DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: WildRanger on August 23, 2018, 06:42:55 AM
-
https://ultimateclassicrock.com/eagles-greatest-hits-top-selling-album/ (https://ultimateclassicrock.com/eagles-greatest-hits-top-selling-album/)
Your thoughts?
IDK, I don't dislike the Eagles and I don't consider their music to be bad at all, but not something special either, it's just decent music to me. Their signature song Hotel California is an all-time rock classic and it's hard to argue with that, regardless of how much do you like it. I think Eagles is a type of band who belongs to the category "music for American casual music listeners" much more than "music for real music fans". Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my impression.
And I know that a guy "The Dude" from a movie "The Big Lebowski" spread the hatred towards this band with his famous sentence "I hate the fuckin' Eagles, man" and since then it became kinda cool and popular to hate the Eagles. I don't get it really. Eagles is especially hated by RateYourMusic users, who are mostly young people.
Someone can like or hate the Eagles, but they are the most commercially successful American band of all time by some considerable margin.
-
The thing is, the album in question is Greatest Hits 71-75....before Hotel California...which means their biggest hit is not on their best selling album.
I was into the Eagles a lot as a kid, and I still enjoy some deeper cuts sometimes, but after years of listening to them in my early teens, I just find them mostly boring now.
-
I've never listened to the Eagles, but I am one of those who thinks that their most known song "Hotel California" was based on "We Used To Know".
And the Gipsy Kings' version is much better.
When it comes to top selling albums, I really don't think that's important.
-
"music for American casual music listeners" much more than "music for real music fans".
I'm no Eagles fan - I "hate the Eagles" actually (though I've never seen The Big Lebowski), or more correctly, I hate Glenn Frey and the smug arrogance of Don Henley, and the "So-Cal Soft Rock scene" in general - but what's this all about?
What exactly is an "American casual music listener" and what exactly is a "real music fan"? How do we determine which is which? WHO determines which is which?
-
Always fascinated me that's the #1... like... really? They're just so bland and vanilla, I struggle to understand how it's that freaking popular.
-
"music for American casual music listeners" much more than "music for real music fans".
I'm no Eagles fan - I "hate the Eagles" actually (though I've never seen The Big Lebowski), or more correctly, I hate Glenn Frey and the smug arrogance of Don Henley, and the "So-Cal Soft Rock scene" in general - but what's this all about?
What exactly is an "American casual music listener" and what exactly is a "real music fan"? How do we determine which is which? WHO determines which is which?
Visiting my girlfriend while she’s babysitting...
The back of a car....
My mom’s basement....
PLACES I GOT LAID WHILE LISTENING TO BACK IN BLACK!!!!
(ding, ding,ding)
-
You're all high. The Eagle are a great band. The real question is that does it count since it's a greatest hits album. The weird twist is that it's that their most well known song, Hotel California, came out after the Greatest Hits album.
-
You're all high. The Eagle are a great band. The real question is that does it count since it's a greatest hits album. The weird twist is that it's that their most well known song, Hotel California, came out after the Greatest Hits album.
I'm pretty sure, though, that the album "Hotel California" is not that far down the list. Fourth or fifth or something like that.
-
What surprises me the most is that it got to #1 recently. Why are people buying this album nowadays?
-
What surprises me the most is that it got to #1 recently. Why are people buying this album nowadays?
Maybe they assume that Hotel California is on it.
The chorus of Hotel California serves as my wife's ringtone for my Mother In Law. She calls a lot. I am sick of this song!
-
What exactly is an "American casual music listener" and what exactly is a "real music fan"? How do we determine which is which? WHO determines which is which?
Casual listeners are people who listen and know only hit songs played on the radio (or any media device). Real music fans are people who knows tons of deep cuts by many music artists because they sat at home and listened a ton of albums for hours and hours. There is a huge difference between a casual listener and real music fan. On this planet there are a way more casual listeners than fans.
-
What surprises me the most is that it got to #1 recently. Why are people buying this album nowadays?
It wasn’t recently. I remember reading about this year’s ago. I just don’t think it’s been dethroned, and I probably never will be since nobody buys albums anymore.
-
What surprises me the most is that it got to #1 recently. Why are people buying this album nowadays?
It wasn’t recently. I remember reading about this year’s ago. I just don’t think it’s been dethroned, and I probably never will be since nobody buys albums anymore.
You may want to read the article posted in the OP - the album has been on-and-off again, trading places with Thriller. It's been years since Thriller beat it but...
The Eagles’ first hits compilation, Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975, has passed Michael Jackson’s Thriller as the top-selling album of all time, according to the Recording Industry Association of America.
The evergreen 1976 best-seller contains such hits as “Take It Easy,” “Lyin’ Eyes,” “Take It to the Limit” and “Desperado,” and was the first album to be issued platinum certification, for selling at least one million units. The record has reached 38 million copies in sales and streams, achieving 38-times platinum status, according to the Associated Press. Thriller stands at 33-times platinum.
RIAA’s certifications include sales of physical product, as well as streams and digital sales. In their tallies, 1,500 streams of an album is equivalent to an album sale. Ten song downloads also equal one album sale. You can view the RIAA’s list of the Top 100 certified albums of all time at its site.
Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975 and Thriller have parried for the top position on that list for years. The last time the competition made news was in 2009, when sales of Thriller soared in the wake of Jackson’s death, putting the album in a near tie for sales superiority. (It also spawned one of The Onion’s funniest music-related headlines.) Thriller eventually passed the Eagles’ record in sales.
Unless, and you might be doing this, implying that it won't be dethroned ever again - which is likely :)
-
I have this vision of Warren Buffet being a diehard Eagles fan, making sure the Greatest Hits album never drops below #1. There's an enormous vault somewhere in Finland, housing millions of Eagles albums.
-
I read that as Jimmy Buffett and laughed because it was so out of left field, which is not rumborak's typical posting style.
The band got some additional good news: Its 1977 classic Hotel California has been certified 26-times platinum, making it the third-best-selling album of all time.
Wait.... they have the #1 and #3 top selling albums of all time?!?
I wonder if there will be a surge in WDaDU sales when Charlie Dominici passes away.
-
What exactly is an "American casual music listener" and what exactly is a "real music fan"? How do we determine which is which? WHO determines which is which?
Casual listeners are people who listen and know only hit songs played on the radio (or any media device). Real music fans are people who knows tons of deep cuts by many music artists because they sat at home and listened a ton of albums for hours and hours. There is a huge difference between a casual listener and real music fan. On this planet there are a way more casual listeners than fans.
I'm still not getting it. It's still music. It still is a subjective attraction. It's still a matter of taste.
-
What surprises me the most is that it got to #1 recently. Why are people buying this album nowadays?
It wasn’t recently. I remember reading about this year’s ago. I just don’t think it’s been dethroned, and I probably never will be since nobody buys albums anymore.
You may want to read the article posted in the OP - the album has been on-and-off again, trading places with Thriller. It's been years since Thriller beat it but...
The Eagles’ first hits compilation, Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975, has passed Michael Jackson’s Thriller as the top-selling album of all time, according to the Recording Industry Association of America.
The evergreen 1976 best-seller contains such hits as “Take It Easy,” “Lyin’ Eyes,” “Take It to the Limit” and “Desperado,” and was the first album to be issued platinum certification, for selling at least one million units. The record has reached 38 million copies in sales and streams, achieving 38-times platinum status, according to the Associated Press. Thriller stands at 33-times platinum.
RIAA’s certifications include sales of physical product, as well as streams and digital sales. In their tallies, 1,500 streams of an album is equivalent to an album sale. Ten song downloads also equal one album sale. You can view the RIAA’s list of the Top 100 certified albums of all time at its site.
Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975 and Thriller have parried for the top position on that list for years. The last time the competition made news was in 2009, when sales of Thriller soared in the wake of Jackson’s death, putting the album in a near tie for sales superiority. (It also spawned one of The Onion’s funniest music-related headlines.) Thriller eventually passed the Eagles’ record in sales.
Unless, and you might be doing this, implying that it won't be dethroned ever again - which is likely :)
If I'm not mistaken, it's not done as a "running total", meaning, it's not updated in real time. As I understand it, you have to submit a record for "Certification". I remember Paul and/or Gene stating that they didn't bother submitting their records for re-certification, since doing so would result in a restructuring of royalties and such, and it wasn't worth it. Grain of salt, but still....
-
What exactly is an "American casual music listener" and what exactly is a "real music fan"? How do we determine which is which? WHO determines which is which?
Casual listeners are people who listen and know only hit songs played on the radio (or any media device). Real music fans are people who knows tons of deep cuts by many music artists because they sat at home and listened a ton of albums for hours and hours. There is a huge difference between a casual listener and real music fan. On this planet there are a way more casual listeners than fans.
:lol This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. All people who listen to music are fans of music. What you're describing is only a matter of degree.
-
What exactly is an "American casual music listener" and what exactly is a "real music fan"? How do we determine which is which? WHO determines which is which?
Casual listeners are people who listen and know only hit songs played on the radio (or any media device). Real music fans are people who knows tons of deep cuts by many music artists because they sat at home and listened a ton of albums for hours and hours. There is a huge difference between a casual listener and real music fan. On this planet there are a way more casual listeners than fans.
:lol This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. All people who listen to music are fans of music. What you're describing is only a matter of degree.
That's kind of where I was going. That, and the idea that "casual music fans" don't know shit and so listen to stuff like the Eagles.
I don't like the Eagles but anyone who has ever played with Joe Walsh acknowledges him as one of the best guitar players that have ever strapped on a guitar. Henley may not be John Bonham, but his voice is world class, and Frey and Felder both hold their own in that group. It's ludicrous to say that the Eagles only appeal to people that haven't put in the time.
Contrast that with me - I've played music, written music, recorded music, performed (for pay) music, and have almost 2,000 CDs. I think I'd qualify for "real music fan", and yet... Taylor Swift's "Wildest Dreams" is in my mind one of the greatest pop songs ever written, and I love Night Ranger, Cheap Trick and Duran Duran (along with Frank Zappa, Devin Townsend and King Crimson). I don't "choose" what I like. It either resonates or it doesn't and I can't really control it, at least not absolutely.
-
What exactly is an "American casual music listener" and what exactly is a "real music fan"? How do we determine which is which? WHO determines which is which?
Casual listeners are people who listen and know only hit songs played on the radio (or any media device). Real music fans are people who knows tons of deep cuts by many music artists because they sat at home and listened a ton of albums for hours and hours. There is a huge difference between a casual listener and real music fan. On this planet there are a way more casual listeners than fans.
:lol This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. All people who listen to music are fans of music. What you're describing is only a matter of degree.
The way it is worded is a bit silly and sounds like one of those groups is better than the other one but he does have a point. People in this forum pay a lot more attention to music than most people. We run games to discover new bands, we delve into their history, try to find other bands related to them and what not. Then, there are other people that as he says, are just casual listeners. They will turn on the radio, they may have a craving for a specific song or band once in a while but that's it. For a lot of people music is just prettier background noise. The "real music fans" part is what I would change in that statement
-
(along with Frank Zappa, Devin Townsend and King Crimson).
I would have never taken you for a King Crimson fan. You'd probably have better luck submitting them over Rainbow when playing in roulettes :P
-
Everyone should hear some Rainbow in their lives though. I'm fairly sure Stadler will send something from On Stage in 425's.
-
What exactly is an "American casual music listener" and what exactly is a "real music fan"? How do we determine which is which? WHO determines which is which?
Casual listeners are people who listen and know only hit songs played on the radio (or any media device). Real music fans are people who knows tons of deep cuts by many music artists because they sat at home and listened a ton of albums for hours and hours. There is a huge difference between a casual listener and real music fan. On this planet there are a way more casual listeners than fans.
:lol This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. All people who listen to music are fans of music. What you're describing is only a matter of degree.
The way it is worded is a bit silly and sounds like one of those groups is better than the other one but he does have a point. People in this forum pay a lot more attention to music than most people. We run games to discover new bands, we delve into their history, try to find other bands related to them and what not. Then, there are other people that as he says, are just casual listeners. They will turn on the radio, they may have a craving for a specific song or band once in a while but that's it. For a lot of people music is just prettier background noise. The "real music fans" part is what I would change in that statement
Fair points, but I think Dubla captures that with the "matter of degree" statement. Yeah, you may only listen casually, you may only like certain songs, but that doesn't make any objective quality statement. I stated my bona fides, but I didn't have any of those (or at least few of them) when I got into Maiden and Crimson. I just liked it. I later figured out that there was musical complexity there, but then I was presented with "Yesterday", 2:05 seconds of simple melody, over a fairly straightforward guitar figure, and yet... that song has captured the ear of some of the greatest musicians this planet has ever known, in addition to millions (billions?) of people that just happened to be in the right elevator at the right time.
-
(along with Frank Zappa, Devin Townsend and King Crimson).
I would have never taken you for a King Crimson fan. You'd probably have better luck submitting them over Rainbow when playing in roulettes :P
I love Crimson. "Fracture" might be my favorite instrumental piece of all time. (It's a minor, inconsequential point, but Fripp is also my Number One on my list of "greatest snubs from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame". He just about created an entire genre of music, for god's sake, and has played with everyone from Blondie to Bowie to Gabriel to Daryl Hall.)
Honestly? Crimson is hard for me in roulettes, because I'm lazy. They're not easily found on YooToob. :)
-
Good point, finding Crimson on the internet is harder than getting you and jingle to agree in the PR section.
-
It's obviously up to the person running the roulette, but I've been taking to just giving the artist, song and album and letting them find it how they see fit. With the various music services, most people have access to most songs, and if they're a spotify person, it's really not up to me to force them to listen to YouTube.
I might have to rethink that for the next roulette. I gotta stop recycling songs. :)
-
I've heard for years that this Greatest Hits package was the best selling album of all time (and I hadn't heard that, at one point, it was passed by Thriller), and I've often wondered why this album had such selling power. Obviously, it had the advantage of having been released well before the CD era, but so was Thriller and lots of other albums that I think a lot of folks would have thought were more popular.
Like Stadler, I don't understand the distinction between "casual music fans" and "real music" fans (and the follow up explanation doesn't help, but I won't pile on). Also, having the best selling album does not make the Eagles "the most commercially successful American band of all time." Even if only album sales are considered (which would be dumb if considering "most commercially successful . . . of all time"), the Eagles come in around #10 on that list.
-
I once read an article in a local rag called "Top 10 albums for people who hate music"... It was meant to be humorous, and it did make me laugh, but it kindof made this point.
There are some albums that are adored by the masses...even the ones who *by their own admission* don't like music very much. "I've never really cared for music that much...but I like [insert song we've all heard ad nauseum]."
I think the thought process is: If you've homogenized the music so completely, that it's literally appealing to every human being on the planet...even people who admit that they don't even like music... I suppose some might find some special talent in being able to do that. But being able to achieve that just feels to me like you've had to sacrifice something to make your music so palpable that literally anyone will like it. If you've achieved that, what is it you were really trying to say? Were you trying to say anything at all? Or were you just trying to get *literally everyone* to like you? Because if you actually had something to say and you wanted to say exactly what you felt, you couldn't get 90% of the planet (admittedly an exaggeration) to get on board with it. But if you just wanted everyone to like it, you can whittle it down until it becomes something that everyone loves....but was that your goal? And if so, why?
-
What exactly is an "American casual music listener" and what exactly is a "real music fan"? How do we determine which is which? WHO determines which is which?
Casual listeners are people who listen and know only hit songs played on the radio (or any media device). Real music fans are people who knows tons of deep cuts by many music artists because they sat at home and listened a ton of albums for hours and hours. There is a huge difference between a casual listener and real music fan. On this planet there are a way more casual listeners than fans.
Ok, I get that - like it or not - we live in a digital polarised like/dislike world and we're supposed to wear binary lenses all the time, but how can you negotiate such a distinction? Everyone of us is both casual listener and real music fan (and every degree in between) simultaneously, all the time. It depends on an incalculable quantity of factors, the majority being subjective.
Honest example, have you researched Beethoven opus, or do you just know and appreciate the Fifth or Au Clair de Lune by casual ear? How can the answer possibly define your love or relationship with music?
On a sidenote, kudos on sparking a very interesting discussion.
-
What exactly is an "American casual music listener" and what exactly is a "real music fan"? How do we determine which is which? WHO determines which is which?
Casual listeners are people who listen and know only hit songs played on the radio (or any media device). Real music fans are people who knows tons of deep cuts by many music artists because they sat at home and listened a ton of albums for hours and hours. There is a huge difference between a casual listener and real music fan. On this planet there are a way more casual listeners than fans.
:lol This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. All people who listen to music are fans of music. What you're describing is only a matter of degree.
The way it is worded is a bit silly and sounds like one of those groups is better than the other one but he does have a point. People in this forum pay a lot more attention to music than most people. We run games to discover new bands, we delve into their history, try to find other bands related to them and what not. Then, there are other people that as he says, are just casual listeners. They will turn on the radio, they may have a craving for a specific song or band once in a while but that's it. For a lot of people music is just prettier background noise. The "real music fans" part is what I would change in that statement
Back in the 70's, People listened to the albums for the albums. Rock radio played deep cuts all the time. Hell, even spun albums late night. It you look at the Billboard charts in the 70's, real, thoughtful bands were popular. The Eagles changed their sound a few times, never standing still. It just so happened that they had crossover success in different genre's.
-
I once read an article in a local rag called "Top 10 albums for people who hate music"... It was meant to be humorous, and it did make me laugh, but it kindof made this point.
There are some albums that are adored by the masses...even the ones who *by their own admission* don't like music very much. "I've never really cared for music that much...but I like [insert song we've all heard ad nauseum]."
I think the thought process is: If you've homogenized the music so completely, that it's literally appealing to every human being on the planet...even people who admit that they don't even like music...
Honestly I think many people today don't have a free time to buy and listen albums at home(hours and hours). It doesn't mean they dislike music, they just don't have a time for that. But they have tons of songs that are played on the radio nearly everywhere, so they can hear some music.
-
But if you just wanted everyone to like it, you can whittle it down until it becomes something that everyone loves....but was that your goal? And if so, why?
.
Fame, fortune.. Or was that a trick question?
-
I grew up a huge Eagles fan. I still enjoy their music. Great melodies, Henley is one of the greatest soul singers of all time, terrific harmonies. I also grew up with a mezzo soprano mother who sang for the NY Met back in the early 60's. I grew up fully immersed in Classical music as well as early RB, and Jazz. I sang and performed from the time I was about 7 until I completed college in various choirs and bands and was seriously (and still am into metal and prog). I own probably more than 1500 CD's; and I've dropped more than 40K on various downloads, from iTunes, to Amazon to Spotify. I'd consider myself much more than a "casual fan" of music. So, to Stadlers earlier point- it's all subjective, and a matter of taste.
-
What exactly is an "American casual music listener" and what exactly is a "real music fan"? How do we determine which is which? WHO determines which is which?
Casual listeners are people who listen and know only hit songs played on the radio (or any media device). Real music fans are people who knows tons of deep cuts by many music artists because they sat at home and listened a ton of albums for hours and hours. There is a huge difference between a casual listener and real music fan. On this planet there are a way more casual listeners than fans.
I'm still not getting it. It's still music. It still is a subjective attraction. It's still a matter of taste.
Like Stadler, I don't understand the distinction between "casual music fans" and "real music" fans (and the follow up explanation doesn't help, but I won't pile on).
OK. I would make it clearer to you.
For example, a man (in America) who only knows a Deep Purple hit song "Smoke on the Water" is a casual music listener, he knows that song because it is played on the radio very often. Unlike that guy, some other guy who is aware of the existence of Deep Purple song called Flight of the Rat is definitely a real music fan because he has listened the album In Rock at home (a few times at least) and he knows that song is from that album. Same with Thin Lizzy. Casual listener only knows their hit song "Boys are Back in Town", a real music fan knows "Opium Trail".
Do you get it now?
-
So it's not so much "real music fan", as much as how deep you are into a specific band.
For instance, i can tell you A LOT about Pain of Salvation, Dream Theater, Metallica, etc. But I only know the big hits from say....Pink Floyd.
So your language of "casual music listener" would only apply (in this case) to Pink Floyd, not in general. I think that's the issue people were having. You made it sound like it was over all, and not specific to that artist or band.
So I would just change it to "casual fan of X band" vs "big fan of X band". As Indiscipline pointed out, we are all casual fans of most things, and huge fans of some other things. It's normal.
-
You're not normal there Adami.
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
-
So it's not so much "real music fan", as much as how deep you are into a specific band.
For instance, i can tell you A LOT about Pain of Salvation, Dream Theater, Metallica, etc. But I only know the big hits from say....Pink Floyd.
So your language of "casual music listener" would only apply (in this case) to Pink Floyd, not in general. I think that's the issue people were having. You made it sound like it was over all, and not specific to that artist or band.
So I would just change it to "casual fan of X band" vs "big fan of X band". As Indiscipline pointed out, we are all casual fans of most things, and huge fans of some other things. It's normal.
Nope, you got me wrong. I just gave a possible example. It doesn't have to apply to any specific band.
It's absolutely true that there are a lot of people who are just listening to the radio and on the other side, many people who are buying a lot of albums and listening to them at home whenever they can and want.
-
I got you wrong? So you're saying people are either real music fans or casual music fans?
So what am I? I can only name you the top hit songs by most bands, but I can go into extreme depth with a good number as well. I listen to music all the time (though only the radio if my music is not accessible for whatever reason). Do I have to listen to new albums every day, go out and buy every single album I possibly can to be considered a real fan?
I hope I'm just misreading you, cause it's coming off as super snobby.
-
I would say Satellite radio is for the casual listener.
So what am I? I can only name you the top hit songs by most bands, but I can go into extreme depth with a good number as well.
