Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Soup]

1 hour ago, Nalis said:

On the Bob Dylan theme, most 'legendary' artists are usually crap by the time they get past a certain age. They only sell out stadiums based purely on their name previously and obtain a pull from the vast majority based on nostalgia on how good they once were and the desire to say 'I've seen them live' before they die.

 

Seeing someone in 2019 who peaked 50 years before is about as relevant as saying 'I've seen Socrates play' when watching him as a 50 something for that Yorkshire amateur team.

Yeah I agree. This Nick Hornby quote sum it up really.

 

 "top five musical crimes perpetuated by Stevie Wonder in the ’80s and ’90s. Go. Sub-question: is it in fact unfair to criticize a formerly great artist for his latter day sins, is it better to burn out or fade away?"

[Soup]

On 15/07/2019 at 22:41, Saxondale said:

No. I saw him in Manchester in 2002.

 

I genuinely had no idea he was playing this weekend, it’s purely coincidental timing.

Did somebody actually drag you to this gig then?  Seeing as you can't stand him like 

[Fox92]

On 15/07/2019 at 17:47, Saxondale said:

Bob Dylan is absolute shite and, basically, a massive fraudster. He’s a pathetic instrumentalist who can’t sing for toffee. And - I’m sorry - his songwriting ain’t all that. 

 

I’ve had the misfortune of seeing the old **** live and he was a shambles. 

 

I genuinely don’t know how he could have been a professional musician for 100 years (or whatever) and not work out how to play his guitar properly.

 

All the decent musical parts in his songs were played by others.

 

Twat.

Yes it is.

 

Even me as a massive fan can accept his voice being bad and "he can't sing" but his songwriting is all that and he is in the absoloute top bracket of songwriter.

 

Sometimes people need to step back and realise that is was the 60's. Stuff like Subterrean Homesick Blues was mid 60's and it sounds like its from 30 years later.

 

Also makes me laugh that so many musicians can cite someone like Dylan as an influence and acknowledge what he has done for music yet some poster on an internet forum calls him shit. I could understand "overrated" but "shit", do me a favour.

Edited 22 July 2019 by Fox92

[Saxondale]

3 hours ago, Soup said:

Did somebody actually drag you to this gig then?  Seeing as you can't stand him like 

Basically, yeah.

[Saxondale]

3 hours ago, Fox92 said:

 

 

Also makes me laugh that so many musicians can cite someone like Dylan as an influence and acknowledge what he has done for music yet some poster on an internet forum calls him shit. I could understand "overrated" but "shit", do me a favour.

The clue is in the title of the thread: Opinion

 

In fact it’s the very way in which Bob Dylan is considered sacrosanct that annoys me the most about him. 

 

There is an expectation within the music nerd community that you have to lick the arse of Bob Dylan and the Beatles (and others to a lesser extent). It is considered heresy to question certain artists.

 

Now I’m not a massive Beatles fan, but objectively I can appreciate them.

 

But I simply see no musical merit in Bob Dylan.  If you want to talk about context, cultural impact, politics, protest, influence, etc, then that’s fine - but I’m talking about him as a musical artist, so I’m not really interested in any of that.

 

People talk about the greatness of his lyrics. Again, that’s fine, but really that should be considered in its own right as poetry. Maybe he’s a great poet? I don’t know - I’m not interested in poetry. 

[Fox92]

2 hours ago, Saxondale said:

The clue is in the title of the thread: Opinion

 

In fact it’s the very way in which Bob Dylan is considered sacrosanct that annoys me the most about him. 

 

There is an expectation within the music nerd community that you have to lick the arse of Bob Dylan and the Beatles (and others to a lesser extent). It is considered heresy to question certain artists.

 

Now I’m not a massive Beatles fan, but objectively I can appreciate them.

 

But I simply see no musical merit in Bob Dylan.  If you want to talk about context, cultural impact, politics, protest, influence, etc, then that’s fine - but I’m talking about him as a musical artist, so I’m not really interested in any of that.

 

People talk about the greatness of his lyrics. Again, that’s fine, but really that should be considered in its own right as poetry. Maybe he’s a great poet? I don’t know - I’m not interested in poetry. 

Yeah, apologies, I was on one and shouldn't have added that last paragraph. However, although it is opinion, I cannot agree with the "shit" comment because it's not true. "Overrated" then yeah, that's different. I don't like The Clash or Queen or Nirvana but I wouldn't call any of them shit because I know they're not.

 

I don't think it's ever heresy to question certain artists, there's nothing in the World that isn't questionable, and I don't think there's a "music nerd community" I just think, for musicians, it comes down the line to influence. 60's bands looked at the likes of Elvis and Chuck Berry likewise bands now look back at 60's/70's/80's bands.

