Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[leicsmac]

The existence of billionaires doesn't bother me.

 

The existence of people throughout the world struggling to subsist in terms of the most basic necessities at a concurrent time, putting the lie to the the idea that the current system is a rising tide lifting all or even most boats, does.

 

I'm still of the opinion that the latter can be solved without having to limit the former (not a zero-sum game, after all, not at this level), but the longer the latter exists without something concrete being done to solve it the more folks might think it an option.

 

(And no, ready access to those necessities and by extension your existence should not have to be justified by "work" or what someone thinks you "contribute". Perhaps that's an unpopular opinion, I'm not sure.)

[LiberalFox]

36 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

That's great.  However most people become billionaires do so by either

1) Ripping off a nations wealth as in Russia, other corrupt places

2) Building up a hugely succesful company, often defining a whole new market, creating thousands or tens of thousands of jobs, and resultant wealth and taxes.

3) Investing other people money (Pension funds mostly) in succesful businesses and taking a fat share of the winnings

4) Writing Harry Potter books.

 

Do you think none of these should exist? If you cap someones wealth, would they still develop their businesses to deliver so much employment and tax?

To answer your last point, yes of course they would.

[swanlee]

2 hours ago, FerrisBueller said:

I appreciate this is the 'Unpopular Opinions' thread, but I'm interested in what brought you to this conclusion.

First couple of albums i could agree (I still think they are amazing albums) but everything after 1964 was revolutionary for music In my opinion.

Sorry Ferris for the length of my reply.

 

While The BeAtles were not shite (quite an angsty post on my part last night), I am of the opinion that they are massively overrated. Firstly may I say that I am a music fan, all genres, all eras. I grew up in a house that had a radio constantly tuned to (the old) BBC Radio 1. During this period you heard their hits and songs over and over, there was ongoing discussion, analysis & debate of their music and influence. This all led by a chorus of gushing & sychophantic DJ's. Given the amount of airtime & airplay, you could not escape them. The fact that The BeAtles were the greatest ever band was pretty much indoctrinated into me (in all of us) from a very young age.

 

Move on a few years, I'm a music fan. In fact I'm a British born music fan. Who are the greatest band ever - The BeAtles. Better check out the back catalogue. Couple or three albums in, sorry I'm not sold and not interested in hearing anymore. As I said I'm a music fan. All genres, all eras. Love to put the pieces together be it delta blues / rock, bebop / free jazz, prog rock / punk rock / post punk / post rock. But I don't get and don't do The BeAtles.

 

As an example, I had this conversation recently with a BeAtles fan. Surely Sgt. Pepper is the greatest psychedelic album ever he said? No says I. When they were recording Help!, there was already a burgeoning underground garage rock scene both here in the UK and the USA that was otherwise known as psychedelia. The BeAtles did not invent it nor innovate within it. They did have big studio backing, access to a recording studio and the budget to enable them to make an album that popularised and bought psychedelia to a mainstream audience.

 

This is what I put their longevity down to. They were obviously talented and adaptable. They were able to transcend differing epochs in music, reinventing themselves numerously and absorbing the sounds, styles and attitudes that evolved around them during the 60's. The fact they get held up as the vanguard of swinging sixties is testament to their success doing this. This the band that had a hit in 1963 called 'I want to hold your hand'. By the end of the 60's, somewhat twee. The kids did not want to hold anyone's hand. They wanted to smoke a reefer and roll around in a field naked with each other.

 

The fact is, The BeAtles, Rock n' Roll royalty that they were, even bankrolled the counter-culture that had set out to eclipse them. Smart lads 'dem four cheeky scousers.   

Edited 14 November 2019 by swanlee

[FerrisBueller]

5 minutes ago, swanlee said:

Sorry Ferris for the length of my reply.

 

While The BeAtles were not shite (quite an angsty post on my part last night), I am of the opinion that they are massively overrated. Firstly may I say that I am a music fan, all genres, all eras. I grew up in a house that had a radio constantly tuned to (the old) BBC Radio 1. During this period you heard their hits and songs over and over, there was ongoing discussion, analysis & debate of their music and influence. This all led by a chorus of gushing & sychophantic DJ's. Given the amount of airtime & airplay, you could not escape them. The fact that The BeAtles were the greatest ever band was pretty much indoctrinated into me (in all of us) from a very young age.