Didn't I answer that already? :lol
-
You're not normal there Adami.
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
I am! My mom had me tested!
-
For what? Tests are subjective! :lol
:stiringthepot:
-
I once read an article in a local rag called "Top 10 albums for people who hate music"... It was meant to be humorous, and it did make me laugh, but it kindof made this point.
There are some albums that are adored by the masses...even the ones who *by their own admission* don't like music very much. "I've never really cared for music that much...but I like [insert song we've all heard ad nauseum]."
I think the thought process is: If you've homogenized the music so completely, that it's literally appealing to every human being on the planet...even people who admit that they don't even like music...
Honestly I think many people today don't have a free time to buy and listen albums at home(hours and hours). It doesn't mean they dislike music, they just don't have a time for that. But they have tons of songs that are played on the radio nearly everywhere, so they can hear some music.
So... you're saying... people just don't have the time for music anymore?
-
For what? Tests are subjective! :lol
:stiringthepot:
Exactly! And I was the subject of many tests.
.....hmmm.....
-
What exactly is an "American casual music listener" and what exactly is a "real music fan"? How do we determine which is which? WHO determines which is which?
Casual listeners are people who listen and know only hit songs played on the radio (or any media device). Real music fans are people who knows tons of deep cuts by many music artists because they sat at home and listened a ton of albums for hours and hours. There is a huge difference between a casual listener and real music fan. On this planet there are a way more casual listeners than fans.
:lol This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. All people who listen to music are fans of music. What you're describing is only a matter of degree.
No, they are not. People who listen only famous songs that are played on the radio and don't have more than 5 albums in their home collection are definitely not music FANS.
-
For example, a man (in America) who only knows a Deep Purple hit song "Smoke on the Water" is a casual music listener, he knows that song because it is played on the radio very often. Unlike that guy, some other guy who is aware of the existence of Deep Purple song called Flight of the Rat is definitely a real music fan because he has listened the album In Rock at home (a few times at least) and he knows that song is from that album. Same with Thin Lizzy. Casual listener only knows their hit song "Boys are Back in Town", a real music fan knows "Opium Trail".
Do you get it now?
No, but let me see if I understand what you're saying.
If the only Deep Purple song a person knows is "Smoke on the Water," then he "is a casual music listener," but if he also "is aware of the existence of" "Flight of the Rat," he is "a real music fan."
Alternatively, if the only Thin Lizzy song a person knows is "Boys Are Back in Town," he is a "casual listener," but if he also knows "Opium Trail," then he is a "real music fan."
Sorry, but that's nonsense. While I like a handful of Deep Purple songs, I wouldn't say I'm a big fan of Deep Purple, and calling me a "casual Deep Purple fan" wouldn't be inaccurate. Until about a month ago, I'd never heard of the song "Flight of the Rat." I'm not at all a Thin Lizzy Fan. I know BABiT and a couple other songs, but I don't like them, and I'd never heard of "Opium Trail" until I read your post.
By your examples, I'm not a "real music fan" but, rather, am a "causal music listener," even though there are numerous other bands about whom I know virtually everything there is to know.
While I get the distinction between folks for whom music is a major interest and those who are content to listen to whatever is on the radio, I don't think your attempt to characterize the Eagles (or any other band) as only a band for "casual listeners" makes much sense.
-
I once read an article in a local rag called "Top 10 albums for people who hate music"... It was meant to be humorous, and it did make me laugh, but it kindof made this point.
There are some albums that are adored by the masses...even the ones who *by their own admission* don't like music very much. "I've never really cared for music that much...but I like [insert song we've all heard ad nauseum]."
I think the thought process is: If you've homogenized the music so completely, that it's literally appealing to every human being on the planet...even people who admit that they don't even like music...
Honestly I think many people today don't have a free time to buy and listen albums at home(hours and hours). It doesn't mean they dislike music, they just don't have a time for that. But they have tons of songs that are played on the radio nearly everywhere, so they can hear some music.
So... you're saying... people just don't have the time for music anymore?
Yes, that's true. If a huge number of people today have many obligations in their daily lives, time passes very quickly to them and they don't have a free time to even watch an episode of their favorite series on TV, let alone buying and listening some CDs.
-
I think WildRanger you have Old Colored Glasses on. :lol
-
I got you wrong? So you're saying people are either real music fans or casual music fans?
Not casual music fans, but listeners. Listener is not the same as fan.
-
I got you wrong? So you're saying people are either real music fans or casual music fans?
Not casual music fans, but listeners. Listener is not the same as fan.
....and the rest of my post?
-
I got you wrong? So you're saying people are either real music fans or casual music fans?
Not casual music fans, but listeners. Listener is not the same as fan.
I have a relative who would fit under your definition of 'casual' music listener... but he is a fan of those few bands and has seen them live despite not keeping up with everything they release. Your logic doesn't work, my dude.
-
What exactly is an "American casual music listener" and what exactly is a "real music fan"? How do we determine which is which? WHO determines which is which?
Casual listeners are people who listen and know only hit songs played on the radio (or any media device). Real music fans are people who knows tons of deep cuts by many music artists because they sat at home and listened a ton of albums for hours and hours. There is a huge difference between a casual listener and real music fan. On this planet there are a way more casual listeners than fans.
I'm still not getting it. It's still music. It still is a subjective attraction. It's still a matter of taste.
Like Stadler, I don't understand the distinction between "casual music fans" and "real music" fans (and the follow up explanation doesn't help, but I won't pile on).
OK. I would make it clearer to you.
For example, a man (in America) who only knows a Deep Purple hit song "Smoke on the Water" is a casual music listener, he knows that song because it is played on the radio very often. Unlike that guy, some other guy who is aware of the existence of Deep Purple song called Flight of the Rat is definitely a real music fan because he has listened the album In Rock at home (a few times at least) and he knows that song is from that album. Same with Thin Lizzy. Casual listener only knows their hit song "Boys are Back in Town", a real music fan knows "Opium Trail".
Do you get it now?
Uh, with that explanation, I think I got it the first time, but I still disagree. :). That distinction doesn't say anything about the relative merits of "Smoke..." versus "Flight...". There are just some records that are ubiquitous, and along with Steve Miller's Greatest Hits, The Dead "What A Long Strange Trip...", and Zeppelin IV, The Eagles Greatest Hits is one of them.
-
What exactly is an "American casual music listener" and what exactly is a "real music fan"? How do we determine which is which? WHO determines which is which?
Casual listeners are people who listen and know only hit songs played on the radio (or any media device). Real music fans are people who knows tons of deep cuts by many music artists because they sat at home and listened a ton of albums for hours and hours. There is a huge difference between a casual listener and real music fan. On this planet there are a way more casual listeners than fans.
:lol This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. All people who listen to music are fans of music. What you're describing is only a matter of degree.
No, they are not. People who listen only famous songs that are played on the radio and don't have more than 5 albums in their home collection are definitely not music FANS.
Even more ridiculous. Since when is there a quantifiable criteria for being a fan of music? You either listen to music or you don't. If you do listen, you're a fan. If you don't, you're not. Simple as that. There isn't much grey area in between if any at all. It doesn't matter who, what, when, where, how or why. Everyone who listens to music is a fan of something or someone. Otherwise, why would they listen?
I got you wrong? So you're saying people are either real music fans or casual music fans?
Listener is not the same as fan.
Yes, it is. Regardless of your definition or interpretation.
-
I don't know anything about Classic Rock aside from the radio singles and even I don't care much to listen to those and have very little interest in digging deeper in the catalog. That stated, I know plenty of history, deep cut songs, and albums from a lot of modern bands that I like and always chasing for a new album released this year to listen to if my interest piques me. That does consider me a casual music fan?
Let's not get snobby and peg people if they are "real" music fans or not just because they only listen to a particular track or album and they are not "true" fans in the end. It's just as bad (just an example off the top of my head. Don't know if this is actually true or not) as the idea of old-school metal fans giving certain Metallica fans crap because they love Load or Reload over the Black album or Master of Puppets. Or giving people crap to so-and-so celebrity that are wearing a Metallica or Iron Maiden t-shirt and that celebrity couldn't name five songs of that band off the top of their head. You think we would be better than this.
-
Well I'm the realist fan that ever was. Real to the core. Real Real. So real that I'm changing my middle name to Real.
You're all posers. Don't challenge me, that's how real I am.
Don't really ask me. I'm a poser.
-
Well I'm the realist fan that ever was. Real to the core. Real Real. So real that I'm changing my middle name to Real.
You're all posers. Don't challenge me, that's how real I am.
Don't really ask me. I'm a poser.
A real poser.
-
You with me brotha Tim?! :lol
-
I once read an article in a local rag called "Top 10 albums for people who hate music"... It was meant to be humorous, and it did make me laugh, but it kindof made this point.
There are some albums that are adored by the masses...even the ones who *by their own admission* don't like music very much. "I've never really cared for music that much...but I like [insert song we've all heard ad nauseum]."
I think the thought process is: If you've homogenized the music so completely, that it's literally appealing to every human being on the planet...even people who admit that they don't even like music...
Honestly I think many people today don't have a free time to buy and listen albums at home(hours and hours). It doesn't mean they dislike music, they just don't have a time for that. But they have tons of songs that are played on the radio nearly everywhere, so they can hear some music.
So... you're saying... people just don't have the time for music anymore?
Yes, that's true. If a huge number of people today have many obligations in their daily lives, time passes very quickly to them and they don't have a free time to even watch an episode of their favorite series on TV, let alone buying and listening some CDs.
BUT THIS IS THE ENTIRE POINT.
If you love something enough, you MAKE time for it. Period. That is truly the long, tall, height, and width. And I'm not saying it makes any person better than any other person.
Look, for some people it's golf. For some it's boating. For still others it's tennis or football. For others it's camping etc...etc...etc...
The point is, that when you are truly passionate about something, you MAKE time for it. You put away all the other distractions, because it means more to you than all the other things. And I will repeat, this is not any form of elitism, because EVERYONE has something that they love to do that they've put aside all the other things that they don't do. And they've *made* the time in their lives for that thing because they love it so much. "Some people juggle geese!" [Firefly reference]
If you're a boating fan...fine. That doesn't make you better than me. It just means you're a "boating fan" and I'm not into it as much as you are. And there's nothing wrong with that. But if I have taken out that time and energy and made it a priority to pursue music as my primary hobby, that does mean that I am a passionate music fan, and if all you do is turn on the radio when you're in the car and nothing else....then you haven't made it a priority. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that it didn't mean so much to you that you're willing to put other things aside to pursue it.
-
I think we all know what the guy is trying to say although the use of “real music fan” is probably not helping his case.
I’m assuming he means that Eagles songs get played on the radio so someone who consumes music in this way and sings along to the hits on the radio may like some of those songs, go to the supermarket and buy The Eagles greatest hits. They may not be a huge fan of The Eagles and would not delve deeply into their back catalogue but they want to have the hits. You probably wouldn’t class that person as a hardcore Eagles fan, they are a casual fan. That is not a reflection on the quality of those songs or that person’s love of music, they just enjoy listening to music in their everyday life and maybe don’t sit in a darkened room with headphones on obsessing over it.
