Remove this Banner Ad

The Smiths - Why do people bother ???FMD!

  • Thread starter Thread starter oxx
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Way over your head then.

the expected reply too.

Rather cliche for such a lover of fine art...:rolleyes:

To assume the lyric is intelligent on a level which you exist alone, is mere stupidity.

Ahhhh...these are the Smith Fans I love.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Smiths made it big. Real big. I'm sure Morrisey has a nicer house than you and I.
No they didn't. And why are you comparing them to you and I? Compare them to their peers and you can't really call them big. They "made it", just not "big". As I've said numerous times: most people can't name a song or album or recognise a riff or melody. That speaks volumes.
 
I love the Smiths.

I understand why some people dont get them - you need to have a certain minimum level of intellegence and an understanding of irony and black humour to understand where they're coming from
Sort of proves my point about Smiths fans being like Radiohead fans in that they think they listen to superior and "more intelligent" music.

Twat.
 
As I've said numerous times: most people can't name a song or album or recognise a riff or melody. That speaks volumes.

So recognition and singles sales, and "catchiness" is a sign of success?

A Flock of Seagulls has more merit than the Smiths?
Toni Basil has more merit than XTC?
Duran Duran has more merit than REM?
Billy Idol has more merit than the Buzzcocks?
 
No they didn't. And why are you comparing them to you and I? Compare them to their peers and you can't really call them big. They "made it", just not "big". As I've said numerous times: most people can't name a song or album or recognise a riff or melody. That speaks volumes.

They had 4 albums and all 4 either charted #1 or #2 in the charts.

For a band that was only around 5 years that's a pretty impressive strike rate.

Maybe they weren't as big in Australia, but they made it big in a market much larger than ours.


Just out of interest, who do you consider their peers?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

your in denial by not replying to any of the other posters that have ripped into you over this.

dont pass the buck Vulture.

fight ur own battles smithy.
 
So recognition and singles sales, and "catchiness" is a sign of success?

A Flock of Seagulls has more merit than the Smiths?
Toni Basil has more merit than XTC?
Duran Duran has more merit than REM?
Billy Idol has more merit than the Buzzcocks?

lmao@ ur alternatives encompassing your love of mediocrity amongst music
 
They were just examples from the same decade we were discussing.

Are hit singles a good measure of artistic credibility?

Clearly not alone,imo.

It depends what the "bulk" of the material is like per artist,per album.

If its a hit single with absolute garbage on the album then the answer is obvious.
 
fight ur own battles smithy.

I'm well and truly capable of fighting my own battles.

Are you?

You haven't repsonded to anything in the thread with half an ounce of musical knowledge on the very band you started a thread about.

And you seem to avoid questions.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

If its a hit single with absolute garbage on the album then the answer is obvious.

What if the album has half a dozen hit singles, eg Spiceworld?

What if the album is a hit, despite no hit singles, eg The Queen Is Dead?
REM have had about ten quality albums and only a handful of hit singles.

Your arguments are flawed. To say you dont like the Smiths is fine - thats your taste - but to measure them by how "big" they apparently weren't (whatever that means and however you measure it), is simplistic. Success is often the complete opposite to musical integrity, because bands with a bit of individuality like the Smiths, polarise the regular punters who only care about top 40 pop musak.
 
Just when you're sure you know who the stupidest bigfooty member is... 2 more come along and put their hands up
 
I'm well and truly capable of fighting my own battles.

Are you?

You haven't repsonded to anything in the thread with half an ounce of musical knowledge on the very band you started a thread about.

And you seem to avoid questions.

1- i wasn't refering to u moron.

2-I didn't respond to you because ur reputedly a shallow poster that isn't worth answering.
 
What if the album has half a dozen hit singles, eg Spiceworld?

What if the album is a hit, despite no hit singles, eg The Queen Is Dead?
REM have had about ten quality albums and only a handful of hit singles.

Your arguments are flawed. To say you dont like the Smiths is fine - thats your taste - but to measure them by how "big" they apparently weren't (whatever that means and however you measure it), is simplistic. Success is often the complete opposite to musical integrity, because bands with a bit of individuality like the Smiths, polarise the regular punters who only care about top 40 pop musak.

It's not really my argument.
IDGAF really.
Was just trying to give you another perspective on what he was saying....but i should know u guys are all mensa stuff and would have already known.

The Smiths are ****en terrible.

I guess that makes me way less intelligent than any of you Smitsonians.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom