The best since John Lennon?

fruvai

karaokeman wrote: »

Noel Gallagher, Chris Martin and Gary Barlow are the best songwriters this past 20 years has produced.

But here's the person I believe is the best since Lennon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDMpRuKLQaU

Just off the top of my head,

Elliott Smith
Jeff Buckley
John Frusciante
Brendan Benson
Beck
Justin Vernon (Bon Iver)
PJ Harvey
Thom Yorke
Stephen Malkmus
Jack White
Jeff Tweedy
Mark Oliver Everett (Eels)
Bjork
Josh Homme

all **** on the above.

The only thing John Lennon and Robbie Williams have in common is that they're both cnuts

32_4_1

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Your quote reminded me of his. Also, I would respect his opinion on music over yours.

in recent years, gallagher has all but admitted albarn is a better songwriter and musician. just have a quick flick through the career paths of both. albarn has well and truely left gallagher in the dust since their feud. infact id put my neck out and say albarn would be argueably the greatest since lennon. blur, gorillaz, the good the bad & the queen, mali music, classical soundtracks, operas and just about ALL to wide critical acclaim. theres no chance gallagher is the best since lennon

Duke Leonal Felmet

32_4_1 wrote: »

theres no chance gallagher is the best since lennon

I agree, hence my choice of Yorke.

Dr.Winston O'Boogie

karaokeman wrote: »

Noel Gallagher, Chris Martin and Gary Barlow are the best songwriters this past 20 years has produced.

But here's the person I believe is the best since Lennon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDMpRuKLQaU

You cannot be serious?! The bloke didn't even write his most famous songs, Guy Chambers did. He got co-writing credits possibly but that was bollox to just try and give him more street cred. And once Chambers broke the partnership his songs took an embarrassing dive. He's a glorified cabaret act and has influenced absolutely no-one of any worth.

Really....I would love to hear an example of a decent artist cite him as an influence regarding them getting into music or starting a band. Although I have a feeling my idea of a decent artist and your's would differ wildly (bar Noel G).

seachto7

that's assuming you think John Lennon was good in the first place.....

WinstonOno

karaokeman wrote: »

Noel Gallagher, Chris Martin and Gary Barlow are the best songwriters this past 20 years has produced.

But here's the person I believe is the best since Lennon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDMpRuKLQaU

either your joking or this is one of the worst posts i've ever seen. barlow writes love songs for pre-pubescent teenagers. martin isnt much better with his 'i will fix you' and 'lets talk' tripe. if you think williams is up there with lennon you, my friend, have not a bulls notion what good music is

Oasis_Dublin

Sinfonia wrote: »

For someone who is proud of their skilled employment of logic, your arguments throughout this thread are very inconsistent.

Or else my argument that Thom Yorke is no better a song writer than God have actually been consistently argued by me. Don't let what I actually wrote get in the way of arguing what you had wished I said now!

Alzy

I think Richard Ashcroft and Tom Yorke are top class ... but it's each to there own with music and no one can tell ya who is better and you're gonna accept it lolz

WakeUp

Everyone will have their own opinions. I like Noel Gallagher but no way is he the best song writer since Lennon, imo. For me Waters & Gilmour are up their with Lennon & McCartney from both a lyrical and musical perspective. Wish You Were Here which deals with loss is a fantastic example.
When you lose someone close to you, you wonder where that person has gone are they ok are they aware of what's happened , what's it like, all those sorts of things you think about and in a few short lines they summed up a million thoughts. There isn't another tune like it in my opinion that is so poignant relevant and I suppose touching in addressing such a life experience. Its tunes like this that separate the good writers from the exceptionally good writers thats what I think anyway:)

Sinfonia

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Or else my argument that Thom Yorke is no better a song writer than God have actually been consistently argued by me. Don't let what I actually wrote get in the way of arguing what you had wished I said now!

I directly quoted what you wrote.
If you believe that 'meaning is in the mind of the listener', and wish to use that as an argument against someone who discerns a lack of profundity in Noel Gallagher's lyrics, it is perfectly inconsistent to then imply a lack of profundity in Thom Yorke's lyrics.

