I'm pretty sure Saskatchewan wasn't thought up by white settlers back in the day. Regina relates to the Queen. Very unoriginal. Although Regina used to be called Pile Of Bones until it was changed to Regina. I wish it was still called that.

What's the deal with the Beatles song Dig a Pony? I really like the song, but I can't figure out what "dig a pony" is supposed to mean.

It means to hit on a pony thick, gosh.

In all seriousness, I don't know.

But, you know "Milwaukee is actually an indian name which means "The Good Land" "Actually, it's pronounced Mil - e - wah - kay"

[QUOTE=thickasabrick]I'm pretty sure Saskatchewan wasn't thought up by white settlers back in the day. Regina relates to the Queen. Very unoriginal. Although Regina used to be called Pile Of Bones until it was changed to Regina. I wish it was still called that.

What's the deal with the Beatles song Dig a Pony? I really like the song, but I can't figure out what "dig a pony" is supposed to mean.[/QUOTE]
This is irrealevent but it looks like the tree in your avatar is growing out of a cake.

Dig a Pony. To Dig a Pony?

[QUOTE=MalcolmYoungRock]It means to hit on a pony thick, gosh.

In all seriousness, I don't know.

But, you know "Milwaukee is actually an indian name which means "The Good Land" "Actually, it's pronounced Mil - e - wah - kay"[/QUOTE]

I did not know that...does this guy know how to party or what?!


Give Alice Cooper some credit for that. :thumb:

[QUOTE=lunch998]I think The Who>Beatles.

Lately I've been listening to a lot of Willy and the Poor Boys.[/QUOTE]

Ah I think I see where your coming from now. For some reason I could never get into the Who, I don't know why because they seem like they would be perfect for me. I recognize they are one of the greatest bands of all time, but for some reason they do nothing for me. But I'm sure if they did I would think the same :thumb:

[QUOTE=pigonthewing82]Ah I think I see where your coming from now. For some reason I could never get into the Who, I don't know why because they seem like they would be perfect for me. I recognize they are one of the greatest bands of all time, but for some reason they do nothing for me. But I'm sure if they did I would think the same :thumb:[/QUOTE]

Listen to Tommy and Who's Next.

Instant Addiction CDS.

[QUOTE=thickasabrick]I did not know that...does this guy know how to party or what?!


Give Alice Cooper some credit for that. :thumb:[/QUOTE]

Does the plant in your avatar represent or symbolize anything. Why do you have it?

It did make a good Christmas tree :thumb:

I think it goes... Beatles>Stones>Who. I love them all though, and I could probably fit a few bands into that equation between the Beatles and The Who.

My bonsai tree does look like it's coming out of a cake...it's just a pot though.

edit- and it's a bonsai tree Badmoon. I have one similiar at home, although it's only like two years old...the one in my pic is about eight or ten years old. I just really like them and they are fun to take care of. That tree in my pic is probably about seven inches tall, mines a little smaller.

300 more pages and we will be at 1337!

I personally enjoy the Who more than the Beatles but I except the Beatles as the greater band.

I could never get into the stones though, ive heard their stuff on the radio and i enjoy it but I ne'er got around to buying an album:upset: what's there best work?

[QUOTE=MalcolmYoungRock]Listen to Tommy and Who's Next.

Instant Addiction CDS.[/QUOTE]

Hey, worked for me.

[QUOTE=thickasabrick]I think it goes... Beatles>Stones>Who. I love them all though, and I could probably fit a few bands into that equation between the Beatles and The Who.

My bonsai tree does look like it's coming out of a cake...it's just a pot though.

edit- and it's a bonsai tree Badmoon. I have one similiar at home, although it's only like two years old...the one in my pic is about eight or ten years old. I just really like them and they are fun to take care of. That tree in my pic is probably about seven inches tall, mines a little smaller.[/QUOTE]


Isn't a bonsai tree like a regular tree upside down or something..?? :confused:

[QUOTE=thickasabrick]I think it goes... Beatles>Stones>Who. I love them all though, and I could probably fit a few bands into that equation between the Beatles and The Who.

My bonsai tree does look like it's coming out of a cake...it's just a pot though.

edit- and it's a bonsai tree Badmoon. I have one similiar at home, although it's only like two years old...the one in my pic is about eight or ten years old. I just really like them and they are fun to take care of. That tree in my pic is probably about seven inches tall, mines a little smaller.[/QUOTE]

Cool.

