Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

by JAS Tue 02 Sep 2014, 6:30 am

First topic message reminder :

McLaren wrote:Right now I would rather we still had Wellbeck and little pea and that Falcao had never arrived. Not too impressed by the signing of Di Maria either.

"We"?? I'm surprised you associate yourself to an organisation that has squandered over £135 this summer, whilst there are homeless people on the streets and starving children in the world!! They could have spent £135m on those things and left the squad alone, finishing top half would still be ok wouldn't it? Especially if so many peoples lives were improved by redirecting transfer monies to charity.

by raycastleunited Thu 16 Oct 2014, 1:02 pm

McLaren wrote:I would like to know what players you would rank ahead of fletcher when he was in his prime, around 2006 to 2011?

Really? You can't think of any? Off the top of my head... Beckham, Gerrard, Lampard, Hargreaves, Carrick, Scholes and Butt (right at the start of that period). And that's before I even start a list of wide players.

by McLaren Thu 16 Oct 2014, 1:19 pm

I am not sure lampard, gerrard, beckham or Scholes could be described as playing the same role Fletcher.

Hargreaves was clearly a world class player and I would not argue Fletcher was as good as him but there would still be place for fletcher in a UK squad. I would also accept that carrick is probably ever so slightly better than Fletcher, but again this does not mean there would be no place for fletcher in a UK squad.

by MustPuttBetter Thu 16 Oct 2014, 1:34 pm

raycastleunited wrote:Really? You can't think of any? Off the top of my head... Beckham, Gerrard, Lampard, Hargreaves, Carrick, Scholes and Butt (right at the start of that period). And that's before I even start a list of wide players.

Exactly the answer i was about to give.

Mac, same role or not - and actually i would say Fletcher plays exactly the same role as Hargreaves or Butt did for England, just worse - they still would be vying for the same central midfield positions.

Plus over the 5 seasons from 2006 to 2011 Fletcher averaged 20 starts a season, and that mainly due to two seasons where he was genuinely first choice. So he's hardly ever been a regular for United, let alone getting in a UK team

by MustPuttBetter Thu 16 Oct 2014, 1:38 pm

West - from another Villa fan, i don't rate Hutton either!

Bacuna is much better

by westisbest Thu 16 Oct 2014, 1:56 pm

Would have kept Lowton at rb.

by MustPuttBetter Thu 16 Oct 2014, 2:07 pm

Hmm, started last season well and then tailed off somewhat. Still better than Hutton though!

by super_realist Thu 16 Oct 2014, 2:17 pm

Hutton is awful, he was at fault for both POland's goals the other night. I've seen him play well, but most of the time he doesn't.

by westisbest Thu 16 Oct 2014, 2:55 pm

super_realist wrote:Hutton is awful, he was at fault for both POland's goals the other night. I've seen him play well, but most of the time he doesn't.

Very true.

Bad mistake for Polands first goal.

by beninho Sat 18 Oct 2014, 4:55 pm

I would eight to be a Sunderland fan.

by **navyblueshorts** Sat 18 Oct 2014, 6:06 pm

beninho wrote:I would eight to be a Sunderland fan.

by incontinentia Sat 18 Oct 2014, 7:48 pm

Just to continue the U2 discussion away from kwini's thread- I have started a thread in the music section asking people to rate U2's place among the greatest bands of all time. Pretty sure the feedback will be overwhelmingly positive. And navy I stand by the assertion that they were the best band in the world for a few years in the 80's and 90's. Tons of classic songs in that era. I think super is trying to be cool by saying he doesnt like them.

by westisbest Sat 18 Oct 2014, 8:04 pm

One of my favourite songs of U2 is With Or Without You.

Awesome song.

by pedro Sat 18 Oct 2014, 9:31 pm

U2 made some great songs, agreed.

by kwinigolfer Sat 18 Oct 2014, 9:31 pm

westi,
Put something on the Music Room thread on the main golf page, about 20 threads down.

I would say that the crescendoing opening of Streets with no Name blasted out at full volume in a baseball stadium full of 45,000 faithful fans when a pitching change is made, is a blast.
All downhill for the last 20 years though.

by McLaren Sat 18 Oct 2014, 9:40 pm

kwini

I just blasted that out, I have not wept so much since brookside finale. Crying or Very sad

Thanks.

by pedro Sat 18 Oct 2014, 11:28 pm

beninho wrote:I would eight to be a Sunderland fan.