Duke Leonal Felmet

WakeUp wrote: »

Everyone will have their own opinions. I like Noel Gallagher but no way is he the best song writer since Lennon, imo. For me Waters & Gilmour are up their with Lennon & McCartney from both a lyrical and musical perspective. Wish You Were Here which deals with loss is a fantastic example.
When you lose someone close to you, you wonder where that person has gone are they ok are they aware of what's happened , what's it like, all those sorts of things you think about and in a few short lines they summed up a million thoughts. There isn't another tune like it in my opinion that is so poignant relevant and I suppose touching in addressing such a life experience. Its tunes like this that separate the good writers from the exceptionally good writers thats what I think anyway:)

Yeah, good call. I think Noel's talent was writing songs that everyone could sing along to. He could probably write a good national anthem, if called upon to do it. But he never came close of a Dark Side of the Moon.

Oasis_Dublin

Sinfonia wrote: »

I directly quoted what you wrote.
If you believe that 'meaning is in the mind of the listener', and wish to use that as an argument against someone who discerns a lack of profundity in Noel Gallagher's lyrics, it is perfectly inconsistent to then imply a lack of profundity in Thom Yorke's lyrics.

Just because you say you quoted me directly, doesn't mean I'm being inconsistent.

Taking things out of context doesn't really boost the argument you are making either. Saying Radiohead are less popular because they have sold less records now than they did before seems logical to me.

Saying that one lyricist is no more or less profound than another seems logical to me.

All opinion on music is just that, opinion. Of course there is no correct or incorrect opinion, nor have I suggested there is.

francois

I doubt that lennon's, gallagher's, or yorkes' lyrics will somehow be seen as profound anytime soon,
it's pop afer all

Duke Leonal Felmet

francois wrote: »

I doubt that lennon's, gallagher's, or yorkes' lyrics will somehow be seen as profound anytime soon,
it's pop afer all

Ah, see what he did there? Awesome.

Wolflikeme

OP you're having a laugh!! Oasis/The Gallagher's are insanely overrated.

IMHO they don't even come close to Alex Turner. That guy is a real talent and I'd say he comes closer to Lennon than the other two frauds.

Oasis_Dublin

francois wrote: »

I doubt that lennon's, gallagher's, or yorkes' lyrics will somehow be seen as profound anytime soon,
it's pop afer all

Yeah, you could almost argue that "saying that one lyricist is no more or less profound than another seems logical to me. All opinion on music is just that, opinion. Of course there is no correct or incorrect opinion, nor have I suggested there is." :cool:

Sinfonia

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

All opinion on music is just that, opinion. Of course there is no correct or incorrect opinion, nor have I suggested there is.

First off, we've been talking about lyrics, not music.

Second, I really cannot stand this much-bandied-about argument on 'opinion'.
It really is the refuge of the ignorant: if you believe that any one opinion is equally valid to all other opinions, then you don't know enough about the topic. You might state an aesthetic preference, and that's fine, I can't argue with that. But excellent writing is a skill, not just an accidental talent wherein nobody can discern who is a better writer.

By your logic, the lyrics to Rebecca Black's 'Friday' are equally as profound as every piece of poetry or prose that has been written, or ever will be, because the interpretation and opinion of each individual audience member is equal, and neither correct nor incorrect.

Android 666

Sinfonia wrote: »

First off, we've been talking about lyrics, not music.

Second, I really cannot stand this much-bandied-about argument on 'opinion'.
It really is the refuge of the ignorant: if you believe that any one opinion is equally valid to all other opinions, then you don't know enough about the topic. You might state an aesthetic preference, and that's fine, I can't argue with that. But excellent writing is a skill, not just an accidental talent wherein nobody can discern who is a better writer.

By your logic, the lyrics to Rebecca Black's 'Friday' are equally as profound as every piece of poetry or prose that has been written, or ever will be, because the interpretation and opinion of each individual audience member is equal, and neither correct nor incorrect.

Well said. Everybody knows that art is subjective but to try and assert that all and any opinion on the quality or profundity of a piece of art is rendered moot because of the nature of subjectivity is a useless argument. I can recognise that something is well written even if it doesn't appeal to me just as the inverse is true.

That is not to dismiss art that doesn't strive to be profund - most of the art I like doesn't try to be overtly clever, it's usually based on enjoying the moment - but we have to accept that art works on different levels. Some strives to work on higher levels and some doesn't. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion. But it's usually easy enough to spot when a lyricist is using abstract imagery to create a more atmospheric piece of music and enhance the meaning of the song and one who is merely peddling gobbledygook.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Sinfonia wrote: »

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

All opinion on music is just that, opinion. Of course there is no correct or incorrect opinion, nor have I suggested there is.