I’d describe myself as a casual fan of U2, I have some compilation albums and a few of their classic albums, I’ve even seen them live. If someone asked me though, I wouldn’t class myself as a “fan” of U2, I just like some of their stuff. Mostly the stuff everyone knows.
-
Also, the older you get, the harder it becomes to digest music like you did in your youth and maybe that's where he's coming from with people not listening to music as much. He sees today through his eyes ....
-
I once read an article in a local rag called "Top 10 albums for people who hate music"... It was meant to be humorous, and it did make me laugh, but it kindof made this point.
There are some albums that are adored by the masses...even the ones who *by their own admission* don't like music very much. "I've never really cared for music that much...but I like [insert song we've all heard ad nauseum]."
I think the thought process is: If you've homogenized the music so completely, that it's literally appealing to every human being on the planet...even people who admit that they don't even like music...
Honestly I think many people today don't have a free time to buy and listen albums at home(hours and hours). It doesn't mean they dislike music, they just don't have a time for that. But they have tons of songs that are played on the radio nearly everywhere, so they can hear some music.
So... you're saying... people just don't have the time for music anymore?
Yes, that's true. If a huge number of people today have many obligations in their daily lives, time passes very quickly to them and they don't have a free time to even watch an episode of their favorite series on TV, let alone buying and listening some CDs.
BUT THIS IS THE ENTIRE POINT.
If you love something enough, you MAKE time for it. Period. That is truly the long, tall, height, and width. And I'm not saying it makes any person better than any other person.
Look, for some people it's golf. For some it's boating. For still others it's tennis or football. For others it's camping etc...etc...etc...
The point is, that when you are truly passionate about something, you MAKE time for it. You put away all the other distractions, because it means more to you than all the other things. And I will repeat, this is not any form of elitism, because EVERYONE has something that they love to do that they've put aside all the other things that they don't do. And they've *made* the time in their lives for that thing because they love it so much. "Some people juggle geese!" [Firefly reference]
If you're a boating fan...fine. That doesn't make you better than me. It just means you're a "boating fan" and I'm not into it as much as you are. And there's nothing wrong with that. But if I have taken out that time and energy and made it a priority to pursue music as my primary hobby, that does mean that I am a passionate music fan, and if all you do is turn on the radio when you're in the car and nothing else....then you haven't made it a priority. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that it didn't mean so much to you that you're willing to put other things aside to pursue it.
Thank you. The OP made some legit points and got the inevitable “there is no black and white, there is no good or bad” responses. It’s a simple concept, a person who ONLY listens to what is force-fed them on the radio by some DJs being bought off by Taylor Swift’s PR team is the definition of a casual fan. The “I guess this is popular so this is what I will listen to” type. A music fan will search and search until he finds stuff that is actually good.
-
I once read an article in a local rag called "Top 10 albums for people who hate music"... It was meant to be humorous, and it did make me laugh, but it kindof made this point.
There are some albums that are adored by the masses...even the ones who *by their own admission* don't like music very much. "I've never really cared for music that much...but I like [insert song we've all heard ad nauseum]."
I think the thought process is: If you've homogenized the music so completely, that it's literally appealing to every human being on the planet...even people who admit that they don't even like music...
Honestly I think many people today don't have a free time to buy and listen albums at home(hours and hours). It doesn't mean they dislike music, they just don't have a time for that. But they have tons of songs that are played on the radio nearly everywhere, so they can hear some music.
So... you're saying... people just don't have the time for music anymore?
Yes, that's true. If a huge number of people today have many obligations in their daily lives, time passes very quickly to them and they don't have a free time to even watch an episode of their favorite series on TV, let alone buying and listening some CDs.
BUT THIS IS THE ENTIRE POINT.
If you love something enough, you MAKE time for it. Period. That is truly the long, tall, height, and width. And I'm not saying it makes any person better than any other person.
Look, for some people it's golf. For some it's boating. For still others it's tennis or football. For others it's camping etc...etc...etc...
The point is, that when you are truly passionate about something, you MAKE time for it. You put away all the other distractions, because it means more to you than all the other things. And I will repeat, this is not any form of elitism, because EVERYONE has something that they love to do that they've put aside all the other things that they don't do. And they've *made* the time in their lives for that thing because they love it so much. "Some people juggle geese!" [Firefly reference]
If you're a boating fan...fine. That doesn't make you better than me. It just means you're a "boating fan" and I'm not into it as much as you are. And there's nothing wrong with that. But if I have taken out that time and energy and made it a priority to pursue music as my primary hobby, that does mean that I am a passionate music fan, and if all you do is turn on the radio when you're in the car and nothing else....then you haven't made it a priority. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that it didn't mean so much to you that you're willing to put other things aside to pursue it.
Thank you. The OP made some legit points and got the inevitable “there is no black and white, there is no good or bad” responses. It’s a simple concept, a person who ONLY listens to what is force-fed them on the radio by some DJs being bought off by Taylor Swift’s PR team is the definition of a casual fan. The “I guess this is popular so this is what I will listen to” type. A music fan will search and search until he finds stuff that is actually good.
Not to beat a dead horse, but this is exactly why I said something, because I could not disagree with that any more than I do. 180 degrees disagreement. Trump/Clinton disagreement. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm calling bull****. I have never had a DJ come to my house, put a gun to my head and FORCE me to listen to ANYTHING. As if there is this pack of zombies out there "Give me music.... I take music.... feed me music..." Does it occur to anyone that it's the other way around? I don't listen to the radio much anymore, because it's a f*****g nightmare to get reception where I live (plus I'm not in the same place that often) but I never once ever "oh, well, I guess this is popular so this is what I will listen to". And you put the cherry on top with the "that is actually good".
Here's the station that I listened to growing up (99 Rock, WPLR in New Haven) over the last couple hours (I might have missed one song, because I remember Nirvana in there somewhere):
Somebody To Love - Queen
Jump - Van Halen
Don't Fear The Reaper - BOC
Black Hole Sun - Soundgarden
The Stroke - Billy Squier
Comfortably Numb - Pink Floyd
T.N.T. - AC/DC
Don't Bring Me Down - ELO
Man In The Box - Alice In Chains
One - Metallica
Dream On - Aerosmith
Hey, Hey, What Can I Do - Led Zeppelin
No One Like You - Scorpions
Who Are You - The Who
Animal - Def Leppard
Rocky Mountain Way - Joe Walsh
Not sure which of those I should turn from to find music that is "actually good". Oh, and in my book, Taylor Swift's "Wildest Dreams" is one of my Top Five pop songs of all time. All time.
(And I apologize if this sounds hot, but I really, REALLY despise musical snobbery.)
-
I feel like Dream Team made a slightly different point than I did, and Stadler was addressing DT's point and not mine. Maybe I'm mistaken.
I didn't even bring up radio. I was just simply making the point about those who MAKE the time for it (putting all other interests aside for it) vs. those who place other interests above music....allowing those interests to crowd out time otherwise spent listening to music.
EVERYONE has *something* that they put aside all other things to pursue. It makes sense then that that's the thing that is more important to them than all the other things they gave up for it. Even if you really love music, if you love movies more, then movies will take up more of your time that you could have used listening to music if you had made that a priority. And the same goes vice versa.
I'm only making the delineation between those who MAKE time for it, and those who "get around to it"
-
My favorite Eagles album is 'On the Border'. This was the transition album to a more rock sound. So much variety on this album. 'Say goodnight Dick'
-
(And I apologize if this sounds hot, but I really, REALLY despise musical snobbery.)
Oh...you're one of them. Heh. You'll get it one day.
-
Getting back to the topic at hand, you know, Eagles.... I don't know much about them so I did some wiki'ing. Was amazed that other than their late 2000 album, they had 6 releases. That's it. That's an impressive legacy. Any other rock bands generally considered upper-echelon if not legendary have that few albums?
-
Getting back to the topic at hand, you know, Eagles.... I don't know much about them so I did some wiki'ing. Was amazed that other than their late 2000 album, they had 6 releases. That's it. That's an impressive legacy. Any other rock bands generally considered upper-echelon if not legendary have that few albums?
Boston has 6 albums even though almost everyone only cares about the debut, it seems.
-
Getting back to the topic at hand, you know, Eagles.... I don't know much about them so I did some wiki'ing. Was amazed that other than their late 2000 album, they had 6 releases. That's it. That's an impressive legacy. Any other rock bands generally considered upper-echelon if not legendary have that few albums?
If you just class the Ozzy era albums as Black Sabbath, their legacy is largely built on only a few albums, all of which are around 40+ years old. That's not to dismiss the albums made with Dio, which are great, but when most people think of legendary Black Sabbath, they think Paranoid, War Pigs, Sweet Leaf, Black Sabbath, Snow Blind, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath etc.
Guns N' Roses would be another one of course.
-
Getting back to the topic at hand, you know, Eagles.... I don't know much about them so I did some wiki'ing. Was amazed that other than their late 2000 album, they had 6 releases. That's it. That's an impressive legacy. Any other rock bands generally considered upper-echelon if not legendary have that few albums?
According to a large number of Metallica fans, they only have 3-4 albums.
-
I feel like Dream Team made a slightly different point than I did, and Stadler was addressing DT's point and not mine. Maybe I'm mistaken.
I didn't even bring up radio. I was just simply making the point about those who MAKE the time for it (putting all other interests aside for it) vs. those who place other interests above music....allowing those interests to crowd out time otherwise spent listening to music.
EVERYONE has *something* that they put aside all other things to pursue. It makes sense then that that's the thing that is more important to them than all the other things they gave up for it. Even if you really love music, if you love movies more, then movies will take up more of your time that you could have used listening to music if you had made that a priority. And the same goes vice versa.
I'm only making the delineation between those who MAKE time for it, and those who "get around to it"
"10,000 hours" aside, putting time into it doesn't make you any better - necessarily - than anyone else. There are other variables.
But as a general point, I'm not really quibbling about that, as much as I am this notion of musical snobbery. That somehow someone who "puts in the time" and digs into Dream Theater's nearly infinite side bands - which probably have an aggregate of nine radio plays, ever - are somehow "better" than the person that likes Taylor Swift or whoever you want to use as a musical punching bag today.
I watch my daughter, who gets her music from different sources than I do (combination of age, circumstances, etc.), and she is starting to see the beauty of music. What it can do for you, how it can bring people together, how it can influence your mood, how it can become a trigger for those memories that will mean something to you for the rest of your life, and her two favorite artists are Taylor Swift and One Direction. Who the hell am I to think I'm somehow "better" than her because I happen to like King Crimson and Frank Zappa? And in fact, it's become a sort of bonding thing for us, where I give her music equal time (when driving, around the house, etc.) She came with me to Fish and Kiss, and I went with her to Harry Styles and... I forget what other one (prolly the Jonas Brothers). Fish didn't click. thought it was sort of weird and not in a good way (though in her defense, it wasn't Fish's best performance, and she does like "Sunsets On Empire"). I watched Harry Styles get 18,000 people to put aside their differences, put aside their problems, and just have FUN for two hours a couple weeks ago, and honestly? They weren't better MUSICIANS, but it was a far more satisfying musical EXPERIENCE than Sons Of Apollo. Yeah, I said that.
