Search found 7 matches: Elvis Presley

ShogunRua wrote:And in keeping with the literature analogy you're fond of using, something like "Heliodorus- An Ethiopian Romance" is an example of an antiquated, no longer relevant or particularly exciting, yet influential book made when the concept of novels was still new and largely experimental. Should it be in a list of the greatest works ever? If all you care about is influence, sure. If we're actually looking at the quality and depth of the novel, however, then absolutely NOT.

Hell, I have an even better example! Music! Do you honestly, seriously think that Elvis Presley, or for that matter, even a much superior early rock artist like Chuck Berry can even remotely compare with a more modern rock group like GNR, Dream Theater, or Symphony X? Nope.

rofl seeing as all those bands are fucking godawful, yeah i do. influence is obviously irrelevant to judgments of quality. sabbath are an absolute assload better than any one of those bands in every way that matters, but that's why they were so influential, not because of it.

In fact, when it comes to playing and producing music, those last three groups have all forgotten more than the originals ever knew. They would fucking run circles around them.

Hell, even a legendary guitar pioneer like Hendrix would get absolutely embarrassed by any top solo guitarist nowadays, whether it be Malmsteen (inspired by Hendrix, incidentally), Vai, Petrucci, Buckethead, or Sartriani.

technically sure, but none of them have the feel that hendrix had, or anything close to the songwriting ability. which, again, is my point. hendrix wouldn't have jerked off his guitar like dream theater even if he was capable, because he understood things like restraint and subtlety and mood and flow. he was a greater musician in every single way that relates to artistic quality.

I've watched Metropolis and Nosferatu and some Buster Keaton, and you couldn't be more wrong. They ARE boring. They ARE dry. Ditto for Chaplin, and whoever else you want to bring up. They're simply not that good, if you only take the blinders off.

i bow to your superior knowledge of what i find entertaining.

I take issue with you not reading my posts, and constantly mischaracterizing my position. This isn't what I said at all. Technical advancement was not the reason there were a number of great 1930's films that stand up to this very day, and practically none from the 20s.

Rather, it's the necessary improvement and knowledge gain that occurs upon the birth of ANY NEW MEDIUM.

ok fine, i just disagree when the cut off point is. the very first films are of no interest today, but film grew up before 1930.

If you think Shakespeare is the pinnacle of the written word to this very day, I feel deeply, deeply sorry for you. You're missing out on mountains of great literature, man.

There's nothing more I can even say at this point. I think you just favor old things because of their age.

3 or 4 of my top 10 favourite films are from this decade. several of my favourite albums are from this decade, some of my favourite books are from this decade. and shakespeare to me is the pinnacle of the written word. opinions are funny things huh. seems to me like you just hate old things because sometimes people mistakenly equate influence with quality.

You haven't proven a single thing.

lol well technically i haven't screenshotted the evidence but i've told you the facts twice already: the most obscure films on the imdb list are higher up on the TSP list, the most obscure films on the TSP top 250 are not on the IMDB list. it's telling that you keep refusing to acknowledge this even though it's right there in front of you.

ShogunRua wrote:

tef wrote:
And Elvis "I can barely play my guitar and re-use the exact same, simplistic, tone deaf melody, while my songs are crappier versions of what black entertainers did" Presley is? Fine. Tell me who is not terrible, according to you.

I haven't listened to enough Elivs to defend him. Elvis Costello on the other hand... But i have listened to those other bands and they all share the same quality of being way too overproduced. And also playing as fast as humanly possible doesn't make it good if it still sounds like shit. Also, metal is gay.



seriously, how gay is that? that's what 95% of all hardcore metal fans look like. I went to a DT concert once and just about everyone looked like that. Except for the chicks who all happened to be morbidly obese.



rock on bro

tef wrote:The argument Shogun is making is that progress marches on, but this is not truly the case in art.

It's not the case when it comes to older mediums of art that gradually decline in both influence and popularity. Painting is a wonderful example.

I will absolutely agree that paintings at any period between 1500-1930 exceed what is being produced today. That's because there are now far fewer painters, it's seen as less viable and important, and there's less money in it. Ditto for sculpture, poetry, etc.

