Kings Of Leon are The Beatles of today. - Music

nutso42

I'm considering starting a new thread... "Mumford & Sons are The Beatles of today". I think it'd go over really well.

Cymro2011
The Beatles were objectively average

Gender: Male
Age: 28
Location: In a deep, dark bubblegum graveyard

nutso42 wrote:

I'm considering starting a new thread... "Mumford & Sons are The Beatles of today". I think it'd go over really well.

I can see it now. Everyone would come to an agreement that Mumford & Sons are better than The Beatles could ever have hoped to be and then everyone would hold hands and skip into the sunset.

nutso42

Cymro2011 wrote:

I can see it now. Everyone would come to an agreement that Mumford & Sons are better than The Beatles could ever have hoped to be and then everyone would hold hands and skip into the sunset.

Exactly right. No other possible outcome. At all.

paladisiac
= music

Gender: Male
Location: Denver

i think a two-letter answer of "no" will suffice as a response to the thread's title.
_________________
fav artists NOW | ALL-TIME favs | i listen 2 more music than u so u don't have 2!

camsh

Gender: Male
Age: 26

an_outlaw wrote:

We need to be looking up to bands like Kings Of Leon to take the mantle of the Greatest Current Rock Band if we are to move forward

_________________

MrFrogger wrote:

Camsch - Has by far the worst sig on BEA.

ColumnatedRuins

Gender: Male

Happymeal wrote:

I don't remember him saying that KOL sold more than the Beatles and more sales does not equate to being better known.

That is bullshit, unless under a specific set of circumstances that do not apply here (i.e. when the celebrity of a individual greatly, greatly overshadows their work- I'd reckon that many people have heard of Paris Hilton's album, but a fewer number actually bought and listened to the thing.) If you respond to this, I want your definition of what "better known" means and an example of an instance in which an Artist A has significantly higher record sales (as is the case of Beatles v. Kings of Leon) yet is less known than Artist B among the general population, not just one subset of individuals.

Late edit: Also, you apparently didn't even take the time to understand my (simplistic and flippant) point. Outlaw mentioned/implied that 60s artists are/are in danger of falling out of fashion to newer artists like Kings of Leon. I mentioned the sales figures as pretty direct evidence (and yes, sales are absolutely a barometer of how fashionable/contemporarily relevant an artist is in pop culture) that this was not the case. This is not even to mention the resurgence of popularity the group's brand experienced with the release of the Beatles Rock Band video game in 2010, I think.

Happymeal wrote:

Also, could we not say "objectively wrong". Objectivity is a tough word to discuss with, if you want to, say factually wrong and even then you're incorrect with that statement

No, it isn't. Objectivity is a very easy word to discuss within certain connotations (admittedly very difficult under other connotations- morality, art, etc). All an objective fact is is a fact that is mind-independent. Regardless of yours or mine or the OPs feelings and thoughts on the subject, the Beatles sold more than the Kings of Leon last decade. Objectivity. I don't understand what is so difficult to grasp about this. I was not incorrect with my statement.

(and I am interested in your distinction between "factually wrong" and "objectively wrong", please explain- they seem like synonyms to me)

And please, reread the OP's post again and tell me that he wasn't making a joke somewhere along the lines of "better known"=more sales=better, more relevant band. I could be very mistaken about his thoughts behind the joke (making all of this a waste of time), but you can't argue against this- only the OP can.

Wombi

happymeal trolling > happymeal playing devil's advocate

Happymeal

ColumnatedRuins wrote:

That is bullshit, unless under a specific set of circumstances that do not apply here (i.e. when the celebrity of a individual greatly, greatly overshadows their work- I'd reckon that many people have heard of Paris Hilton's album, but a fewer number actually bought and listened to the thing.) If you respond to this, I want your definition of what "better known" means and an example of an instance in which an Artist A has significantly higher record sales (as is the case of Beatles v. Kings of Leon) yet is less known than Artist B among the general population, not just one subset of individuals.

Late edit: Also, you apparently didn't even take the time to understand my (simplistic and flippant) point. Outlaw mentioned/implied that 60s artists are/are in danger of falling out of fashion to newer artists like Kings of Leon. I mentioned the sales figures as pretty direct evidence (and yes, sales are absolutely a barometer of how fashionable/contemporarily relevant an artist is in pop culture) that this was not the case. This is not even to mention the resurgence of popularity the group's brand experienced with the release of the Beatles Rock Band video game in 2010, I think.

First of all, let me make clear that in the same post I expressed that I think the Beatles are far more popular than KOL. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you in this case, so don't fucking misconstrue my sentiment (coming from someone who supposedly complains about me not understanding your position, you apparently didn't take the time to completely understand mine).