First off, we've been talking about lyrics, not music.

Second, I really cannot stand this much-bandied-about argument on 'opinion'.
It really is the refuge of the ignorant: if you believe that any one opinion is equally valid to all other opinions, then you don't know enough about the topic. You might state an aesthetic preference, and that's fine, I can't argue with that. But excellent writing is a skill, not just an accidental talent wherein nobody can discern who is a better writer.

By your logic, the lyrics to Rebecca Black's 'Friday' are equally as profound as every piece of poetry or prose that has been written, or ever will be, because the interpretation and opinion of each individual audience member is equal, and neither correct nor incorrect.

I'd imagine that many of the humans that ever existed (pre 20th century) would think that our idea of a great song to be boring. Mozart may have been unimpressed with The Beatles, or whoever. In fact, many modern cultures would disagree on what makes a good song/lyric, and many cultures would dismisss western music as being inferior, purely on the basis that their scales are different to ours. In turn, you might think some local tribal song in Rajistan is crap, while the locals think it is the bees knees, again, because you may not be familiar with local scales and the meaning of their lyrics (not a point about language here, but rather the references). An intelligent alien race would likely not understand or like our music, or may not like music at all.

But, in your world, someone in that myriad of peoples, cultures, scales, etc; is simply wrong, and someone is right. But it is the equivalent that saying red is 'better' than blue, and that anyone who disagrees is wrong. It's not logical. You can say that 5 is greater than 2, but not red is greater than blue, nor can you say with certainty that Lennon has better songs than Gallagher, or that Gallagher is better then Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, etc, etc, etc.

It's the same logical fallacy that people make when they think that slugs are 'less evolved' than us.

Take some time to think about it.

sham69

Morrissey and Marr.

Best writers since Lennon and McCartney.

Android 666

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I'd imagine that many of the humans that ever existed (pre 20th century) would think that our idea of a great song to be boring. Mozart may have been unimpressed with The Beatles, or whoever. In fact, many modern cultures would disagree on what makes a good song/lyric, and many cultures would dismisss western music as being inferior, purely on the basis that their scales are different to ours. In turn, you might think some local tribal song in Rajistan is crap, while the locals think it is the bees knees, again, because you may not be familiar with local scales and the meaning of their lyrics (not a point about language here, but rather the references). An intelligent alien race would likely not understand or like our music, or may not like music at all.

But, in your world, someone in that myriad of peoples, cultures, scales, etc; is simply wrong, and someone is right. But it is the equivalent that saying red is 'better' than blue, and that anyone who disagrees is wrong. It's not logical. You can say that 5 is greater than 2, but not red is greater than blue, nor can you say with certainty that Lennon has better songs than Gallagher, or that Gallagher is better then Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, etc, etc, etc.

It's the same logical fallacy that people make when they think that slugs are 'less evolved' than us.

Take some time to think about it.

You're assuming that Sinfonia is saying that one type of art is superior to all others - I don't believe that is what he was implying at all. I cannot comment, for example, on traditional music because I have little knowledge of it but that doesn't mean that people who listen don't have their own consensus on what constitutes good traditional music even if their individual preferences are a great deal more varied. Within any type of art there are different standards, objectives and methods used which are particular to that art form. If someone is not familiar with them it is crass to dismiss them out of hand. But in the context of this forum, it is generally accepted by everyone contributing we are going to be discussing, in the main, general pop and rock music made in the western hemisphere and its merits. If we wished to discuss Mongolian throat singing it would safe to assume that this is not the place for us.

So in this context you can make an argument for why you think Lennon's songs are better than Gallagher's.

Sinfonia

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I'd imagine that many of the humans that ever existed (pre 20th century) would think that our idea of a great song to be boring. Mozart may have been unimpressed with The Beatles, or whoever. In fact, many modern cultures would disagree on what makes a good song/lyric, and many cultures would dismisss western music as being inferior, purely on the basis that their scales are different to ours. In turn, you might think some local tribal song in Rajistan is crap, while the locals think it is the bees knees, again, because you may not be familiar with local scales and the meaning of their lyrics (not a point about language here, but rather the references). An intelligent alien race would likely not understand or like our music, or may not like music at all.

This is the exact point that I am making.
A discussion on the aesthetic preferences of different people is based on opinion.
However, a discussion on the value of art should be based on understanding, not ignorance. In the hypothetical examples that you have listed above, the basis of the disdain held by people for music of a different culture is in their ignorance of how that music works.
If I were to say that 'some local tribal song in Rajistan is crap', because I'm not 'familiar with local scales and the meaning of their lyrics', then my argument would be invalid, because I am dismissing its potential merits due to my own ignorance. If I wish to make objective arguments about the value of art, I endeavour to understand and engage with it, as anybody should.

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote:

But, in your world, someone in that myriad of peoples, cultures, scales, etc; is simply wrong, and someone is right. But it is the equivalent that saying red is 'better' than blue, and that anyone who disagrees is wrong. It's not logical.

Incorrect.
There is a difference, you know, between art and the aesthetic materials used to produce it. Saying in isolation, and with no exterior context, that red is better than blue is more analogous to saying that a C Major chord is better than a D Major chord, which is ridiculous.
However, when somebody employs these aesthetic raw materials to create a work of art, there is an intelligence in the choices they make regarding where/when to use or not use each raw material and the combination in which they are used.

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote:

Take some time to think about it.

Don't be condescending, it's useless in decent debate, especially when you've misunderstood my fundamental points, which have been explained very clearly.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Android 666 wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I'd imagine that many of the humans that ever existed (pre 20th century) would think that our idea of a great song to be boring. Mozart may have been unimpressed with The Beatles, or whoever. In fact, many modern cultures would disagree on what makes a good song/lyric, and many cultures would dismisss western music as being inferior, purely on the basis that their scales are different to ours. In turn, you might think some local tribal song in Rajistan is crap, while the locals think it is the bees knees, again, because you may not be familiar with local scales and the meaning of their lyrics (not a point about language here, but rather the references). An intelligent alien race would likely not understand or like our music, or may not like music at all.

But, in your world, someone in that myriad of peoples, cultures, scales, etc; is simply wrong, and someone is right. But it is the equivalent that saying red is 'better' than blue, and that anyone who disagrees is wrong. It's not logical. You can say that 5 is greater than 2, but not red is greater than blue, nor can you say with certainty that Lennon has better songs than Gallagher, or that Gallagher is better then Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, etc, etc, etc.

It's the same logical fallacy that people make when they think that slugs are 'less evolved' than us.

Take some time to think about it.

You're assuming that Sinfonia is saying that one type of art is superior to all others - I don't believe that is what he was implying at all. I cannot comment, for example, on traditional music because I have little knowledge of it but that doesn't mean that people who listen don't have their own consensus on what constitutes good traditional music even if their individual preferences are a great deal more varied. Within any type of art there are different standards, objectives and methods used which are particular to that art form. If someone is not familiar with them it is crass to dismiss them out of hand. But in the context of this forum, it is generally accepted by everyone contributing we are going to be discussing, in the main, general pop and rock music made in the western hemisphere and its merits. If we wished to discuss Mongolian throat singing it would safe to assume that this is not the place for us.

So in this context you can make an argument for why you think Lennon's songs are better than Gallagher's.

I can make an argument, but it is merely opinion and nothing else. In the grand scheme of things, neither is better or worse, because there is no better or worse. So, while it can be fun to discuss music, ultimately, it is entirely pointless on a 'ranking' basis.

Android 666

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I can make an argument, but it is merely opinion and nothing else. In the grand scheme of things, neither is better or worse, because there is no better or worse. So, while it can be fun to discuss music, ultimately, it is entirely pointless on a 'ranking' basis.

But essentially that means that all opinion, no matter how well or ill informed is valid and talent, originality, skill and creativity are meaningless.

We could then say that JLS are as good as The Smiths and that the lyric:

Ohh, shes the kinda girl I dream about
Magazines, glossy magazines
She is the only one I think about lead lady in my dreams

is as good as:

There's a club, if you'd like to go
You could meet someone who really loves you
So you go, and you stand on your own
And you leave on your own
And you go home
And you cry
And you want to die

Because there is no such thing as good or bad art.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Android 666 wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I can make an argument, but it is merely opinion and nothing else. In the grand scheme of things, neither is better or worse, because there is no better or worse. So, while it can be fun to discuss music, ultimately, it is entirely pointless on a 'ranking' basis.