 

Move on a few years, I'm a music fan. In fact I'm a British born music fan. Who are the greatest band ever - The BeAtles. Better check out the back catalogue. Couple or three albums in, sorry I'm not sold and not interested in hearing anymore. As I said I'm a music fan. All genres, all eras. Love to put the pieces together be it delta blues / rock, bebop / free jazz, prog rock / punk rock / post punk / post rock. But I don't get and don't do The BeAtles.

 

As an example, I had this conversation recently with a BeAtles fan. Surely Sgt. Pepper is the great psychedelic album ever he said? No says I. When they were recording Help!, there was already a burgeoning underground garage rock scene both here in the UK and the USA that was otherwise known as psychedelia. The BeAtles did not invent it nor innovate within it. They did have big studio backing, access to a recording studio and the budget to enable them to make an album that popularised and bought psychedelia to a mainstream audience.

 

This is what I put their longevity down to. They were obviously talented and adaptable. They were able to transcend differing epochs in music, reinventing themselves numerously and absorbing the sounds, styles and attitudes that evolved around them during the 60's. The fact they get held up as the vanguard of swinging sixties is testament to their success doing this. This the band that had a hit in 1963 called 'I want to hold your hand'. By the end of the 60's, somewhat twee. The kids did not want to hold anyone's hand. They wanted to smoke a reefer and roll around in a field naked with each other.

 

The fact is, The BeAtles, Rock n' Roll royalty that they were, even bankrolled the counter-culture that had set out to eclipse them. Smart lads 'dem cheeky scousers.   

No apology required!

I'm a self-confessed Beatlephile, but I can't really argue with much of that. I still think that despite the huge studio backing, the actual quality of the songwriting (subjective I know) was and still is right up there with the best, but I see your point.

Good reply mate, and an interesting take on it!  

[swanlee]

1 hour ago, FerrisBueller said:

No apology required!

I'm a self-confessed Beatlephile, but I can't really argue with much of that. I still think that despite the huge studio backing, the actual quality of the songwriting (subjective I know) was and still is right up there with the best, but I see your point.

Good reply mate, and an interesting take on it!  

Oh they wrote some fantastic songs. The Lennon / McCartney songwriting partnership was formidable. They were genuine hit-makers. And that's where I've never got The Beatles. I've just never been able to get into their albums.

 

And while their output in the 60's was phenomenal and without doubt they stand shoulder-to-shoulder with any of the other great artists from that era. I do feel sometimes that The Beatles name has been used to sell more than just music. There was almost a cultural rebranding of Britain in the late 60's. And the name 'The Beatles' encapsulates all that a liberal, swinging Britain stood for and became at that time. It was, and still is, a name recognised across the world.

 

Whatever, carry on enjoying the music!    

Edited 14 November 2019 by swanlee

[Free Falling Foxes]

3 hours ago, FerrisBueller said:

Steady on...

That's why I wrote, 'In my Opinion', as this is a thread based on Opinions.

I was agreeing with you.

[FerrisBueller]

Just now, Free Falling Foxes said:

I was agreeing with you.

Apologies mate, misread the tone 

[Free Falling Foxes]

1 minute ago, FerrisBueller said:

Apologies mate, misread the tone 

S'ok.

I am a Beatle nut too. No one needs to justify their admiration of the band - you have countless others who'll agree.

 

I think that sometimes if someone is bored or wants to be provocative there are two subjects certain to provoke:

 

God doesn't exist..

The Beatles were; crap/boy band/overrated/ etc.

 

I would suggest that, if they are honest, everyone would find some piece of their music/output they like, such is their incredibly rich and varied body of work.

 

[Fox92]

19 hours ago, swanlee said:

The Beatles were a shite boy band weren't they? They then just reinvented themselves, ripped off & aping the sounds of the 60's that others innovated.

 

 

 

Personally I think the definition of a "boy band" has changed with time. Everyone in the 60's had screaming girls at them, even the Rolling Stones who, for some reason, seem to be considered more "rough".

 

Honestly I'm not a massive fan of the Beatles' early stuff but post 65 their output was unbelievable. Not talking about a decent single here and there but albums were superb.

 

And consider that before the Beatles the radio just played big band jazz stuff plus, as a Country, what else did we offer in terms of music? It must have been amazing to live through the rise of the 60's and all the music Great Britain put out. 