That being said, sales does not fucking necessarily equate to popularity or being better known. That being said, we're debating better known. If you're going to argue that being "better known" as far as music goes means that people not only know of your music, but also listen to it, then we're done here. We have two completely different ideas of what being "better known" is. I think being "better known" requires several things, as far as music goes that is. A. People know of you, B. People know of your music. That's about it. They know you and know that you make music. Here's the perfect example where your sales argument is bullshit. Justin Bieber. Easily hated for his music, far more known than the beatles that even people who haven't heard his music actually know that he makes music, whether because people have hated it or liked it is a different story. He has far less fucking sales than the beatles.

ColumnatedRuins wrote:

No, it isn't. Objectivity is a very easy word to discuss within certain connotations (admittedly very difficult under other connotations- morality, art, etc). All an objective fact is is a fact that is mind-independent. Regardless of yours or mine or the OPs feelings and thoughts on the subject, the Beatles sold more than the Kings of Leon last decade. Objectivity. I don't understand what is so difficult to grasp about this. I was not incorrect with my statement.

(and I am interested in your distinction between "factually wrong" and "objectively wrong", please explain- they seem like synonyms to me)

And please, reread the OP's post again and tell me that he wasn't making a joke somewhere along the lines of "better known"=more sales=better, more relevant band. I could be very mistaken about his thoughts behind the joke (making all of this a waste of time), but you can't argue against this- only the OP can.

I never said you were wrong because The Beatles sold more than KOL. I said you were wrong because that is certainly not the OP's position on things. He's not claiming that KOL sold more than the Beatles and since sales have little to do with what he's saying, your overall statement/argument was wrong.

Now had you simply stated that Beatles sold more than KOL, then fine, you're right, but you didn't. You claimed Outlaw was wrong because of this, which is an incorrect statement. He can't be wrong because of this fact because sales certainly do not equate to popularity (or being more popular in cases such as these. There are certain artists which have had relatively good sales and no one knows about them, but we're not arguing that)

That being said, I just don't like the word objective, it's a pet peeve of mine. "Factually" and "Objectively" are the same fucking thing, I agree with that sentiment, I just dislike the word Objectively in general so synonyms bother me less. You can use, I just like the substitute more because it bothers me less.

That being said, he isn't objectively wrong (as I explained) because sales does not equate to popularity. I gave an example, I'd be glad to give another such as Lil Wayne who is talked far more about than Beatles and fits my definition of better known than the beatles, whether it's because people dislike him or like him is, once again, besides the point.

EDIT: As a last add on. There are perfect examples where sales does equate to popularity and being better know. I won't deny that. I may talk like what I say is true all the time, but it's not, this shouldn't have to be said, but people easily misconstrue things so it'll have to be said.

Last edited by Happymeal on 06/11/2013 06:12; edited 2 times in total

Saoirse

Jhereko wrote:

happymeal trolling > happymeal playing devil's advocate

ColumnatedRuins

Gender: Male

Well, that was certainly much more of a reply than expected. Just so we're clear: I'm not angry with you man. I like getting into these douche-y debates; they're fun and pass the time.

In brief:

The problem I have with your first point, and the reason why I based my definition of "well known" is sales is that sales are the only objective data we have when dealing with the relative popularity of artists. Otherwise, we base our arguments on our subjective experiences with our perceptions of the popularities of Beatles/KOL/Bieber, which leads into "yeah-uh" and "nuh-huh" bullshit that doesn't go anywhere (and I don't want to argue further with this). For example, in my experience, I don't believe that the examples you gave (Bieber and Lil' Wayne) are good enough. I don't believe they are more well known than the Beatles. This is from my experience: I have found that most adults I know over the age of 50 or so that don't have teenage children have no fucking clue who Bieber is, or what he does. The adults over 50 you know may be different. On the other hand, I've seen that people from 60+ all the way to their grandchildren have a layman's understanding of what the Beatles are (they know the name and know they make music and remember I mentioned "general public"). I haven't heard Lil' Wayne mentioned in conversation in years. So your examples, in my experience, fail. And you can see how this argument is just splitting hairs and will not conclude. So, I'm done here.

Basically, I chose sales because sales are the strongest language we have for interpreting the relative popularities of artists. They may not paint the full picture, but they are the most objective portrayal, I think.

I won't argue your second point, because you are attempting to explain the OP's thoughts whilst not being the OP. I don't find two people arguing about a separate persons motives constructive. I said in my previous post that I may have read the thread wrong, and if Outlaw steps in and says I was wrong and you are right and I missed his point entirely, then I'm wrong and you're right and that's fine.