Bonsai Kitten = not cool

[QUOTE=Dark_Horse_335]I personally enjoy the Who more than the Beatles but I except the Beatles as the greater band.[/QUOTE]

I do, to a small extent.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Cool.

Bonsai Kitten = not cool[/QUOTE]


The Bonsai Kitten things are so sad... :(

I'll kill the bast[color=white]tard[/color] who thought of that.

[QUOTE=MalcolmYoungRock]Isn't a bonsai tree like a regular tree upside down or something..?? :confused:[/QUOTE]

No it's just a very miniature tree. Any tree you've seen in your life could also come in bonsai form. They vary from 4 to about 40 inches tall and you can twist and shape them how you want, and cut them into cool shapes. Ever seen The Karate Kid? The old guy has a really cool one.

edit- who do you guys think is the most depressing artist you listen to? I'd say Bob Dylan for me. Almost all of his songs (except his protest songs) are about lost loves and the such. That's basically all Blood on the Tracks is about.

[QUOTE=Dark_Horse_335]I personally enjoy the Who more than the Beatles but I except the Beatles as the greater band.[/QUOTE]
Same here, but I [B]accept[/B] the Beatles as the superior band. (sorry, I couldn't resist)

I used to have a Bonsai tree... it was barely starting to sprout when the cat knocked it off a windowsill. Da[color=white]mn[/color] cat.

[QUOTE=MalcolmYoungRock]Listen to Tommy and Who's Next.

Instant Addiction CDS.[/QUOTE]

See I have, I actually listen to Tommy somtimes, but I can't explain it. They seem like a band I would love but they just bounce off me. On the other hand there was a day I thought the same about the Beatles, so I'm hoping they will grow on me.

[QUOTE=pigonthewing82]See I have, I actually listen to Tommy somtimes, but I can't explain it. They seem like a band I would love but they just bounce off me. On the other hand there was a day I thought the same about the Beatles, so I'm hoping they will grow on me.[/QUOTE]

Ya for many years I couldn't get into the Beatles. And I didn't understand why the hell people thought they were so good. My friend's dad gave me the Abbey Road record and I tried listening to it once and then put it away for a few years. Now I absolutely love the Beatles.

So ... Widespread Panic is cool

/randomness

See I don't know why we have to accept the Beatles as a "greater" band then everyone else.

[QUOTE=lunch998]See I don't know why we have to accept the Beatles as a "greater" band then everyone else.[/QUOTE]

Well my reasons for it are that there are very few bands that escaped their influence. There instrumentals, vocals, and lyrics are amazing and catchy with a good message, they were huge political figures, they went through more changes more then any band I can think of, and every change was a good one so somtimes its like your not listening to the same band. But thats just me.

It's part of our Classic Rock religion?

[QUOTE=pigonthewing82]Well my reasons for it are that there are very few bands that escaped their influence. There instrumentals, vocals, and lyrics are amazing and catchy with a good message, they were huge political figures, they went through more changes more then any band I can think of, and every change was a good one so somtimes its like your not listening to the same band. But thats just me.[/QUOTE]

I'd argue that The Who changed just as much.

[QUOTE=lunch998]See I don't know why we have to accept the Beatles as a "greater" band then everyone else.[/QUOTE]

You don't have to accept it. I never accepted it until just a few months ago.

The main reason The Beatles were huge is because they took whatever music was on the cutting edge, and made it accessable to the general public. You no longer had to be a young rebellious teen to listen to rock, and later on you didn't have to be a hippy to listen to psychedelic music because they wrote songs in such a way that anyone could relate to them.

edit- I kinda worded that strangely at parts..

Hay guys.

For my two cents, the Beatles > all. It's inevitable for all to understand.

The Who had more talent, changed just as much, directly influenced probably as many bands as the Beatles directly influneced(musically), were far superior in terms of live shows, and were maybe even equal in songwriting. The Who could play great pop music, but they went on to do so much more than that. The Beatles never did a Tommy.

[QUOTE=Paranoidd]Hay guys.

For my two cents, the Beatles > all. It's inevitable for all to understand.[/QUOTE]

Whoa, look who stopped in.