But essentially that means that all opinion, no matter how well or ill informed is valid and talent, originality, skill and creativity are meaningless.

We could then say that JLS are as good as The Smiths and that the lyric:

Ohh, shes the kinda girl I dream about
Magazines, glossy magazines
She is the only one I think about lead lady in my dreams

is as good as:

There's a club, if you'd like to go
You could meet someone who really loves you
So you go, and you stand on your own
And you leave on your own
And you go home
And you cry
And you want to die

Because there is no such thing as good or bad art.

Precisely. No matter how much you want there to be vindication for your tastes, there isn't. No matter how much you think your adult sisters have bad taste in music because they like Westlife, they don't. Your frustration is futile and meaningless, get over it and simply enjoy the fact that you like what you like, and it doesn't mean you are superior to people.

It's far more humble, don't your agree?

Sinfonia

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I can make an argument, but it is merely opinion and nothing else. In the grand scheme of things, neither is better or worse, because there is no better or worse. So, while it can be fun to discuss music, ultimately, it is entirely pointless on a 'ranking' basis.

As I've said, if the only argument you can offer is based in merely opinion and subjective aesthetic tastes, then you don't understand the topic well enough to speak on objective merits.

I'm a huge Noel G fan.

Anyone who can make 100 million quid by playing distorted open chords and the odd pentatonic lick deserves respect.

Oasis_Dublin

Sinfonia wrote: »

First off, we've been talking about lyrics, not music.

Second, I really cannot stand this much-bandied-about argument on 'opinion'.
It really is the refuge of the ignorant: if you believe that any one opinion is equally valid to all other opinions, then you don't know enough about the topic. You might state an aesthetic preference, and that's fine, I can't argue with that. But excellent writing is a skill, not just an accidental talent wherein nobody can discern who is a better writer.

By your logic, the lyrics to Rebecca Black's 'Friday' are equally as profound as every piece of poetry or prose that has been written, or ever will be, because the interpretation and opinion of each individual audience member is equal, and neither correct nor incorrect.

Oh for our Lord and saviour, Jesus Christ's sake, whether it's lyrics or music, the point still stands. Anyone who thinks that a song writer just refers to the person writing the lyrics, and not the person writing the music, is very much naive. Especially in the case of Noel Gallagher.

Your second point is similarly disingenuous. I don't know any adults who believe that Rebecca Black and Noel Gallagher are on a similar level when it comes to writing lyrics or making music.

You don't know enough about me, or my knowledge of music, to call me ignorant. I'm afraid that makes you a rather large hypocrite.

We were comparing lyrics written by Thom Yorke (most famous for being in Radiohead) and Noel Gallagher (most famous for being in Oasis). I took an example of some of Yorke's later lyrics and argued that there is nothing special or original about them, which there absolutely isn't. He isn't profound and his lyrics certainly don't strike as much of a chord with me as Noel Gallagher's do. That makes Gallagher a better lyricist (or songwriter, as you might incorrectly call him) in my opinion. I know I'm an amazingly fantastic person(!), but my opinion isn't actually the be all and end all of opinions, nor would I be so arrogant as to claim that it was.

Android 666

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Precisely. No matter how much you want there to be vindication for your tastes, there isn't. No matter how much you think your adult sisters have bad taste in music because they like Westlife, they don't. Your frustration is futile and meaningless, get over it and simply enjoy the fact that you like what you like, and it doesn't mean you are superior to people.

It's far more humble, don't your agree?

This isn't about looking for vindication for my tastes and outside of Oasis fans I tend not to think of people as having bad taste in terms of what they listen to. I accept what I like even if others don't. But I understand that art can be looked at objectively to form an opinion of it's merit and can be evaluated on cultural and historical importance. Objectively I can understand the importance of bands and artists such as the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Aphex Twin and Sex Pistols whether I am a fan of their music or not. This is not about me being frustrated because I believe my taste in music is superior to others, you are trying to cheaply deflect the argument to make me out to be a music snob which is beside the point and has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Sinfonia wrote: »

As I've said, if the only argument you can offer is based in merely opinion and subjective aesthetic tastes, then you don't understand the topic well enough to speak on objective merits.

As I've said, there are no objective merits (in this topic), it has nothing to do with 'understanding the topic'. No amount of knowledge can make music taste objective. It cannot be objective. It is illogical to think otherwise.

I said to think about it.