 

I've always preferred lyrics so that's where my interest in him stemmed from. I'd call him a poet yeah but I don't think anyone tops him as a songwriter in my opinion.

[Wymsey]

It's not Theresa May's fault that the country is in quite a mess, in regards to the Brexit fiasco.

[ozleicester]

8 hours ago, Wymeswold fox said:

It's not Theresa May's fault that the country is in quite a mess, in regards to the Brexit fiasco.

Id say this was neither "opinion" nor "unpopular".

 

 

 

The majority of people living in Britain at the moment are ignorant.

 

 

[stix]

2 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Id say this was neither "opinion" nor "unpopular".

 

 

 

The majority of people living in Britain at the moment are ignorant.

 

 

 

Ignorant to what?

[The Bear]

14 hours ago, Fox92 said:

 

I've always preferred lyrics so that's where my interest in him stemmed from. I'd call him a poet yeah but I don't think anyone tops him as a songwriter in my opinion.

Paul Smith of Maximo Park is a fantastic lyricist. His stuff is very poetic and wordy at times. 

[Finnegan]

13 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Paul Smith of Maximo Park is a fantastic lyricist. His stuff is very poetic and wordy at times. 

 

Books From Boxes 

[Facecloth]

I not quite sure how to word this to get my point across how I want, but the ashes is massively overhyped.

 

Now I understand the the history, I understand the importance of defeating a big rival. I'm a football fan and I love it when England beat an old rival like Scotland or Germany, even in a friendly. So I totally understand the desire of the fans to win, and get one over on Australia. So I'm not complaining about that. Its more the media coverage and response to victory. Its treated like a world cup, it's not. It's a test series we have to play over the test cycle  just like we have to play India, Pakistan, South Africa etc. Yes the historical rivalry mentioned about gives it an extra edge like between India and Pakistan, but at it's still just a test series at the end of the day, it's a sporting fixture we have to play because of how cricket is structured. People have been to Downing Street, met the Queen, received MBE's and knighthoods for winning this, the same accolades people receive for winning Olympic gold or World titles, you know actually reaching the pinnacle of their spot.

 

So whilst I get the desire to win it, we need to hold back on acting like winning it is equal to being the best in the world at something rather than just winning a test series.

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I not quite sure how to word this to get my point across how I want, but the ashes is massively overhyped.

 

Now I understand the the history, I understand the importance of defeating a big rival. I'm a football fan and I love it when England beat an old rival like Scotland or Germany, even in a friendly. So I totally understand the desire of the fans to win, and get one over on Australia. So I'm not complaining about that. Its more the media coverage and response to victory. Its treated like a world cup, it's not. It's a test series we have to play over the test cycle  just like we have to play India, Pakistan, South Africa etc. Yes the historical rivalry mentioned about gives it an extra edge like between India and Pakistan, but at it's still just a test series at the end of the day, it's a sporting fixture we have to play because of how cricket is structured. People have been to Downing Street, met the Queen, received MBE's and knighthoods for winning this, the same accolades people receive for winning Olympic gold or World titles, you know actually reaching the pinnacle of their spot.

 

So whilst I get the desire to win it, we need to hold back on acting like winning it is equal to being the best in the world at something rather than just winning a test series.

 

I don’t follow cricket at all, but viewing it from an outside perspective, isn’t it (to put it in football terms) like an Old Firm derby? Back in the day when Forest were relevant (yeah, I’m that old!) I wouldn’t care if we lost every other game as long as we beat the red scum. 

[Guest]

On 13/07/2019 at 19:52, SystonFox said:

Skiing isn’t a holiday for normal people. It’s a holiday for posh pretentious twats. 

 

Oh oh apres ski yarrrr. Piss arf

Completely agree concerning the Brits and to be honest there are some resorts just full of brits - absolute wankers.

 

but for the French (and other Europeans) skiiing is a normal winter holiday, the majority of school kids go, it's like a summer week in Skeg.

 

 

On 21/07/2019 at 20:30, UniFox21 said:

The army recruitment adverts that glorify joining the Army/Navy. Appreciate it is a different challenge etc but for me they seem to be over doing it.

 

Obviously could be completely wrong in how I've interpreted it though

 

I find these adverts perverse but compared to the US ads they are tame. Join the army and kill some foreigners like you do on the PS4. It's sad and something man needs to get past in order to evolve - they won't though.

 

7 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I not quite sure how to word this to get my point across how I want, but the ashes is massively overhyped.

 

Now I understand the the history, I understand the importance of defeating a big rival. I'm a football fan and I love it when England beat an old rival like Scotland or Germany, even in a friendly. So I totally understand the desire of the fans to win, and get one over on Australia. So I'm not complaining about that. Its more the media coverage and response to victory. Its treated like a world cup, it's not. It's a test series we have to play over the test cycle  just like we have to play India, Pakistan, South Africa etc. Yes the historical rivalry mentioned about gives it an extra edge like between India and Pakistan, but at it's still just a test series at the end of the day, it's a sporting fixture we have to play because of how cricket is structured. People have been to Downing Street, met the Queen, received MBE's and knighthoods for winning this, the same accolades people receive for winning Olympic gold or World titles, you know actually reaching the pinnacle of their spot.

 

So whilst I get the desire to win it, we need to hold back on acting like winning it is equal to being the best in the world at something rather than just winning a test series.

I love cricket but I agree that the Ashes have become rediculously overhyped. It's simply due to the mediatique need for viewers. Many sports have gone this way. I'm sick to death of the ashes already.

[Facecloth]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I don’t follow cricket at all, but viewing it from an outside perspective, isn’t it (to put it in football terms) like an Old Firm derby? Back in the day when Forest were relevant (yeah, I’m that old!) I wouldn’t care if we lost every other game as long as we beat the red scum. 

Oh yeah, like I say, I get the desire to beat a rival, but players weren't lavished with awards for doing so. Michael Owen didn't get an MBE for scoring a hat trick v Germany in a qualifier. Knockaert doesn't have a statue in Leicester for scoring late winner v Forest. It's not the desire to beat Australia, it's the acting like doing so makes England the best in the world.

Edited 1 August 2019 by Facecloth

[bovril]

Living in Bulgaria I remember seeing kids ski, old working class guys going skiing with battered wooden skis. As FIF says it's like a cheap beach weekend for a lot of people. Brits see it mostly as an excuse to get pissed and try unsuccessfully to hit on the hot local barmaid. 

Edited 1 August 2019 by bovril

[UniFox21]

2 minutes ago, FIF said:

I find these adverts perverse but compared to the US ads they are tame. Join the army and kill some foreigners like you do on the PS4. It's sad and something man needs to get past in order to evolve - they won't though.

No doubt you do learn new skills and can 'better yourself, they just gloss over the main aspect of being in the armed forces for me. 

You're right though, until we learn to get past our need to fight we'll always make about 2 steps forward but 1 back. Just look at nuclear tech as an example. It could be used to produce 'clean energy', yet everyones focused on weaponising it 

[Izzy]

22 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I not quite sure how to word this to get my point across how I want, but the ashes is massively overhyped.

 

Now I understand the the history, I understand the importance of defeating a big rival. I'm a football fan and I love it when England beat an old rival like Scotland or Germany, even in a friendly. So I totally understand the desire of the fans to win, and get one over on Australia. So I'm not complaining about that. Its more the media coverage and response to victory. Its treated like a world cup, it's not. It's a test series we have to play over the test cycle  just like we have to play India, Pakistan, South Africa etc. Yes the historical rivalry mentioned about gives it an extra edge like between India and Pakistan, but at it's still just a test series at the end of the day, it's a sporting fixture we have to play because of how cricket is structured. People have been to Downing Street, met the Queen, received MBE's and knighthoods for winning this, the same accolades people receive for winning Olympic gold or World titles, you know actually reaching the pinnacle of their spot.

 

So whilst I get the desire to win it, we need to hold back on acting like winning it is equal to being the best in the world at something rather than just winning a test series.

I think the difference with the Ashes vs other England sporting rivalries is that much of the hype and media coverage is fueled by the Aussies.

 

I can't think of another England 'opponent' in any other sport who want to beat us more than Australia wanting to beat us at test cricket. They genuinely fvckin hate us more than the Germans hate our football team or Wales hate our Rugby team - I think.

 

I take your point about going to Downing Street, meeting the Queen etc. and I think this was all driven by the fact we hadn't beaten them in 15 odd years and got hammered between '88 - '03 pretty much every series.

 

Personally I think we play too much Ashes cricket and it's in danger of losing it's special place in sport. A series every 18 months - 2 years is too frequent for me.

 

Saying that, it is the pinnacle of test cricket and some traditional England cricket fans may argue it's more important than the one day WC win. Most England fans would probably sacrifice losing a series to India, SA, Windies if it meant beating Australia.

 

 

 

Edited 1 August 2019 by Izzy

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

No doubt you do learn new skills and can 'better yourself, they just gloss over the main aspect of being in the armed forces for me. 

You're right though, until we learn to get past our need to fight we'll always make about 2 steps forward but 1 back. Just look at nuclear tech as an example. It could be used to produce 'clean energy', yet everyones focused on weaponising it 

Good points.