 

But your point of "ripping off & aping the sounds of the 60's others innovated"... go on then, who? I'm interested in this. Brian Wilson said Rubber Soul was the greatest album he'd heard and that album made him write Pet Sounds (a fantastic album too). Dylan said the Beatles were doing stuff others weren't at that time (though imo Dylan is the greatest songwriter of all time). Some of the stuff Beatles did post touring was unreal, and there were sounds that people had never heard on Revolver (imagine hearing "Tomorrow Never Knows" for the first time, this is the mid 60's, it's unbelievable to think).

 

Before anyone starts, I'll always get involved in this debate

Edited 14 November 2019 by Fox92

[Blarmy]

Interesting chat! I like the Beatles a lot, and even though I wouldn’t put any of their songs in my top 10, I can’t think of any band they I’d say is “better”. It’s a weird contradiction I know, but that’s music for you. 

[swanlee]

4 hours ago, Fox92 said:

Personally I think the definition of a "boy band" has changed with time. Everyone in the 60's had screaming girls at them, even the Rolling Stones who, for some reason, seem to be considered more "rough".

 

Honestly I'm not a massive fan of the Beatles' early stuff but post 65 their output was unbelievable. Not talking about a decent single here and there but albums were superb.

 

And consider that before the Beatles the radio just played big band jazz stuff plus, as a Country, what else did we offer in terms of music? It must have been amazing to live through the rise of the 60's and all the music Great Britain put out. 

 

But your point of "ripping off & aping the sounds of the 60's others innovated"... go on then, who? I'm interested in this. Brian Wilson said Rubber Soul was the greatest album he'd heard and that album made him write Pet Sounds (a fantastic album too). Dylan said the Beatles were doing stuff others weren't at that time (though imo Dylan is the greatest songwriter of all time). Some of the stuff Beatles did post touring was unreal, and there were sounds that people had never heard on Revolver (imagine hearing "Tomorrow Never Knows" for the first time, this is the mid 60's, it's unbelievable to think).

 

Before anyone starts, I'll always get involved in this debate

Hello, always happy to talk music.

 

I have answered some of your queries & questions in a couple of previous posts. Not sure if you had seen them?

 

Lets take 'Tomorrow Never Knows'. It is a great track, and hearing it for the first time in the 60's would of been mind blowing. 

 

But it clearly has it's influences. In what some would call cultural appropriation, some long haired white boys have clearly infused Indian raga into their western rock music. There no denying that. However the real hero's of Tomorrow Never Knows are the sound engineers and production. As a successful band with a big label, The Beatles were afforded this luxury. There's a lot of experimental electronic feedback and effects going on. Neat but not original. Nothing that Karlheinz Stockhausen wasn't doing in the 50's. And a final point, I'm sorry, what are lyrics for this song actually saying? Personally, lyrically it leaves me cold. I get much more outta The Kinks or The Who. 
 

You did ask, so I've explained my viewpoint. Below some examples of influences, these include Stockhausen's seminal 1950's work entitled 'Gesang Der Junglinge'. I'll agree with you it is not radio friendly but it, and almost all his body of work, has been massively influential across differing genres. I've also included Joe Harriot and John Mayer to highlight that the fusion of indian music into a form of music prevalent to the western ear was nothing new nor indeed groundbreaking. I happen to think it is a beautiful piece of music. I hope you do as well. But if you don't, no worries. You can only like, what you like.

 

Lastly, what the fox sake is wrong with Big Band Jazz?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 14 November 2019 by swanlee

[Fox92]

10 hours ago, swanlee said:

Hello, always happy to talk music.

 

I have answered some of your queries & questions in a couple of previous posts. Not sure if you had seen them?

 

Lets take 'Tomorrow Never Knows'. It is a great track, and hearing it for the first time in the 60's would of been mind blowing. 

 

But it clearly has it's influences. In what some would call cultural appropriation, some long haired white boys have clearly infused Indian raga into their western rock music. There no denying that. However the real hero's of Tomorrow Never Knows are the sound engineers and production. As a successful band with a big label, The Beatles were afforded this luxury. There's a lot of experimental electronic feedback and effects going on. Neat but not original. Nothing that Karlheinz Stockhausen wasn't doing in the 50's. And a final point, I'm sorry, what are lyrics for this song actually saying? Personally, lyrically it leaves me cold. I get much more outta The Kinks or The Who. 
 