But it's completely FALSE when it comes to NEW mediums of art that, on the contrary, increase in terms of importance and prestige. And there isn't a finer example of that than cinema, which was nothing more than cheap, mindless entertainment in the 1910s being produced by a small handful of filmmakers for tiny budgets and very modest rewards, as opposed to what it blossomed into just a few short decades later.

With the way this topic is going, pretty soon, people will be telling me that Atari's "Pong" is a better, deeper, and greater game than "Bioshock", "Shadow of the Colossus", "Portal", etc.

PickPocket wrote:hahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahha

Glad I wasn't the only one astounded by that statement.

PickPocket wrote:There's really no comparison because GNR, Dream Theater and Symphony X are all terrible, so yeah.

And Elvis "I can barely play my guitar and re-use the exact same, simplistic, tone deaf melody, while my songs are crappier versions of what black entertainers did" Presley is? Fine. Tell me who is not terrible, according to you.

AFlickering wrote:
basically i take issue with your equating quality with technical advancement, when it's clear that despite years and years having passed in literature since shakespeare none have surpassed him (yeah, even in terms of pure entertainment).

hahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahha

ShogunRua wrote:
Hell, I have an even better example! Music! Do you honestly, seriously think that Elvis Presley, or for that matter, even a much superior early rock artist like Chuck Berry can even remotely compare with a more modern rock group like GNR, Dream Theater, or Symphony X? Nope.

There's really no comparison because GNR, Dream Theater and Symphony X are all terrible, so yeah.

KGB wrote:

ShogunRua wrote:Do you honestly, seriously think that Elvis Presley, or for that matter, even a much superior early rock artist like Chuck Berry can even remotely compare with a more modern rock group like GNR, Dream Theater, or Symphony X?

Fuck yeah.

Good for you. The overwhelming majority of human beings on this Earth, including most critics under the age of 40 without their heads up their asses, would laugh at, and disagree with that statement.

KGB wrote:I also consider 'Metropolis' one of my favorite films, both in terms of quality and influence as entertainment value. I didn't get bored for a second. If you did, well, my friend, it's your fucking problem.

Except I wasn't the only one. The other four people I watched it with felt the same way; probably great for its time, very influential, but boring as all hell.

And yes, it's absolutely a weakness that it can't keep the vast majority of modern audiences engaged.

KGB wrote:'
You are trying to prove things that are completely subjective, and that's useless and, to be honest, makes you quite an asshole.

Lay off the drugs, kid. I'm not trying to prove shit when it comes to movies. Enjoy whatever you like.

My point is that the TSP is a worthless, bullshit list that overrates early films for the FACTUAL reasons I outlined above. Namely, that a critic's "Top X Movies" list, which TSP has compiled from the LAST FEW DECADES will necessarily include more widely known earlier films, as opposed to even "The Shawshank Redemption", which wasn't even produced when many of those "experts" wrote their lists.

Also, the age of the critics, their nostalgia, and considerations of "influence", all cause them to give the early works too much credit.

This is all perfectly objective. No opinions or personal bias whatsoever.

I also noted a whole slew of truly great old films that they completely ignored, just because they weren't as widespread and famous, so even in that regard, the list is an abject failure.

However, in addition to, and separate from that, I pointed out several much older films that just don't stand up to this present day.

And all BS aside, judging from the top 50-100 movie lists of most people here, there aren't an awful lot of entries from the 1910s and 1920s.

ShogunRua wrote:Do you honestly, seriously think that Elvis Presley, or for that matter, even a much superior early rock artist like Chuck Berry can even remotely compare with a more modern rock group like GNR, Dream Theater, or Symphony X?

Fuck yeah. I also consider 'Metropolis' one of my favorite films, both in terms of quality and influence as entertainment value. I didn't get bored for a second. If you did, well, my friend, it's your fucking problem. 'Citizen Kane' is one of the greatest motion pictures ever made, and that's more of a fact than anything you said. You are trying to prove things that are completely subjective, and that's useless and, to be honest, makes you quite an asshole. This thread had become very, very silly and makes no sense whatsoever.

AFlickering wrote:

ShogunRua wrote:No, I'm telling you that the vast majority of people who watch those films nowadays, even the majority of Criticker accounts for "The Battleship Potemkin", find them utterly boring and horrendously paced. Just how great is a movie if 80 plus percent of its audience, including kids growing up in the USSR all the way back in the early 70s, find it monotonous and tortuously slow?

battleship potemkin doesn't really appeal to me either for the record, you're probably right about that. it's just the blanket statements man. your cut off point at 1930 before which everything is necessarily boring and primitive seems mighty arbitrary to me.