[QUOTE=lunch998]The Who had more talent, changed just as much, directly influenced probably as many bands as the Beatles directly influneced(musically), were far superior in terms of live shows, and were maybe even equal in songwriting. The Who could play great pop music, but they went on to do so much more than that. The Beatles never did a Tommy.[/QUOTE]

They had a Hard Days Night with a Yellow Submarine, though.

[QUOTE=lunch998]The Who had more talent, changed just as much, directly influenced probably as many bands as the Beatles directly influneced(musically), were far superior in terms of live shows, and were maybe even equal in songwriting. The Who could play great pop music, but they went on to do so much more than that. The Beatles never did a Tommy.[/QUOTE]

Thats a well explained opinion, although it's still just an opinion.

What do you mean "did a Tommy"? You mean made a concept album that fit into a movie? Such as Sgt. Peppers?

Yes I'm going to have to take the non "Beatles>All" side on this one.

[QUOTE]The Who had more talent, changed just as much, directly influenced probably as many bands as the Beatles directly influneced(musically), were far superior in terms of live shows, and were maybe even equal in songwriting. The Who could play great pop music, but they went on to do so much more than that. The Beatles never did a Tommy. [/QUOTE]

They did not influence as many bands as The Beatles, and arguably changed music as much as them. (IMO)

[QUOTE=thickasabrick]Thats a well explained opinion, although it's still just an opinion.

What do you mean "did a Tommy"? You mean made a concept album that fit into a movie? Such as Sgt. Peppers?[/QUOTE]

Sgt. Peppers is just pop songs with more studio effects. Tommy was a much better concept/story/rock opera than anything the Beatles did. I also believe the musicianship and songwriting on Tommy are at least as good as the best of the Beatles.

[QUOTE=thickasabrick]Thats a well explained opinion, although it's still just an opinion.

What do you mean "did a Tommy"? You mean made a concept album that fit into a movie? Such as Sgt. Peppers?[/QUOTE]
No, anyone can make a concept album that fits into a movie. Tommy is alot more than just that.

[QUOTE=lunch998]The Who had more talent, changed just as much, directly influenced probably as many bands as the Beatles directly influneced(musically), were far superior in terms of live shows, and were maybe even equal in songwriting. The Who could play great pop music, but they went on to do so much more than that. The Beatles never did a Tommy.[/QUOTE]

Well they did write harder songs to play I'll give them that. The Beatles really couldn't do much touring during their rock days, and they also did a lot more then pop, and depending on how you interpret Sgt.Peppers the Beatles did do a Tommy.

Don't get me wrong I don't think the Who are a bad band, and in many ways its pointless to try to find the "greatest" rock band, I just feel that some of the way you look at the Beatles is closer to their "Fab Four" days then their "amazing rocker" days

[QUOTE=Badmoon]They did not influence as many bands as The Beatles, and arguably changed music as much as them. (IMO)[/QUOTE]
I'd say they did.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]They did not influence as many bands as The Beatles, and arguably changed music as much as them. (IMO)[/QUOTE]

Almost any music group will say that they are influenced by the Bealtes. But in terms of actual musical influences, many of those bands have no trace of Beatles influence. Therefore in terms of just musical influence, the Who=Beatles.

[QUOTE=lunch998]Sgt. Peppers is just pop songs with more studio effects. Tommy was a much better concept/story/rock opera than anything the Beatles did. I also believe the musicianship and songwriting on Tommy are at least as good as the best of the Beatles.[/QUOTE]

Come come now...that's hardly fair.

Sgt. Peppers, while retaining the Beatles typical superior songwriting, was a little more than Pop with studio effects.

Besides, it was those studio effects that made the Beatles to influential. The recording techniques they use are still revered by people today. I used to have a huge book dedicated to dissecting the techniques used in every song they made.

[QUOTE=Paranoidd]Come come now...that's hardly fair.

Sgt. Peppers, while retaining the Beatles typical superior songwriting, was a little more than Pop with studio effects.

Besides, it was those studio effects that made the Beatles to influential. The recording techniques they use are still revered by people today. I used to have a huge book dedicated to dissecting the techniques used in every song they made.[/QUOTE]

True, to an extent.

In terms of just music though, I think Tommy is far superior. And without using the studio too much, they could play it live.

And after Sgt Peppers a lot more bands from that time used a full band in their songs like Pink Floyd and Hendrix wanted to, but died. It is a lot more then pop.

I never said it wasn't influencial at all.