that I offended your sensibilities, but one has to step out of the woolly consensus once in a while
—especially on a thread such as this.
Of course it's name-calling and it's specific, not general at all.
I'm not remotely offended, and there is no consensus. Your apparent sense of your own importance is quite staggering.
-
Certainly in terms of the quality of the relevant films I'd go Craig > Dalton > Connery. I find the 60s and 70s/80s Bonds unwatchable now, though can just about stomach a couple of the Connery ones on a good day. Which isn't to do with him, more about the style of the films generally.
Which is why I'd much rather celebrate his career by remembering some of his other, better work. One we haven't mentioned that also gets overlooked is Outland, essentially High Noon in space.
-
if you can't take a strongly divergent opinion without resorting to name-calling, you probably need to take a step back and go for a walk or something
Says the person who ascribes opinions differing from his own to "blind indiscriminating fandom" - which is intentionally derogatory regardless of how many winking emojis you slap on it.
Not to mention your smug arrogance in believing you can define what the band will be remembered for, and making pompously objective pronouncements about the value of different eras of their work.
-
A very dogmatic, fanboyish view.
It's bordering on intriguing that you so utterly fail to see the rank hypocrisy of the above regarding your own one-dimensional dogmatic view and gushing fanboy worship of the 5 and 4 man material, to the extent you melodramatically shriek that they "died in 1977".
Everyone arguing against you is being completely reasonable where you're not. Fair enough if you genuinely dislike virtually every single thing they did from 1978 onwards, but you're not content with that, you have to also attribute any liking for post-77 material to indiscriminating fanboy/girlism. Others will speak for themselves but I can say I enjoy material from across their whole career, something you're apparently incapable of comprehending, while also disliking some stuff from across that entire output. I'm able to hear and appreciate the good in stuff from their whole output, but there's stuff I can't stand in both pre- and post-78. That's not dogma or fanboyism, it's having a broader and more nuanced appreciation than you have.
Your rigid one-zero binary approach of "up to 77 good, post 77 bad, liking post-77 = indiscriminating fan" is definitively dogmatic and your veneration of all that is pre-78 is much closer to gushing fanboying than anything you're attributing to us.
-
Both of these claims are just such sweeping statements which leave no room for any argument or doubt, that it is obviously pointless trying to continue. It's a shame.
He's just flashing his arse at you, thinking he's being impishly clever but seemingly not realising he's just making himself look pathetic.