-
Getting back to the topic at hand, you know, Eagles.... I don't know much about them so I did some wiki'ing. Was amazed that other than their late 2000 album, they had 6 releases. That's it. That's an impressive legacy. Any other rock bands generally considered upper-echelon if not legendary have that few albums?
The Who. 53 years (first record released in 1965) and only 11 studio albums. In the time that the Beatles came and went (12 albums), The Who put out four records. In the time that Led Zeppelin came and went (9 albums), The Who put out five albums (Tommy counts in both, by the way).
That's always fascinated me. I will say this, though: I won an eBay auction of all the studio albums except the first one, and I was blown away how good some of them were. I was familiar with Tommy, Who's Next and Quadrophenia, but the rest are way more solid than I imagined.
-
Deep Purple: they only have four albums with the Classic Mark II lineup (and three more with IIa after the reunion in 1984).
-
Getting back to the topic at hand, you know, Eagles.... I don't know much about them so I did some wiki'ing. Was amazed that other than their late 2000 album, they had 6 releases. That's it. That's an impressive legacy. Any other rock bands generally considered upper-echelon if not legendary have that few albums?
According to a large number of Metallica fans, they only have 3-4 albums.
Well, they only have 3 good ones max, so :biggrin:
-
Getting back to the topic at hand, you know, Eagles.... I don't know much about them so I did some wiki'ing. Was amazed that other than their late 2000 album, they had 6 releases. That's it. That's an impressive legacy. Any other rock bands generally considered upper-echelon if not legendary have that few albums?
According to a large number of Metallica fans, they only have 3-4 albums.
Well, they only have 3 good ones max, so :biggrin:
I disagree, and don't call me Max.
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/2e/17/83/2e1783bf909a87961f0ddfce459ba079--airplane-.jpg)
-
I like the Eagles, but don't love them. I love a few of their songs, but most fall into the pretty good/okay category for me nowadays. I listened to Hotel California a while back and was surprised at how boring I found the album following the title track. The solo success of Don Henley and Joe Walsh's various other projects definitely give them an adrenaline shot as far as keeping their live shows sold out.
-
I like the Eagles, but don't love them. I love a few of their songs, but most fall into the pretty good/okay category for me nowadays. I listened to Hotel California a while back and was surprised at how boring I found the album following the title track. The solo success of Don Henley and Joe Walsh's various other projects definitely give them an adrenaline shot as far as keeping their live shows sold out.
I know when I saw them, if they played 28 songs, and 12 of them were solo songs (Henley, Frey and Walsh).
-
Eagles 'Greatest Hits' is the perfect disc for before/during/after a night out on the town, as well as for the start of a long road trip by car.
As to sales in the UK, here is their Top Twenty all time selling albums('x' means 'times platinum')
Queen-Greatest Hits 20× (6.1M)
ABBA-Greatest Hits 17×
The Beatles-Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 17×
Adele -21 17×
Oasis-(What's the Story) Morning Glory? 14×
Michael Jackson-Thriller 13×
Pink Floyd-The Dark Side of the Moon 14×
Dire Straits-Brothers in Arms 14×
Michael Jackson-Bad 13×
Queen-Greatest Hits II 13×
Fleetwood Mac-Rumours 11×
Madonna-The Immaculate Collection 12×
Amy Winehouse-Back to Black 13×
Adele-25 11×
Simply Red-Stars 12×
Shania Twain-Come On Over 11×
Bob Marley and the Wailers-Legend 11×
James Blunt-Back to Bedlam 11×
The Verve-Urban Hymns 11×
Ed Sheeran-x 11×
-
As to sales in the UK, here is their Top Twenty all time selling albums('x' means 'times platinum')
....
Amy Winehouse-Back to Black 13×
Simply Red-Stars 12×
Shania Twain-Come On Over 11×
Bob Marley and the Wailers-Legend 11×
James Blunt-Back to Bedlam 11×
The Verve-Urban Hymns 11×
Ed Sheeran-x 11×
Good lord.
-
Explaining The Eagles' commercial record chalking it up to casual listeners being the vast majority stops working as soon as you go down that list and find Led Zeppelin IV, The Black Album, The Dark Side of the Moon, etc.
Searching for other plausible explanations:
Quality hits, great hooks, three top notch singers in the same band.
The best band vocal harmonies since The Beatles
Conciling white America's favourite genres, country and rock'n'roll
Telling "don't even try to understand, take it easy" to an audience suffering from social turmoils/Vietnam fatigue
Writing, basically, the American answer to Stairway to Heaven
Disappearing while at the top, leaving fifteen years of nostalgia/discovery buys driven by Frey's and Henley's hits.
Interesting question: in your perfect world, what album should be the last century's best seller instead?
-
I know when I saw them, if they played 28 songs, and 12 of them were solo songs (Henley, Frey and Walsh).
What solo songs by Frey did they play? Of his "hits," Smuggler's Blues is the only one I can imagine working. You Belong to the City, on the other hand... :lol :lol
Interesting question: in your perfect world, what album should be the last century's best seller instead?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d2/Wham%21_-_Make_It_Big_%28North_American_album_artwork%29.png)
-
Eagles 'Greatest Hits' is the perfect disc for before/during/after a night out on the town, as well as for the start of a long road trip by car.
As to sales in the UK, here is their Top Twenty all time selling albums('x' means 'times platinum')
Queen-Greatest Hits 20× (6.1M)
ABBA-Greatest Hits 17×
The Beatles-Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 17×
Adele -21 17×
Oasis-(What's the Story) Morning Glory? 14×
Michael Jackson-Thriller 13×
Pink Floyd-The Dark Side of the Moon 14×
Dire Straits-Brothers in Arms 14×
Michael Jackson-Bad 13×
Queen-Greatest Hits II 13×
Fleetwood Mac-Rumours 11×
Madonna-The Immaculate Collection 12×
Amy Winehouse-Back to Black 13×
Adele-25 11×
Simply Red-Stars 12×
Shania Twain-Come On Over 11×
Bob Marley and the Wailers-Legend 11×
James Blunt-Back to Bedlam 11×
The Verve-Urban Hymns 11×
Ed Sheeran-x 11×
In my lifetime, I personally have purchased just one of these albums.
-
3 for me.
I owned all the Queen albums so no need to by the GH.
-
I owned the GH so no need for the Queen albums. ;D
-
:lol
I bet the 1st one in 81.
-
I figured ABBA was the one you owned.
-
I figured ABBA was the one you owned.
8-Track. Lol
-
That was meant for TAC, but you snuck in a reply before I could hit "send." :lol :lol
-
Oh no. I meant TAC owned the 8-track. Lol
-
Wow, you guys are getting in each others' way for busting my chops. :rollin
I'm touched! :lol
-
:lol
I'd climb over mountains to bust your chops Tim. :lol
-
:lol :lol :lol
-
I know when I saw them, if they played 28 songs, and 12 of them were solo songs (Henley, Frey and Walsh).
What solo songs by Frey did they play? Of his "hits," Smuggler's Blues is the only one I can imagine working. You Belong to the City, on the other hand... :lol :lol
Henley:
- Heart Of The Matter
- Boys Of Summer
- Dirty Laundry
- All She Wants To Do Is Dance
Walsh:
- Ordinary Average Guy
- Help Me Through The Night
- Funk #49
- Life's Been Good
- Rocky Mountain Way
Frey:
- Silent Spring (I didn't know that song when I heard it)
- You Belong To The City
- The Heat Is On
I don't know; I fully cop to being biased, and perhaps more closed minded than I'd like to be (I went because I had tickets I couldn't sell; this wasn't a "bucket list" show for me) but while I came out thinking Joe Walsh was FAR better than I ever imagined him to be, Glenn Frey just seemed so... light weight compared to the rest. I get it; he was the catalyst for the band and a prime driver behind the scenes but that doesn't make you a compelling songwriter.
-
Eagles 'Greatest Hits' is the perfect disc . . . for the start of a long road trip by car.
It wouldn't be very long since I'd likely fall asleep and drive off the road.
Eagles 'Greatest Hits' is the perfect disc for before/during/after a night out on the town, as well as for the start of a long road trip by car.
As to sales in the UK, here is their Top Twenty all time selling albums('x' means 'times platinum')
Queen-Greatest Hits 20× (6.1M)
ABBA-Greatest Hits 17×
The Beatles-Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 17×
Adele -21 17×
Oasis-(What's the Story) Morning Glory? 14×
Michael Jackson-Thriller 13×
Pink Floyd-The Dark Side of the Moon 14×
Dire Straits-Brothers in Arms 14×
Michael Jackson-Bad 13×
Queen-Greatest Hits II 13×
Fleetwood Mac-Rumours 11×
Madonna-The Immaculate Collection 12×
Amy Winehouse-Back to Black 13×
Adele-25 11×
Simply Red-Stars 12×
Shania Twain-Come On Over 11×
Bob Marley and the Wailers-Legend 11×
James Blunt-Back to Bedlam 11×
The Verve-Urban Hymns 11×
Ed Sheeran-x 11×
In my lifetime, I personally have purchased just one of these albums.
Two of them for me: two copies of Sgt. Pepper and one of the Queen Greatest Hits packages.
-
I have a lot of them: Queen; Sgt. Pepper; Oasis; Michael Jackson (both of them); Pink Floyd; Dire Straits; Fleetwood Mac; Madonna...
But honestly? That list puts paid to the myth that "no one is buying music these days..." Ed Sheeran? Adele?
(And by the way, I learned a new thing today: The Verve and The Verve Pipe are not the same thing, and the Verve Pipe are not the ones sued by the Stones).
-
I have only paid money for Sgt Pepper and Dark Side.
Through other means, I have inherited Rumors, Bad and Thriller.
-
Getting back to the topic at hand, you know, Eagles.... I don't know much about them so I did some wiki'ing. Was amazed that other than their late 2000 album, they had 6 releases. That's it. That's an impressive legacy. Any other rock bands generally considered upper-echelon if not legendary have that few albums?
If you just class the Ozzy era albums as Black Sabbath, their legacy is largely built on only a few albums, all of which are around 40+ years old. That's not to dismiss the albums made with Dio, which are great, but when most people think of legendary Black Sabbath, they think Paranoid, War Pigs, Sweet Leaf, Black Sabbath, Snow Blind, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath etc.
Guns N' Roses would be another one of course.
I don't think I would include Sabbath on that list. The "classic" era with Ozzy did span quite a few albums. And while I get that the Dio era paled in comparison (in terms of popularity and number of hits, not necessarily quality), it was still a pretty major resurgence.