I never said that. I said that pre-1930 films don't stand up to modern day standards of quality and entertainment. That doesn't mean they're bad, or that they suck, but it does mean that they shouldn't be considered among the greatest films ever, especially when the audiences even back in the 70s had already outgrown them, and considered them dull and antiquated.

And in keeping with the literature analogy you're fond of using, something like "Heliodorus- An Ethiopian Romance" is an example of an antiquated, no longer relevant or particularly exciting, yet influential book made when the concept of novels was still new and largely experimental. Should it be in a list of the greatest works ever? If all you care about is influence, sure. If we're actually looking at the quality and depth of the novel, however, then absolutely NOT.

Hell, I have an even better example! Music! Do you honestly, seriously think that Elvis Presley, or for that matter, even a much superior early rock artist like Chuck Berry can even remotely compare with a more modern rock group like GNR, Dream Theater, or Symphony X? Nope.

In fact, when it comes to playing and producing music, those last three groups have all forgotten more than the originals ever knew. They would fucking run circles around them.

Hell, even a legendary guitar pioneer like Hendrix would get absolutely embarrassed by any top solo guitarist nowadays, whether it be Malmsteen (inspired by Hendrix, incidentally), Vai, Petrucci, Buckethead, or Sartriani.

Malmsteen

Steve Vai

Buckethead

Hendrix

Enough said.

And of course, sports is the most objective example of constant evolution, with the new generation always improving upon the past. Hopefully, these examples help show just how silly this over-veneration of older titles frequently becomes.

i'm not seeing any justification for your sweeping generalisations other than the fact that there are a few shitty old films held to high esteem solely for their influence rather than quality (just like there are with various other eras of film). these accusations of boring just don't apply to stuff like metropolis and nosferatu and sunrise and the best keaton stuff.

I've watched Metropolis and Nosferatu and some Buster Keaton, and you couldn't be more wrong. They ARE boring. They ARE dry. Ditto for Chaplin, and whoever else you want to bring up. They're simply not that good, if you only take the blinders off.

And the worst part is, you don't even have to go that much further in time to realize this.

"Frankenstein" (1931) absolutely KILLS "Nosferatu" (1922) in terms of entertainment, presentation, and acting.

"Alexander Nevsky" (1938) is monumentally superior to "Battleship Potemkin" (1925), and if you asked Eisenstein, he would have been embarrassed by his earlier work by the time he made his later classic.

"Gone with the Wind" (1936) is so much better than any film made in the 20s, it would be almost like comparing "The Shawshank Redemption" to a film student's senior thesis.

"All Quiet on the Western Front" (1930) is a more intelligent, deep, and moving movie than "Metropolis" (1927) could ever hope to be.

AFlickering wrote:basically i take issue with your equating quality with technical advancement,

I take issue with you not reading my posts, and constantly mischaracterizing my position. This isn't what I said at all. Technical advancement was not the reason there were a number of great 1930's films that stand up to this very day, and practically none from the 20s.

Rather, it's the necessary improvement and knowledge gain that occurs upon the birth of ANY NEW MEDIUM.

AFlickering wrote: when it's clear that despite years and years having passed in literature since shakespeare none have surpassed him (yeah, even in terms of pure entertainment).

Wow, just wow. I'm utterly speechless.

If you think Shakespeare is the pinnacle of the written word to this very day, I feel deeply, deeply sorry for you. You're missing out on mountains of great literature, man.

There's nothing more I can even say at this point. I think you just favor old things because of their age.

AFlickering wrote:i've proven that the IMDB list is worse for obscure films than the TSP list

You haven't proven a single thing.

AFlickering wrote:if these critics are all shills, then, again, this shows how dreadful your average IMDB user must be.

Keep listening to critics who tell you what you should consider the best, and that the best literature was written 400 years ago, a mere 200 years after writing became moderately widespread in Europe, or that the best film ever is "Citizen Kane" (1941), now almost 70 years old, and made a mere 25 years after films became widespread.

It's a depressing world to live in, and constantly ignores the masterpieces being made right under your very nose.