You did ask, so I've explained my viewpoint. Below some examples of influences, these include Stockhausen's seminal 1950's work entitled 'Gesang Der Junglinge'. I'll agree with you it is not radio friendly but it, and almost all his body of work, has been massively influential across differing genres. I've also included Joe Harriot and John Mayer to highlight that the fusion of indian music into a form of music prevalent to the western ear was nothing new nor indeed groundbreaking. I happen to think it is a beautiful piece of music. I hope you do as well. But if you don't, no worries. You can only like, what you like.

 

Lastly, what the fox sake is wrong with Big Band Jazz?

 

 

 

 

 

haha no I didn't see them as I got tagged in one of our earlier posts and then I jumped right in..... not like me!

 

Oh yeah definitelty the Indian thing was big. And big for a couple of artists to, you think of Donovan and The Rolling Stones (Brian Jones seemed to play the sitar as much as George Harrison did). I think even in later years, and even now, you can hear Indian influence in some songs. 'Tomorrow Never Knows' was just an example I thought of quickly and Lennon discoered the idea by putting a tape in the wrong way or something equivilent, probably on acid at the same time. So yeah while engineers and all that are big on some songs there's always some sort of initial idea as with everything. I don't know the engineer/writing ratio. But you take 'Strawberry Fields Forever' as another example, even today it sounds like something I've never heard before but again that's with stuff going backwards and taping too.

 

There's nothing wrong with jazz btw, I was just saying the prior to the whole Beatles explosion in the early 60's that's what the radio over here offered. I love blues and rock 'n roll (Chuck Berry in particular is a favourite of mine) but it was banned over here. The only jazz I listen to though, as it's not particualry my thing, is Frank Sinatra but I wasn't knocking the genre.

 

Still think the Kinks are the most underrated band. Nobody ever seems to mention them in the same line as other 60's bands and for me they are one of best - personally I think they're better than the Who - and Ray Davies is one of the greatest songwriters of all time. Pete Townsend is great too, and a great guitartist, but I think Davies' lyrics are probably more "English" and somewhat personall than anybody else's.

[Jon the Hat]

19 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The existence of billionaires doesn't bother me.

 

The existence of people throughout the world struggling to subsist in terms of the most basic necessities at a concurrent time, putting the lie to the the idea that the current system is a rising tide lifting all or even most boats, does.

 

I'm still of the opinion that the latter can be solved without having to limit the former (not a zero-sum game, after all, not at this level), but the longer the latter exists without something concrete being done to solve it the more folks might think it an option.

 

(And no, ready access to those necessities and by extension your existence should not have to be justified by "work" or what someone thinks you "contribute". Perhaps that's an unpopular opinion, I'm not sure.)

Indeed, it is amazing how much time and energy people spend argying about the Billionaires though.

You can agree that Capitalism if generally a force for good, and much better than any other model we have so far come up with (aligned with sensible governance) and also see that it doesn't always succeed, or that when it crosses borders it doesn't always have a positive effect.

On your last point, very few people in the UK dont support a welfare safety net, but many believe that it shouldn't be lucrative enough to never work and push out any number of kids and expect to be looked after.  Obvs you have to make sure people have the opportunities to get out of that stuation, but I think to go as far as you don't have to at least try to work is unreasonable when those who pay the taxes to support you do.  Clearly this shouldn;t apply to those who cannot work due to health reasons - they are why we happily pay tax.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Indeed, it is amazing how much time and energy people spend argying about the Billionaires though.

You can agree that Capitalism if generally a force for good, and much better than any other model we have so far come up with (aligned with sensible governance) and also see that it doesn't always succeed, or that when it crosses borders it doesn't always have a positive effect.

On your last point, very few people in the UK dont support a welfare safety net, but many believe that it shouldn't be lucrative enough to never work and push out any number of kids and expect to be looked after.  Obvs you have to make sure people have the opportunities to get out of that stuation, but I think to go as far as you don't have to at least try to work is unreasonable when those who pay the taxes to support you do.  Clearly this shouldn;t apply to those who cannot work due to health reasons - they are why we happily pay tax.

Agreed. However, focusing on the bolded...such a model based on competition or at best temporary small mutual collaboration only has to fail once on the big global issues.