But GNR is a great example. Depending on who you ask and how you look at it, the number of "albums" can vary significantly. But really, as far as popularity, you are only looking at 3 album cycles, tops: Appetite, the Lies? EP, and the Use Your Illusion double album cycle (I'm not really counting The Spaghetti Incident because, despite going platinum, I wouldn't really consider it a "success," and I don't think the band would either). Their popularity and album sales numbers are really an anomaly when you consider their discography.
-
Queen's Greatest Hits...gotta say, that is a killer tracklist!
-
I don't know; I fully cop to being biased, and perhaps more closed minded than I'd like to be (I went because I had tickets I couldn't sell; this wasn't a "bucket list" show for me) but while I came out thinking Joe Walsh was FAR better than I ever imagined him to be, Glenn Frey just seemed so... light weight compared to the rest. I get it; he was the catalyst for the band and a prime driver behind the scenes but that doesn't make you a compelling songwriter.
Agreed. Take away the Eagles and just look at what all three did outside of that band and it is no comparison. Henley and Walsh are so far ahead that Frey is lucky to be a dot in the rearview mirror.
-
Getting back to the topic at hand, you know, Eagles.... I don't know much about them so I did some wiki'ing. Was amazed that other than their late 2000 album, they had 6 releases. That's it. That's an impressive legacy. Any other rock bands generally considered upper-echelon if not legendary have that few albums?
If you just class the Ozzy era albums as Black Sabbath, their legacy is largely built on only a few albums, all of which are around 40+ years old. That's not to dismiss the albums made with Dio, which are great, but when most people think of legendary Black Sabbath, they think Paranoid, War Pigs, Sweet Leaf, Black Sabbath, Snow Blind, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath etc.
Guns N' Roses would be another one of course.
I don't think I would include Sabbath on that list. The "classic" era with Ozzy did span quite a few albums. And while I get that the Dio era paled in comparison (in terms of popularity and number of hits, not necessarily quality), it was still a pretty major resurgence.
But GNR is a great example. Depending on who you ask and how you look at it, the number of "albums" can vary significantly. But really, as far as popularity, you are only looking at 3 album cycles, tops: Appetite, the Lies? EP, and the Use Your Illusion double album cycle (I'm not really counting The Spaghetti Incident because, despite going platinum, I wouldn't really consider it a "success," and I don't think the band would either). Their popularity and album sales numbers are really an anomaly when you consider their discography.
I do see your point about Sabbath and I do like the Dio era but it’s generally ignored when people talk about the greatness of Sabbath. They are good solid rock records but will never go down in history as anything earth shattering. They were touring until recently and I would guess they were still basing the whole set off those first 5 albums. Strange to think how a band that most consider one of the greatest metal bands of all time released all their revered stuff in a 4 year period and have not released anything noteworthy since 1973 (45 years ago!)
-
Getting back to the topic at hand, you know, Eagles.... I don't know much about them so I did some wiki'ing. Was amazed that other than their late 2000 album, they had 6 releases. That's it. That's an impressive legacy. Any other rock bands generally considered upper-echelon if not legendary have that few albums?
If you just class the Ozzy era albums as Black Sabbath, their legacy is largely built on only a few albums, all of which are around 40+ years old. That's not to dismiss the albums made with Dio, which are great, but when most people think of legendary Black Sabbath, they think Paranoid, War Pigs, Sweet Leaf, Black Sabbath, Snow Blind, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath etc.
Guns N' Roses would be another one of course.
I don't think I would include Sabbath on that list. The "classic" era with Ozzy did span quite a few albums. And while I get that the Dio era paled in comparison (in terms of popularity and number of hits, not necessarily quality), it was still a pretty major resurgence.
But GNR is a great example. Depending on who you ask and how you look at it, the number of "albums" can vary significantly. But really, as far as popularity, you are only looking at 3 album cycles, tops: Appetite, the Lies? EP, and the Use Your Illusion double album cycle (I'm not really counting The Spaghetti Incident because, despite going platinum, I wouldn't really consider it a "success," and I don't think the band would either). Their popularity and album sales numbers are really an anomaly when you consider their discography.
I do see your point about Sabbath and I do like the Dio era but it’s generally ignored when people talk about the greatness of Sabbath. They are good solid rock records but will never go down in history as anything earth shattering. They were touring until recently and I would guess they were still basing the whole set off those first 5 albums. Strange to think how a band that most consider one of the greatest metal bands of all time released all their revered stuff in a 4 year period and have not released anything noteworthy since 1973 (45 years ago!)
Well, we can quibble about the individual albums after SBS (I think Sabotage is "noteworthy"), but Heaven and Hell is clearly "noteworthy".
-
Sabotage is awesome!
Anyway, I'm actually going to contribute to this thread.
Henley's The Boys Of Summer always resonates with me. It's one of those songs that literally picks me up and drops me into 1984.
-
Henley's The Boys Of Summer always resonates with me. It's one of those songs that literally picks me up and drops me into 1984.
Wow, when I heard The Ataris version of it and see the music video of it, it takes me back the early 2000s in that era where bands like Goo Goo Dolls, Matchbox 20, Creed, and Fuel were the craze back then and I only know of Boys of Summer since last year.
-
Getting back to the topic at hand, you know, Eagles.... I don't know much about them so I did some wiki'ing. Was amazed that other than their late 2000 album, they had 6 releases. That's it. That's an impressive legacy. Any other rock bands generally considered upper-echelon if not legendary have that few albums?
If you just class the Ozzy era albums as Black Sabbath, their legacy is largely built on only a few albums, all of which are around 40+ years old. That's not to dismiss the albums made with Dio, which are great, but when most people think of legendary Black Sabbath, they think Paranoid, War Pigs, Sweet Leaf, Black Sabbath, Snow Blind, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath etc.
Guns N' Roses would be another one of course.
I don't think I would include Sabbath on that list. The "classic" era with Ozzy did span quite a few albums. And while I get that the Dio era paled in comparison (in terms of popularity and number of hits, not necessarily quality), it was still a pretty major resurgence.
But GNR is a great example. Depending on who you ask and how you look at it, the number of "albums" can vary significantly. But really, as far as popularity, you are only looking at 3 album cycles, tops: Appetite, the Lies? EP, and the Use Your Illusion double album cycle (I'm not really counting The Spaghetti Incident because, despite going platinum, I wouldn't really consider it a "success," and I don't think the band would either). Their popularity and album sales numbers are really an anomaly when you consider their discography.
I do see your point about Sabbath and I do like the Dio era but it’s generally ignored when people talk about the greatness of Sabbath. They are good solid rock records but will never go down in history as anything earth shattering. They were touring until recently and I would guess they were still basing the whole set off those first 5 albums. Strange to think how a band that most consider one of the greatest metal bands of all time released all their revered stuff in a 4 year period and have not released anything noteworthy since 1973 (45 years ago!)
Well, we can quibble about the individual albums after SBS (I think Sabotage is "noteworthy"), but Heaven and Hell is clearly "noteworthy".
You may well consider Sabotage to be noteworthy and Im sure many enjoy it but the wider music world and the band themselves do not. There’s more of an argument for Heaven and Hell but, in the grand scheme of things, the Dio era albums weren’t really game changers. They are very good hard rock albums in an era of lots of good hard rock albums. Like I said, I like those albums a lot but they are not what most consider to be Black Sabbath and are not the reason the band is so revered by the music world, it is mainly due to those five albums between 1970 and 1973.
-
Henley's The Boys Of Summer always resonates with me. It's one of those songs that literally picks me up and drops me into 1984.
I have to agree (although I have never lived in 1984)! Another song that does that is I.G.Y. (What A Beautiful World) by Donald Fagen, only it does so with 1981.
I don't really understand all the hate for the Eagles. They are a fantastic band. They have evolved and changed until the lineup became perfect with Hotel California. I also don't understand how one can find the album following the song Hotel California boring.
Joe Walsh and Don Felder are both amazing guitarists that perfectly fit together because they are so different. Just listen to how awesomely those two are fighting a guitar battle in the end of Hotel California.
So in the end, I have to agree with kingshmegland:
You're all high.
-
Getting back to the topic at hand, you know, Eagles.... I don't know much about them so I did some wiki'ing. Was amazed that other than their late 2000 album, they had 6 releases. That's it. That's an impressive legacy. Any other rock bands generally considered upper-echelon if not legendary have that few albums?
If you just class the Ozzy era albums as Black Sabbath, their legacy is largely built on only a few albums, all of which are around 40+ years old. That's not to dismiss the albums made with Dio, which are great, but when most people think of legendary Black Sabbath, they think Paranoid, War Pigs, Sweet Leaf, Black Sabbath, Snow Blind, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath etc.
Guns N' Roses would be another one of course.
I don't think I would include Sabbath on that list. The "classic" era with Ozzy did span quite a few albums. And while I get that the Dio era paled in comparison (in terms of popularity and number of hits, not necessarily quality), it was still a pretty major resurgence.
But GNR is a great example. Depending on who you ask and how you look at it, the number of "albums" can vary significantly. But really, as far as popularity, you are only looking at 3 album cycles, tops: Appetite, the Lies? EP, and the Use Your Illusion double album cycle (I'm not really counting The Spaghetti Incident because, despite going platinum, I wouldn't really consider it a "success," and I don't think the band would either). Their popularity and album sales numbers are really an anomaly when you consider their discography.
I do see your point about Sabbath and I do like the Dio era but it’s generally ignored when people talk about the greatness of Sabbath. They are good solid rock records but will never go down in history as anything earth shattering. They were touring until recently and I would guess they were still basing the whole set off those first 5 albums. Strange to think how a band that most consider one of the greatest metal bands of all time released all their revered stuff in a 4 year period and have not released anything noteworthy since 1973 (45 years ago!)
Well, we can quibble about the individual albums after SBS (I think Sabotage is "noteworthy"), but Heaven and Hell is clearly "noteworthy".
You may well consider Sabotage to be noteworthy and Im sure many enjoy it but the wider music world and the band themselves do not. There’s more of an argument for Heaven and Hell but, in the grand scheme of things, the Dio era albums weren’t really game changers. They are very good hard rock albums in an era of lots of good hard rock albums. Like I said, I like those albums a lot but they are not what most consider to be Black Sabbath and are not the reason the band is so revered by the music world, it is mainly due to those five albums between 1970 and 1973.
I think the band rates it higher than you imagine; "Symptom of the Universe" regularly made it into both Ozzy and Sabbath setlists, after the split, and "Megalomania" (at least the riff) regularly appeared in latter day Sabbath sets. Plus, HAH and Neon Knights are 8th and 9th on "Most played songs" by Sabbath. I'm pretty sure HaH has been on every non-Ozzy tour since it's release.
I don't disagree with the general premise of your last sentence though.
-
Henley's The Boys Of Summer always resonates with me. It's one of those songs that literally picks me up and drops me into 1984.
"Out on the road today, I saw a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac"
In 1984, I was working in a 24-hour campus restaurant and at age 22 was already an old fogey compared to the "kids" working there, and was apparently already building my cred as a music trivia guru. Someone asked me about that line. They didn't understand it.
