KVR Audio

Chuck E. Jesus · Post by **Chuck E. Jesus** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:56 pm

eduardo_b wrote: I don't even know of any currently signed bands without singers.

because you are ignorant about music, and you prove it in every thread you post...

using one of your crazy analogies: everyone has to eat, but not everyone eats at McDonald's...and yet they still manage to eat! and methinks they are most likely getting a better meal...

eduardo_b · Post by **eduardo_b** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:57 pm

robojam wrote:You think Elvis or the Beatles aren't well known because their albums were released over 30 years ago? I doubt that Lil Wayne and Eminem fans know who the Beatles or Elvis are, but that doesn't make them any less popular.

Not quite the same level of popularity, or even close for that matter. The Jeff Beck 30-year reference was about the catalog of his albums and when he was getting airplay. And, as noted by someone else, he was best known for tracks with Rod Stewart. Might as well bring up Steve Winwood if you're going to use fill in the blank.

eduardo_b · Post by **eduardo_b** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:00 pm

Chuck E. Jesus wrote:
eduardo_b wrote: I don't even know of any currently signed bands without singers.
because you are ignorant about music, and you prove it in every thread you post...

Thanks for being your old self. If you're such an expert on current music, share with us the bands without singers now selling albums.

Chuck E. Jesus · Post by **Chuck E. Jesus** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:01 pm

eduardo_b wrote:And, as noted by someone else, he was best known for tracks with Rod Stewart.

wrong again...

can you name the singer for The Yardbirds without looking it up?

robogone · Post by **robogone** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:02 pm

eduardo_b wrote:If you want to keep moving the target, I'm not going along with it.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - you've been doing exactly that for a couple of pages (and pretty much any time you post here). Here's an example:

eduardo_b wrote:
robojam wrote:No 100 is not the universe, but 9 of a sample of 100 is probably not out of the ordinary.

You'll do anything to not lose an argument won't you? I've never been able to understand that "I'm right the rest of the world is wrong attitude" in anyone.
If you were running a record company and wanted to sell lots of product, you'd sign bands with lead singers. I don't even know of any currently signed bands without singers. There's no agrument to lose given this reality.

Of course there is no argument to lose when your reality is that you ignore the point made in my post completely. You ignore the fact that you're wrong about the percentage of guitarists that sing and try to move the argument to an earlier point in the thread.

Do you not ever notice that threads usually end up like this whenever you post? Do you still think it's everyone else?

robogone · Post by **robogone** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:04 pm

eduardo_b wrote:
Chuck E. Jesus wrote:
eduardo_b wrote: I don't even know of any currently signed bands without singers.
because you are ignorant about music, and you prove it in every thread you post...
Thanks for being your old self. If you're such an expert on current music, share with us the bands without singers now selling albums.

Still trying to prove the one point you're right about (that no one has disputed) to hide the fact that there are so many that you're wrong about...

eduardo_b · Post by **eduardo_b** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:04 pm

kelvyn wrote:I thought songs rule in commercial music Just kidding

Only songs with extended drum and guitar solos, don'cha know.

debra1rlo · Post by **debra1rlo** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:09 pm

I just wanted to bash some over dramatic wanky lead singers, why do people have to spoil my fun???

eduardo_b · Post by **eduardo_b** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:10 pm

Chuck E. Jesus wrote:
eduardo_b wrote:You really think Jeff Beck is well known from albums that came out 30 plus years ago? That was my only point. I'm just doubting he is known to people buying Lil Wayne and Eminem.

but your point sucks...people still talk about Charlie Parker, people still listen to Bach...Jeff Beck still fills the big halls...

No, my point remains valid. Most people who talk about Charlie Parker or Jeff Beck are fans from way back when, not the majority of people downloading from iTunes or buying CDs online. Just because you or I know who they are doesn't mean it's common knowledge.

robogone · Post by **robogone** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:10 pm

debra1rlo wrote:I just wanted to bash some over dramatic wanky lead singers, why do people have to spoil my fun???

Surely it's only a minute percentage of singers who are wanky, and does anyone remember the albums they did over 30 years ago? Name me one band that doesn't have a wanky singer...

eduardo_b · Post by **eduardo_b** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:11 pm

debra1rlo wrote:I just wanted to bash some over dramatic wanky lead singers, why do people have to spoil my fun???

You're not dissing Wayne Newton, are you?

Chuck E. Jesus · Post by **Chuck E. Jesus** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:13 pm

eduardo_b wrote:
Chuck E. Jesus wrote:
eduardo_b wrote: I don't even know of any currently signed bands without singers.
because you are ignorant about music, and you prove it in every thread you post...
Thanks for being your old self. If you're such an expert on current music, share with us the bands without singers now selling albums.

i said you were ignorant about music, it's not a personal attack...

any example i'd cite probably wouldn't fit in your "vs. Lil' Wayne" way of thinking about stuff...but there's always Smooth Jazz, it's mostly instrumental...there's whole post rock/math rock/technical metal scenes that have been existing for years and have bands that fill halls and are world famous...

debra1rlo · Post by **debra1rlo** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:13 pm

robojam wrote:
debra1rlo wrote:I just wanted to bash some over dramatic wanky lead singers, why do people have to spoil my fun???
Surely it's only a minute percentage of singers who are wanky, and does anyone remember the albums they did over 30 years ago? Name me one band that doesn't have a wanky singer...

Yeah, but back then it was relative wankiness, so only the wankiest were truly considered wanky. The world that I once knowed has changed.

debra1rlo · Post by **debra1rlo** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:15 pm

eduardo_b wrote:
debra1rlo wrote:I just wanted to bash some over dramatic wanky lead singers, why do people have to spoil my fun???
You're not dissing Wayne Newton, are you?

Wayne Newton doesn't have enough wank to be worth my time.

eduardo_b · Post by **eduardo_b** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:17 pm

robojam wrote:
eduardo_b wrote:If you want to keep moving the target, I'm not going along with it.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - you've been doing exactly that for a couple of pages (and pretty much any time you post here). Here's an example:

eduardo_b wrote:
robojam wrote:No 100 is not the universe, but 9 of a sample of 100 is probably not out of the ordinary.

You'll do anything to not lose an argument won't you? I've never been able to understand that "I'm right the rest of the world is wrong attitude" in anyone.
If you were running a record company and wanted to sell lots of product, you'd sign bands with lead singers. I don't even know of any currently signed bands without singers. There's no agrument to lose given this reality.
Of course there is no argument to lose when your reality is that you ignore the point made in my post completely. You ignore the fact that you're wrong about the percentage of guitarists that sing and try to move the argument to an earlier point in the thread.

Do you not ever notice that threads usually end up like this whenever you post? Do you still think it's everyone else?

But exceptions don't disprove the rule. Northing's changed. And, if you check back, you'll note my original post about guitarists was in response to someone else's post.

BTW, do you not ever notice that threads usually end up like this whenever you post?

Lead Singer Disease