 

FWIW I'm very much against the idea of many children being incentivised - if anything, global birth rates should be targetted downwards for sustainability's sake. However, a safety net capable of supporting one person or a couple in perpetuity is a completely moral course of action for me. The choice of not working should not render your life as meaningless and soon to be over.

[RoboFox]

The idea of a billionaire is bonkers.

 

Most of us would be able to live comfortably on a million quid for many years on the cash alone, perhaps even the rest of our lives if invested wisely. 

 

To put it in perspective, a million seconds ago was roughly eleven days ago.

 

A billion seconds ago was 1988.

 

Edited 15 November 2019 by RoboFox

[SouthStandUpperTier]

1 minute ago, RoboFox said:

The idea of a billionaire is bonkers.

 

Most of us would be able to live comfortably on a million quid for many years on the cash alone, perhaps even the rest of our lives if invested wisely. 

 

To put it in perspective, a million seconds ago was roughly last Monday. 

 

A billion seconds ago was 1988.

Just imagine the modifications you could make to that Focus of yours with £1m. The mind boggles.

[Nalis]

The idea of billionaires doesnt bother me.

 

What annoys me is when some called themselves philanthropists for self important reasons rather than actually helping society. It's usually the go-to phrase for people who trampled over countless people in the past to earn their wealth in the first place.

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, RoboFox said:

The idea of a billionaire is bonkers.

 

Most of us would be able to live comfortably on a million quid for many years on the cash alone, perhaps even the rest of our lives if invested wisely. 

 

To put it in perspective, a million seconds ago was roughly eleven days ago.

 

A billion seconds ago was 1988.

 

Nah, a Million quid is sod all these days unless you have paid of your house already.

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, Nalis said:

The idea of billionaires doesnt bother me.

 

What annoys me is when some called themselves philanthropists for self important reasons rather than actually helping society. It's usually the go-to phrase for people who trampled over countless people in the past to earn their wealth in the first place.

That said, the modern concept of spend a lot quickly is likely to be much more effective at changing the world than the old school create a fund and the profit is given away.

[Fox92]

Saw something on twitter the other day that stated Jeff Bezos' net worth is 109.9 billion dollars and the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago  

[Izzy]

3 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Saw something on twitter the other day that stated Jeff Bezos' net worth is 109.9 billion dollars and the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago  

You know what, part of me thinks fair fvckin play to him.

 

What a phenomenal enterprise he's built up and he deserves all his success* 

 

(* yes it's an obscene amount of money and yes he should still give most of it away to good causes)

[Fox92]

7 minutes ago, Izzy said:

You know what, part of me thinks fair fvckin play to him.

 

What a phenomenal enterprise he's built up and he deserves all his success* 

 

(* yes it's an obscene amount of money and yes he should still give most of it away to good causes)

Oh yeah definitely fair play. Self made millionaires and billionaires, fair play to them.

[FoxesDeb]

The only problem I have with billionaires is that I'm jealous. Nobody needs that much money, but plenty of people would have their lives changed by so much less. 20k, even 10k, would literally be life changing for me. It would lift me out of debt, enabling me to start saving for a deposit on a house, and reduce my monthly outgoings by several hundreds of pounds. 

Billionaires don't necessarily work any harder for it than many people, they just have luck, and probably a helping hand, to attain it. But that's just life I guess 

[Alf Bentley]

4 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Nah, a Million quid is sod all these days unless you have paid of your house already.

 

It's not often you see a repping full house on here..... Like, Thanks, Laugh, Confused & Sad for Jon. Hat's off, sir!

 

 

[Milo]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

You know what, part of me thinks fair fvckin play to him.

 

What a phenomenal enterprise he's built up and he deserves all his success* 

 

(* yes it's an obscene amount of money and yes he should still give most of it away to good causes)

Agree.

 

Don't know much about him, but I think he was scrabbling round for family investment when he started selling books from his garage, in the early days of Amazon.

 

Agree with @FoxesDeb entirely about luck..but it needs a special type of person to maximise that luck into a squillion dollar business. 

 

And yes, its obscene - but to put it into a little bit of context, the BBC makes about £4 billion every year from licence fees...I'm pretty sure that could be distributed in a more egalitarian manner. I'll say that again EVERY. YEAR.