Think about it. Rock and Roll as we know it (70's and beyond) was only 10 years old. It wouldn't be called "Classic Rock" for another 10 years. There was no "Generation X" or "Millenials" or any of that. There were also no Lexus or Infinity or any of those other fancy-tag cars.
So the very concept of a guy who listened to The Dead back in the day, or perhaps still does, but now he drives a Cadillac, was mindblowing. Wow, an old-school rocker letting his freak flag fly in his own way. How cool. Gotta include that in a song or something.
That's what I always think of when I hear that song.
-
So the summer of '84 was the summer between 10th and 11th grade for me. One of the baseball fields we played at was in Wareham, home of the Wareham Gatemen of the Cape Cod baseball league, which is probably the number one college summer league. I always think of that.
But there's something about that song that is really warm.
-
I never cared for the song back in the '80s. I wasn't until me and the band buddies started covering it a few years ago that I started to appreciate it.
-
I do see your point about Sabbath and I do like the Dio era but it’s generally ignored when people talk about the greatness of Sabbath. They are good solid rock records but will never go down in history as anything earth shattering. They were touring until recently and I would guess they were still basing the whole set off those first 5 albums. Strange to think how a band that most consider one of the greatest metal bands of all time released all their revered stuff in a 4 year period and have not released anything noteworthy since 1973 (45 years ago!)
"[T]he Dio era . . . [is] generally ignored when people talk about the greatness of Sabbath"?!
B'scuze me?!
Which "people" are you referring to? I'm not sure I've ever -- in the 35+ years that I've been a fan of heavy music -- heard a discussion about Sabbath that didn't at least touch on the subject of Ozzy era v. Dio era.
Putting aside the issue of Sabotage (which, in terms of album sales is on roughly the same level as SBS), there is no valid argument to be made that the first two Dio albums weren't "noteworthy," and the release of Dehumanizer in 1992 was a huge deal.
-
Back in the 70's, we talked about the greatness of Sabbath and never talked about the Dio era at all. It's like it didn't even exist.
-
I do see your point about Sabbath and I do like the Dio era but it’s generally ignored when people talk about the greatness of Sabbath. They are good solid rock records but will never go down in history as anything earth shattering. They were touring until recently and I would guess they were still basing the whole set off those first 5 albums. Strange to think how a band that most consider one of the greatest metal bands of all time released all their revered stuff in a 4 year period and have not released anything noteworthy since 1973 (45 years ago!)
"[T]he Dio era . . . [is] generally ignored when people talk about the greatness of Sabbath"?!
B'scuze me?!
Which "people" are you referring to? I'm not sure I've ever -- in the 35+ years that I've been a fan of heavy music -- heard a discussion about Sabbath that didn't at least touch on the subject of Ozzy era v. Dio era.
Putting aside the issue of Sabotage (which, in terms of album sales is on roughly the same level as SBS), there is no valid argument to be made that the first two Dio albums weren't "noteworthy," and the release of Dehumanizer in 1992 was a huge deal.
You lost me at "Dehumanizer" (I hated that album for a long time until someone over at MP's - might actually have been you, now that I think about it - suggested I revisit it, and it's pretty good. Actually better than pretty good, but it's still not Heaven and Hell. See, at the time, there was a huge to-do about Sabbath's record, then Ozzy's solo record, and back then, Dio was still a dick and didn't have the glowing reputation he did near the end, so it was known, and it was a big deal.
-
Henley's The Boys Of Summer always resonates with me. It's one of those songs that literally picks me up and drops me into 1984.
"Out on the road today, I saw a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac"
In 1984, I was working in a 24-hour campus restaurant and at age 22 was already an old fogey compared to the "kids" working there, and was apparently already building my cred as a music trivia guru. Someone asked me about that line. They didn't understand it.
Think about it. Rock and Roll as we know it (70's and beyond) was only 10 years old. It wouldn't be called "Classic Rock" for another 10 years. There was no "Generation X" or "Millenials" or any of that. There were also no Lexus or Infinity or any of those other fancy-tag cars.
So the very concept of a guy who listened to The Dead back in the day, or perhaps still does, but now he drives a Cadillac, was mindblowing. Wow, an old-school rocker letting his freak flag fly in his own way. How cool. Gotta include that in a song or something.
That's what I always think of when I hear that song.
I didn't get this until way later, when I got married and had a kid, but the verse is:
Out on the road today I saw a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac
A little voice inside my head said
Don't look back, you can never look back
I thought I knew what love was
What did I know?
Those days are gone forever
I should just let 'em go, but...
And to me it was a little bit of that melancholy that you can't hold on. It was less about flying the freak flag than it was the idea of not letting go of your youth (the Dead, man) even though it's passed you by (I drive a Caddy now). The narrator is conflicted about that; he sees it, he knows it's not good, but when it comes to his love... he just can't.
It's not important why, but that song really resonates with me in a lot of ways.
-
Yup.
Obviously, I'm not into Don Henley, but Boys Of Summer is one of a handful of tracks from the 80's that when I hear it, it literally stops me dead in my tracks and transports me.
-
And to me it was a little bit of that melancholy that you can't hold on. It was less about flying the freak flag than it was the idea of not letting go of your youth (the Dead, man) even though it's passed you by (I drive a Caddy now). The narrator is conflicted about that; he sees it, he knows it's not good, but when it comes to his love... he just can't.
Interesting. I get the analogy between the music of your youth and the girl you once had who's now gone and ain't coming back, but I guess I never picked up the idea that both are gone forever. From time to time, I do think of girls from my past and where I might be now if we'd managed to stay together, but I don't see music as analogous to that. The music of my youth is the stuff that got me through the changes, the rough times, and there's no reason I can't still listen to it today and get lost in it. I'll never see those girls again, but I can't always put on the old records and be a teenager again for a while.
-
For the most part I did not like their solo stuff except for certain songs. The Last Worthless Evening meant a lot to me and my girlfriend of 3 years. The lyrics were parallel to how we got together.
When we broke up I had a hard time listening to it.
-
And to me it was a little bit of that melancholy that you can't hold on. It was less about flying the freak flag than it was the idea of not letting go of your youth (the Dead, man) even though it's passed you by (I drive a Caddy now). The narrator is conflicted about that; he sees it, he knows it's not good, but when it comes to his love... he just can't.
Interesting. I get the analogy between the music of your youth and the girl you once had who's now gone and ain't coming back, but I guess I never picked up the idea that both are gone forever. From time to time, I do think of girls from my past and where I might be now if we'd managed to stay together, but I don't see music as analogous to that. The music of my youth is the stuff that got me through the changes, the rough times, and there's no reason I can't still listen to it today and get lost in it. I'll never see those girls again, but I can't always put on the old records and be a teenager again for a while.
I don't know that it's music that you can't hold onto, but the lifestyle and some of the ideals that the music represents. I'm thinking of the weekend warriors at the Dave Matthews concert. I love Van Halen and Iron Maiden, but honestly? "Runnin' With The Devil" doesn't mean to me now what it did when I was 17, and I think Henley is saying maybe it shouldn't.
-
For the most part I did not like their solo stuff except for certain songs. The Last Worthless Evening meant a lot to me and my girlfriend of 3 years. The lyrics were parallel to how we got together.
When we broke up I had a hard time listening to it.
And Heart Of The Matter was a good descriptor of me following the breakup of my college girlfriend and I. She broke up with me, just before we graduated, and that song seemed to cover it pretty closely.
-
And to me it was a little bit of that melancholy that you can't hold on. It was less about flying the freak flag than it was the idea of not letting go of your youth (the Dead, man) even though it's passed you by (I drive a Caddy now). The narrator is conflicted about that; he sees it, he knows it's not good, but when it comes to his love... he just can't.
Interesting. I get the analogy between the music of your youth and the girl you once had who's now gone and ain't coming back, but I guess I never picked up the idea that both are gone forever. From time to time, I do think of girls from my past and where I might be now if we'd managed to stay together, but I don't see music as analogous to that. The music of my youth is the stuff that got me through the changes, the rough times, and there's no reason I can't still listen to it today and get lost in it. I'll never see those girls again, but I can't always put on the old records and be a teenager again for a while.
I don't know that it's music that you can't hold onto, but the lifestyle and some of the ideals that the music represents. I'm thinking of the weekend warriors at the Dave Matthews concert. I love Van Halen and Iron Maiden, but honestly? "Runnin' With The Devil" doesn't mean to me now what it did when I was 17, and I think Henley is saying maybe it shouldn't.
Okay, I think I get it. The exec driving the Cadillac may still love The Dead, but he's not hitting the road to follow them anymore. He's older and has grownup responsibilities now, kids and a mortgage, and has been "reduced" to putting a Deadhead sticker on his Cadillac. Those days are gone, dude.
-
I’ve always gotten what it meant....but then it makes me look at myself.
A 48 yr old grey headed father of 3 (all grown), driving a Honda Crosstour, walking into Costco with a BTBAM concert shirt and sporting a pair of checkerboard “Spicoli Special’s” (the original Vans loafers) and I wonder... am I that guy? Am I the dead head sticker on a Cadillac guy?
-
Yup.
Obviously, I'm not into Don Henley, but Boys Of Summer is one of a handful of tracks from the 80's that when I hear it, it literally stops me dead in my tracks and transports me.
Maybe you should check out New York Minute, it's a great song too! ;)
-
I’ve always gotten what it meant....but then it makes me look at myself.
A 48 yr old grey headed father of 3 (all grown), driving a Honda Crosstour, walking into Costco with a BTBAM concert shirt and sporting a pair of checkerboard “Spicoli Special’s” (the original Vans loafers) and I wonder... am I that guy? Am I the dead head sticker on a Cadillac guy?
You just barely escaped it, JD. If you had a Nevermind T-shirt on, that would have sealed the deal.
-
I’ve always gotten what it meant....but then it makes me look at myself.
A 48 yr old grey headed father of 3 (all grown), driving a Honda Crosstour, walking into Costco with a BTBAM concert shirt and sporting a pair of checkerboard “Spicoli Special’s” (the original Vans loafers) and I wonder... am I that guy? Am I the dead head sticker on a Cadillac guy?
Yes, yes you are. :) :) :) :) :)
-
I’ve always gotten what it meant....but then it makes me look at myself.
A 48 yr old grey headed father of 3 (all grown), driving a Honda Crosstour, walking into Costco with a BTBAM concert shirt and sporting a pair of checkerboard “Spicoli Special’s” (the original Vans loafers) and I wonder... am I that guy? Am I the dead head sticker on a Cadillac guy?
You hit a nerve. :lol
-
I’ve always gotten what it meant....but then it makes me look at myself.
A 48 yr old grey headed father of 3 (all grown), driving a Honda Crosstour, walking into Costco with a BTBAM concert shirt and sporting a pair of checkerboard “Spicoli Special’s” (the original Vans loafers) and I wonder... am I that guy? Am I the dead head sticker on a Cadillac guy?
Yes, yes you are. :) :) :) :) :)
But...maybe you shouldn't care.
-
I’ve always gotten what it meant....but then it makes me look at myself.
A 48 yr old grey headed father of 3 (all grown), driving a Honda Crosstour, walking into Costco with a BTBAM concert shirt and sporting a pair of checkerboard “Spicoli Special’s” (the original Vans loafers) and I wonder... am I that guy? Am I the dead head sticker on a Cadillac guy?
Yes, yes you are. :) :) :) :) :)
But...maybe you shouldn't care.
I know I don't, to the eternal chagrin of my wife (who finds a way to walk a couple steps behind or away from me at times. Go figure.)
-
Never be ashamed of who you are. Hell, I'm 56 and in a band playing music that's been around since I was in junior high. My hair is longer now than it was back then, because I wasn't allowed to grow it out back then (parents suck). Maybe there's a point at which most people think you're too old for that shit. Maybe they're right. Still don't care.
I get what y'all are saying about the Deadhead sticker, but I'm still sticking to my original interpretation. It's not about what you've lost; it's about what you still have. Hold on to what you love. Be proud of what you've done, where you've been, and who you are because of it. And if anybody cares enough to give you shit about it, they need to care about more important things.
-
I do see your point about Sabbath and I do like the Dio era but it’s generally ignored when people talk about the greatness of Sabbath. They are good solid rock records but will never go down in history as anything earth shattering. They were touring until recently and I would guess they were still basing the whole set off those first 5 albums. Strange to think how a band that most consider one of the greatest metal bands of all time released all their revered stuff in a 4 year period and have not released anything noteworthy since 1973 (45 years ago!)
"[T]he Dio era . . . [is] generally ignored when people talk about the greatness of Sabbath"?!
B'scuze me?!
Which "people" are you referring to? I'm not sure I've ever -- in the 35+ years that I've been a fan of heavy music -- heard a discussion about Sabbath that didn't at least touch on the subject of Ozzy era v. Dio era.
Putting aside the issue of Sabotage (which, in terms of album sales is on roughly the same level as SBS), there is no valid argument to be made that the first two Dio albums weren't "noteworthy," and the release of Dehumanizer in 1992 was a huge deal.
You lost me at "Dehumanizer" (I hated that album for a long time until someone over at MP's - might actually have been you, now that I think about it - suggested I revisit it, and it's pretty good. Actually better than pretty good, but it's still not Heaven and Hell. See, at the time, there was a huge to-do about Sabbath's record, then Ozzy's solo record, and back then, Dio was still a dick and didn't have the glowing reputation he did near the end, so it was known, and it was a big deal.
I think some of these "huge deal" things were different between the two coasts. I also vaguely recall one of the songs from Dehumanizer being in a movie soundtrack, but I might be wrong about that.
Back in the 70's, we talked about the greatness of Sabbath and never talked about the Dio era at all. It's like it didn't even exist.
Well played, sir.
-
I do see your point about Sabbath and I do like the Dio era but it’s generally ignored when people talk about the greatness of Sabbath. They are good solid rock records but will never go down in history as anything earth shattering. They were touring until recently and I would guess they were still basing the whole set off those first 5 albums. Strange to think how a band that most consider one of the greatest metal bands of all time released all their revered stuff in a 4 year period and have not released anything noteworthy since 1973 (45 years ago!)
"[T]he Dio era . . . [is] generally ignored when people talk about the greatness of Sabbath"?!
B'scuze me?!
Which "people" are you referring to? I'm not sure I've ever -- in the 35+ years that I've been a fan of heavy music -- heard a discussion about Sabbath that didn't at least touch on the subject of Ozzy era v. Dio era.
Putting aside the issue of Sabotage (which, in terms of album sales is on roughly the same level as SBS), there is no valid argument to be made that the first two Dio albums weren't "noteworthy," and the release of Dehumanizer in 1992 was a huge deal.
You lost me at "Dehumanizer" (I hated that album for a long time until someone over at MP's - might actually have been you, now that I think about it - suggested I revisit it, and it's pretty good. Actually better than pretty good, but it's still not Heaven and Hell. See, at the time, there was a huge to-do about Sabbath's record, then Ozzy's solo record, and back then, Dio was still a dick and didn't have the glowing reputation he did near the end, so it was known, and it was a big deal.
I think some of these "huge deal" things were different between the two coasts. I also vaguely recall one of the songs from Dehumanizer being in a movie soundtrack, but I might be wrong about that.
You are not. "Time Machine" was in Wayne's World.
-
I do see your point about Sabbath and I do like the Dio era but it’s generally ignored when people talk about the greatness of Sabbath. They are good solid rock records but will never go down in history as anything earth shattering. They were touring until recently and I would guess they were still basing the whole set off those first 5 albums. Strange to think how a band that most consider one of the greatest metal bands of all time released all their revered stuff in a 4 year period and have not released anything noteworthy since 1973 (45 years ago!)
"[T]he Dio era . . . [is] generally ignored when people talk about the greatness of Sabbath"?!
B'scuze me?!
Which "people" are you referring to? I'm not sure I've ever -- in the 35+ years that I've been a fan of heavy music -- heard a discussion about Sabbath that didn't at least touch on the subject of Ozzy era v. Dio era.
Putting aside the issue of Sabotage (which, in terms of album sales is on roughly the same level as SBS), there is no valid argument to be made that the first two Dio albums weren't "noteworthy," and the release of Dehumanizer in 1992 was a huge deal.
You lost me at "Dehumanizer" (I hated that album for a long time until someone over at MP's - might actually have been you, now that I think about it - suggested I revisit it, and it's pretty good. Actually better than pretty good, but it's still not Heaven and Hell. See, at the time, there was a huge to-do about Sabbath's record, then Ozzy's solo record, and back then, Dio was still a dick and didn't have the glowing reputation he did near the end, so it was known, and it was a big deal.
I think some of these "huge deal" things were different between the two coasts. I also vaguely recall one of the songs from Dehumanizer being in a movie soundtrack, but I might be wrong about that.
You are not. "Time Machine" was in Wayne's World.
Excellent! Party on.
-
I do see your point about Sabbath and I do like the Dio era but it’s generally ignored when people talk about the greatness of Sabbath. They are good solid rock records but will never go down in history as anything earth shattering. They were touring until recently and I would guess they were still basing the whole set off those first 5 albums. Strange to think how a band that most consider one of the greatest metal bands of all time released all their revered stuff in a 4 year period and have not released anything noteworthy since 1973 (45 years ago!)
"[T]he Dio era . . . [is] generally ignored when people talk about the greatness of Sabbath"?!
B'scuze me?!
Which "people" are you referring to? I'm not sure I've ever -- in the 35+ years that I've been a fan of heavy music -- heard a discussion about Sabbath that didn't at least touch on the subject of Ozzy era v. Dio era.
Putting aside the issue of Sabotage (which, in terms of album sales is on roughly the same level as SBS), there is no valid argument to be made that the first two Dio albums weren't "noteworthy," and the release of Dehumanizer in 1992 was a huge deal.
Dehumanizer was not a huge deal and this is coming from someone who saw that tour. The second an Ozzy return was mooted, people couldn’t get him back quick enough.
Let me put this another way. Imagine Sabbath had never existed before the Dio era. Do you honestly think they’d be held up as one of the great bands of all time by critics and fans alike just based on the Dio stuff, even throwing in the Gillan and Tony Martin albums which many people like?
Now imagine we did have the Ozzy era but none of the rest existed. Do you think it would make one jot of difference to their status as an all time great band? It wouldn’t.
I like the Dio albums, they’re really good records and were no doubt noteworthy upon release as Sabbath were a huge band and people wanted to see what they’d do without Ozzy. History has shown though that the Dio version of Sabbath is not what people think of when they talk about this incredible pioneering band that changed music. Dio’s Sabbath were just a really good rock band and I’ve no doubt that many metal fans will debate which was better because they were quite a different band with Dio’s more melodic vocals and fantasy lyrics. Do you prefer the doomy bluesy Sabbath or the epic fantasy melodic Sabbath? I like both but one changed the world and the other didn’t.
-
I also saw the Dehuminizer tour and frankly, I was never in love with that album. It felt like they were going through the motions. Still, it's Dio, it's Sabbath, and I think in the end, it has aged pretty well.
Pete, I am more than willing to concede that Sabbath's true legacy is tied to the Ozzy years. No question. But, you tell me that I can only listen to ONE Black Sabbath album for the rest of my life, I'm choosing Heaven And Hell, and I don't even have to think about it. I turned 12 in 1980, so my musical coming of age coincided with Heaven And Hell and to a lesser extent, Mob Rules. I also owned We Sold Our Soul during this time, and honestly, it didn't do anything for me. Nowadays I certainly love Sabotage and Sabbath Bloody Sabbath. And even Never Say Die.
-
I totally get that, that album is awesome and there will be plenty who’d agree with you as Dio is a far superior singer technically and his Sabbath is more accessible in terms of being more melodic and catchy. I’d probably go with Paranoid but luckily we can listen to both!
I always used to hear years ago that the Tony Martin stuff was really good too but last time I checked it was hard to get hold of.
-
I totally get that, that album is awesome and there will be plenty who’d agree with you as Dio is a far superior singer technically and his Sabbath is more accessible in terms of being more melodic and catchy. I’d probably go with Paranoid but luckily we can listen to both!
I always used to hear years ago that the Tony Martin stuff was really good too but last time I checked it was hard to get hold of.
Taking it here:
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=52859.0
-
EDIT.
-
Dehumanizer was not a huge deal and this is coming from someone who saw that tour. The second an Ozzy return was mooted, people couldn’t get him back quick enough.
Let me put this another way. Imagine Sabbath had never existed before the Dio era. Do you honestly think they’d be held up as one of the great bands of all time by critics and fans alike just based on the Dio stuff, even throwing in the Gillan and Tony Martin albums which many people like?
Now imagine we did have the Ozzy era but none of the rest existed. Do you think it would make one jot of difference to their status as an all time great band? It wouldn’t.
I like the Dio albums, they’re really good records and were no doubt noteworthy upon release as Sabbath were a huge band and people wanted to see what they’d do without Ozzy. History has shown though that the Dio version of Sabbath is not what people think of when they talk about this incredible pioneering band that changed music. Dio’s Sabbath were just a really good rock band and I’ve no doubt that many metal fans will debate which was better because they were quite a different band with Dio’s more melodic vocals and fantasy lyrics. Do you prefer the doomy bluesy Sabbath or the epic fantasy melodic Sabbath? I like both but one changed the world and the other didn’t.
Dehumanizer was a big deal where I was.
As for the rest of this, which "people" are you talking about when you say that "the Dio version of Sabbath is not what people think of when they talk about" Sabbath? It's what I talk about, and it's what most people I know talk about. "Ozzy v. Dio" is one of the bigger debates in metal and has been since the 80s. Was the Ozzy era more "important" to the development of metal? Well, duh, but that's a different point altogether.