They need aid.

by super_realist Mon 20 Oct 2014, 8:05 am

incontinentia wrote:Just to continue the U2 discussion away from kwini's thread- I have started a thread in the music section asking people to rate U2's place among the greatest bands of all time. Pretty sure the feedback will be overwhelmingly positive. And navy I stand by the assertion that they were the best band in the world for a few years in the 80's and 90's. Tons of classic songs in that era. I think super is trying to be cool by saying he doesnt like them.

Not trying to be cool, I genuinely despise U2, however I'm glad you deem it uncool to like U2 as that's exactly what they are.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 20 Oct 2014, 8:58 am

incontinentia wrote:Just to continue the U2 discussion away from kwini's thread- I have started a thread in the music section asking people to rate U2's place among the greatest bands of all time. Pretty sure the feedback will be overwhelmingly positive. And navy I stand by the assertion that they were the best band in the world for a few years in the 80's and 90's. Tons of classic songs in that era. I think super is trying to be cool by saying he doesnt like them.

You could make the assertion that they were one of the biggest bands commercially during that time but I don't subscribe to that being equal to them being the best by any stretch of the imagination. Their B.B. King phase was pretty awful for one thing. I quite like the odd individual song ('One' being a good example) but, for me, although they've done some good bits an pieces, they're massively over-rated.
Hey ho. It's just music and that certainly divides opinion.

by incontinentia Mon 20 Oct 2014, 10:55 am

Yes navy, not much point debating subjective tastes. But imo the critical acclaim and commercial success is a good indicator of their quality.

navy/super-please share who you feel deserves to be on the short list of greatest bands...

by Davie Mon 20 Oct 2014, 10:57 am

I'll nominate The Beatles .. just to annoy super further :P

by super_realist Mon 20 Oct 2014, 11:01 am

It's all subjective, and it's my subjective opinion that U2 sound the same and are the most over-rated band since the similarly over-rated beatles.

Commercial success is absolutely not a measurement of quality in any aspect of life, certainly not music.
Crazy Frog and Gangnam Style sold by the container ship but you couldn't possibly make a case for either being quality.

by incontinentia Mon 20 Oct 2014, 11:10 am

Super- whats your top 5 bands of all time?

by super_realist Mon 20 Oct 2014, 11:13 am

incontinentia wrote:Super- whats your top 5 bands of all time?

I don't have "all time" lists for that. I'll listen to something or a type of music for a while, move on to something else. I can't think of one single thing I could go back to time and again.

Don't even think I've got a single favourite song.

by Davie Mon 20 Oct 2014, 11:16 am

In what way were the Beatles overrated super? They revolutionalised the music industry in the 60s, and have been influential to much of the music business ever since then. Also fairly accomplished musicians for the time (yes, even Ringo - don't believe everything you read about him)

So yes, subjective .. they may not have been to your taste .. I can accept that, but to dismiss them as overrated? I don't get that part

by super_realist Mon 20 Oct 2014, 11:20 am

Davie wrote:In what way were the Beatles overrated super? They revolutionalised the music industry in the 60s, and have been influential to much of the music business ever since then. Also fairly accomplished musicians for the time (yes, even Ringo - don't believe everything you read about him)

So yes, subjective .. they may not have been to your taste .. I can accept that, but to dismiss them as overrated? I don't get that part

Yes, they might have changed the way music was played, but that's no way to laud them now. A lot of the songs were pretty terrible and Lennon and McCartney are incredibly over-rated as "song writers" when you see some of the drivel they've written, especially on a lyrical side of things.

They had their place, and for me it finished in the 70's.

I see the hype very much similar to something like the Old Course, take the history away and what have you got? Not much

by pedro Mon 20 Oct 2014, 11:23 am

Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen massively overrated as well.

by super_realist Mon 20 Oct 2014, 11:25 am

pedro wrote:Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen massively overrated as well.

I'm not familiar with Leonard Cohen (think i've successfully blanked my parents constant playing from my mind when I was a kid) but Dylan was terrible. Perhaps the worst singer ever in a genre I truly hated.

by McLaren Mon 20 Oct 2014, 11:45 am

Super

What was the most recent album you listened to and enjoyed?

by kwinigolfer Mon 20 Oct 2014, 12:11 pm

What's overrated about Dylan (his lyrics anyway, probably the most influential song-writer of his era - which clearly ended a generation ago) and Leonard Cohen, personal fave of mine for 45 years?

Cohen's sell-outs in Montreal a couple of years ago were phenomenal events, even musically!
pedro, If you get the chance, listen to extended interviews with Lenny; compelling listening about so much that life has to offer, and sometimes takes away.

by super_realist Mon 20 Oct 2014, 12:28 pm

McLaren wrote:Super

What was the most recent album you listened to and enjoyed?

I tend to just go on Youtube/Bandcamp/LastFM/Spotify voyages whilst at work, last full album I listened to and enjoyed was probably something like Balmorhea or Tycho

by MustPuttBetter Mon 20 Oct 2014, 12:37 pm

I agree with SR re the Beatles. I accept that the wow factor of what they were doing at the time may have added to it and i missed that, but the music is definitely not anything special now, in my opinion. Accomplished musicians indeed but no better, below average singers and poor/crazy lyrics.

The music equivalent of watching Space Odyssey 2001 now for me....

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 20 Oct 2014, 12:47 pm

incontinentia wrote:Yes navy, not much point debating subjective tastes. But imo the critical acclaim and commercial success is a good indicator of their quality.

navy/super-please share who you feel deserves to be on the short list of greatest bands...

Who knows? I'm a rock fan so I'd probably throw you Iron Maiden (80s) and Queen (70s/80s) as two bands who were at least on a par with U2 for starters although I make no claim as to whether you should like their musical output. What's more, they actually have musicians, IMO, worth their salt.
U2 are a weird one for me - started out with their Sunday Bloody Sunday 'rebel' songs and were a bit 'right on' and then hit that radio-friendly channel that Cold Play seem to have done so well (now there's a band I seriously dislike) and did some other 'right on' things like playing on top of a building. Whoopee. Along the way though, I think U2 have done some good songs without ever really justifying their hype and they have at least tried some different musical avenues, even if 'The Edge' ( Laugh

) always sounds the same. It's the hype with U2 that bugs me tbh. Even Bono tugging someone out of a concert audience was plagiarised from a Springsteen video. Thinking about it, I have to give them credit where their marketing and promotion is concerned.

by super_realist Mon 20 Oct 2014, 12:53 pm

Always wondered why someone would call themselves something as stupid as "The Edge"? The edge of what?
Bono is also a stupid name.

by westisbest Mon 20 Oct 2014, 12:54 pm

Bob Dylan is class.

Some great songs.

by pedro Mon 20 Oct 2014, 12:55 pm

kwinigolfer wrote:What's overrated about Dylan (his lyrics anyway, probably the most influential song-writer of his era - which clearly ended a generation ago) and Leonard Cohen, personal fave of mine for 45 years?

Cohen's sell-outs in Montreal a couple of years ago were phenomenal events, even musically!
pedro, If you get the chance, listen to extended interviews with Lenny; compelling listening about so much that life has to offer, and sometimes takes away.

There’s more to music than compelling lyrics. Dylan and Cohen are far too monotonous IMO. While Dylan may have been influential among certain demographics he reminds too much of Tuesday nights entertainment at your local pub.

Cohen’s music is the perfect backdrop for an elevator ride, and quite pleasant in fact, but not much more. And I bet most people who lived the life he did would have interesting stories to tell.

I have nothing against either of them (although Dylan may be a bit too far up his own behind) I just say that their music is nothing special compared to the hype they get/got.

by super_realist Mon 20 Oct 2014, 12:57 pm

Dylan is too much of a drunken, stroke victim slurring dirge for me. I don't like Bob Marley either.

by kwinigolfer Mon 20 Oct 2014, 1:19 pm

Would suggest that, whatever you say about their music/lyrics:

~The Beatles were probably the single most important driving force to jolt life in post-war Britain into the 20th century.

~And Dylan made it OK to question the status quo, of and in North America at least.

Difficult to imagine two more influential artists.

Wouldn't try to impose Leonard Cohen on anyone, but I love him! Plus, pedro, isn't that that the point of interviews of "people who lived the life he did" (which not many people have), to tell their "interesting stories" in an articulate and compelling way??!!

by westisbest Mon 20 Oct 2014, 1:40 pm

super_realist wrote:Dylan is too much of a drunken, stroke victim slurring dirge for me. I don't like Bob Marley either.

Dont think you like anyone Very Happy

by westisbest Mon 20 Oct 2014, 1:44 pm

Have to say, re Marley, had some good songs.

by incontinentia Mon 20 Oct 2014, 1:53 pm

Yes a lot of negativity from the realist camp, have you watched true detective yet super/westi?

by super_realist Mon 20 Oct 2014, 1:58 pm

I think generally Inco, things that appeal to the mainstream, especially music wise tend to be a bit bland and wishy washy. Hard to put my finger on it, but that's the way it seems.

Not tried True Detective yet Inco, not on Netflix I don't think so I don't think I'll be able to.
Tried the first episode of Breaking Bad the other day, gave up half way through, same happened with that much hyped Inception film. I just don't see the appeal.

by Roller_Coaster Mon 20 Oct 2014, 1:58 pm

Cohen - have to admit to having no idea about his catalogue of work. There was a dire re-hash by an X Factorist of one of his tracks wasn't there? I thought that was dirge (the track as well as the X Factor delivery I'm afraid).

U2 - I like Joshua Tree which has some excellent tracks on and I personally like Achtung Baby. I try to ignore the gabble/furore (often - or mostly - self generated) around them. Haven't found them particularly relevant for quite some time although Elevation and Beautiful Day I quite enjoy without suggesting they are anything other than accessible and active. In terms of names, have a look around some forums (this one definitely included) and look at some of the monickers people have adopted. Bono and The Edge may sound a tad silly but they may be more apt than (and he points fun at himself rather than offending anyone else) say Roller_Coaster for example.

Beatles - have to say I also find them over-rated, but do accept that I wasn't around at the time and so am missing the all important context that is touted as being a major factor in their undoubted importance. My dad was, and his view is also that they were over-rated. But I accept we're in a minority. He proffers The Eagles (I've not invested any time in them either) as a band that was better and more important. Again, I wasn't around so not sure whether that theory holds much water either.

Dylan - simply don't get him, sorry. All I have in my head is a scruffy man mumbling "weeenie weee" type noise overly nasally delivered. The delivery is, to me personally, too annoying a barrier to get over to be bothered trying to delve deeper although on the law of averages there must be some belters in a discography that is so large.

Marley - did have some excellent songs in isolation, but I find if you play/hear more than 2 in a row they get really boring really quickly to me. An excellent eclectic playlist component, but not for whole album listening.

One thing is for certain though - they're all more talented musically than I am so my opinions wouldn't register a jot with any of them!

by incontinentia Mon 20 Oct 2014, 2:03 pm

super_realist wrote:I think generally Inco, things that appeal to the mainstream, especially music wise tend to be a bit bland and wishy washy. Hard to put my finger on it, but that's the way it seems.

Not tried True Detective yet Inco, not on Netflix I don't think so I don't think I'll be able to.
Tried the first episode of Breaking Bad the other day, gave up half way through, same happened with that much hyped Inception film. I just don't see the appeal.

Breaking Bad is so-so for the first 2 seasons, then it gets really good. Give it a chance.

by super_realist Mon 20 Oct 2014, 2:10 pm

2 series is way too much effort to put in before it gets good, especially these American ones which have 12-16 episodes a series.

By the way, when did we start calling them "seasons"?

by beninho Mon 20 Oct 2014, 2:18 pm

The Beatles are good, but not all songs stand the test of time, The Rolling Stones have some belters, which still sound good, but because they diluted the back catalogue with some crap, they do not get the same recognition. Gimme Shelter, stands up to anything the Beatles have produced.

First Albums i brought where Automatic for the people, and Nevermind, both as good today as when first released. I am very out of touch with any new music though.

by JAS Mon 20 Oct 2014, 2:20 pm

I can understand the Beatles being on most all time lists. Having listened to them over and over again tho you can play them out. Nobody can surely deny though that they had a very significant role in the evolution of music.

For me it's the Clash I can keep going back to, never tire of some of their stuff. Similarly but with a different style and a much bigger back catalogue, The Stranglers. For a favourite album I just loved Never Mind The B0ll0cks Here's the Sex Pistols. Arguably it had a greater ground breaking impact than anything the Beatles had done.

by incontinentia Mon 20 Oct 2014, 2:21 pm

The Who have declared Nigeria free from Ebola

by super_realist Mon 20 Oct 2014, 2:25 pm

Good old Roger Daltrey.

by kwinigolfer Mon 20 Oct 2014, 2:26 pm

Roller,
It's all personal taste of course, isn't it? Plus what a certain artist represents to any individual.
Certainly like The Eagles, tho' later Hotel Cal stuff way over-produced. An earlier (by say ten years) generation would say they were the natural successors to The Byrds, vying with Buffalo Springfield for that honour.
There's a great "family tree" illustrated on the cover of "History of The Byrds" which shows how The Byrds spawned so many different bands and influences, those two plus Flying Burrito Brothers, Poco and loads of others.

Enjoying War on Drugs at the moment but imagine that's so "yesterday" to many!

by super_realist Mon 20 Oct 2014, 2:41 pm

Just going through some of XTC's stuff now. Enjoying it on the whole.

by Sponsored content