 

In a similar note for this thread: there is next to no difference between a system that is "competitive" and one that relies on direct physical or otherwise conflict, since the former practically always ends in the latter anyway.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

I think the difference with the Ashes vs other England sporting rivalries is that much of the hype and media coverage is fueled by the Aussies.

 

I can't think of another England 'opponent' in any other sport who want to beat us more than Australia wanting to beat us at test cricket. They genuinely fvckin hate us more than the Germans hate our football team or Wales hate our Rugby team - I think.

 

I take your point about going to Downing Street, meeting the Queen etc. and I think this was all driven by the fact we hadn't beaten them in 15 odd years and got hammered between '88 - '03 pretty much every series.

 

Personally I think we play too much Ashes cricket and it's in danger of losing it's special place in sport. A series every 18 months - 2 years is too frequent for me.

 

Saying that, it is the pinnacle of test cricket and some traditional England cricket fans may argue it's more important than the one day WC win. Most England fans would probably sacrifice losing a series to India, SA, Windies if it meant beating Australia.

 

 

 

 

It's always been roughly that though, which equates to a home series every four years for the two competing nations. There was the anomaly with the double header a few years ago, but we're past that now. I don't think once every four years is too often for fans in each country to get to see that spectacle.

 

Take the point regarding the way the '05 winners were treated. It was far too over the top and, like how LCFC acted in the summer of 2016, ultimately caused a lack of concentration on the future and a dip in form. To an extent I do understand why people see the Ashes as irrational and a bit of an anachronism, but those kind of characteristics make sport so wonderful at times! I can't explain why, but I'm anxious this morning. I can't bear the thought of losing to them and I can't, rationally, really explain why!

[Izzy]

2 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

 

It's always been roughly that though, which equates to a home series every four years for the two competing nations. There was the anomaly with the double header a few years ago, but we're past that now. I don't think once every four years is too often for fans in each country to get to see that spectacle.

 

Take the point regarding the way the '05 winners were treated. It was far too over the top and, like how LCFC acted in the summer of 2016, ultimately caused a lack of concentration on the future and a dip in form. To an extent I do understand why people see the Ashes as irrational and a bit of an anachronism, but those kind of characteristics make sport so wonderful at times! I can't explain why, but I'm anxious this morning. I can't bear the thought of losing to them and I can't, rationally, really explain why!

Yeah I'm probably referring to that double header tbf. It just feels like it comes around more frequently than once every four years at home for some reason. Maybe it's because we also play the Aussies so frequently in one day series etc.

 

I'm anxious this morning too and I think part of not wanting to lose so much is the thought of the Aussie pundits and press putting the boot in if we do. It's almost like not wanting to lose the ashes is more important than winning - if that makes sense? 

[Buce]

Regarding the Ashes, what I dislike about it is the way it stirs up nationalism in people who have no interest in cricket. Fair enough if you follow the sport but to jump on the bandwagon and make out like it’s somehow relevant to you is downright weird. I remember many years ago when Torvill and Deane were winning shit in ice skating - suddenly everyone was an ice skating fan, staying up late to watch it, and acting like it mattered to them. It’s just all too much of an ‘Ing-ger-land’ mentality for my liking. 

[ozleicester]

full of cheats and drunks

[Nalis]

On the theme of overhyped events, Lions tours in Rugby Union are massively overhyped.

 

Yes, the series against NZ in 2017 was good and its a badge of honour for the players but its a glorified exhibition. Maybe they were a big deal in the 1920s or what but times have changed.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

Regarding the Ashes, what I dislike about it is the way it stirs up nationalism in people who have no interest in cricket. Fair enough if you follow the sport but to jump on the bandwagon and make out like it’s somehow relevant to you is downright weird. I remember many years ago when Torvill and Deane were winning shit in ice skating - suddenly everyone was an ice skating fan, staying up late to watch it, and acting like it mattered to them. It’s just all too much of an ‘Ing-ger-land’ mentality for my liking. 

With regards your "ing er land" mentality I think it shows just how tribal we still are. As football fans of a particular team I think we exemplify that more than many. I hate the agressive tribal mentality that links to hatred and fighting but I love the communal tribal mentality that brings people together.

 

I've always believed that the only way man will overcome all his prejudices towards each other is for an alien race to be discovered who we will unite against. Sad.

 

What I hate about the Ashes at the moment is not the tribal mentality but the commercialisation aspect and bigging up the rivalry simply for viewing figures.

 

 You have reached the maximum number of posts you can make per day.

Edited 1 August 2019 by Guest
You have reached the maximum number of posts you can make per day.