For sure, the Who. Led Zep have their fine moments, but have always been vastly overrated, especially by themselves.
The Who, on the other hand, have produced some epic singles and albums, songs that actually mean something an can soundtrack our lives. Also, they had the best drummer in Keith Moon.
thats controversial, calling the great led zep overrated!
NOW TO GET BACK ON TOPIC AGAIN - THREAD TITLE - The Who Vs Led Zeppelin
and still in first place is Led Zeppelin who has remained in the lead over the past 3 weeks every time i've looked at this thread
let's keep on topic this time
For as long as I have been coming to this thread, the poll has been pretty equal and sometimes Zeppelin have been in the lead and sometimes they haven't. Being in the lead by 1 or 2 out of 70 isn't really a majority. If anything the poll has proved that both bands are pretty much equally liked.
I think we've learned that opinion can equal fact if it is uniques opinion, or someone with a like opinion.
An alternative opinion is not fact.
to add and support you....
guess who posted this (post #110) "some people believe man never went to the moon or the world is flat, or the world was created in 7 days, but that doesn't mean they are right"
yet then went on to argue that opinions are facts! (when it suits)
guess who posted this (post #110) "some people believe man never went to the moon or the world is flat, or the world was created in 7 days, but that doesn't mean they are right"
yet then went on to argue that opinions are facts! (when it suits)
I think when it suits sums this up.
Of course, the logical thing to do would be name some of this filler (it sounds as though there is far too much to name it all), and then let people judge.
Of course, the logical thing to do would be name some of this filler (it sounds as though there is far too much to name it all), and then let people judge.
name some of this filler? are you joking? that would be far too easy and would have ended this discussion weeks ago!
i mean, 'manintheque' identified the tracks he thinks of as 'filler' weeks ago and that went unchallenged, at least we can respect that pov regardless of whether we agree with it or not.
note too, that as his argument has got more and more ridiculous, his support has vanished. lol.
thats controversial, calling the great led zep overrated!
Well, I get fed up with seeing poor old Percy and his mate staging yet another comeback, with material that is rather poor when compared to their heyday. Sure, Zep have a legacy worthy of respect and praise, but the time has gone. A lesson that Townshend and Daltrey could also learn, to be fair.
Perhaps not technically best, but surely, the most fun and exciting drummer ever in a rock band.
i cant comment on the technicality of drum playing, i know nothing, but i know what i like and moon the loon impressed me, so that fits with your take on him.
i cant comment on the technicality of drum playing, i know nothing, but i know what i like and moon the loon impressed me, so that fits with your take on him.
l like them both (Moon and Bonham).
Live at Hull is fascinating because Moon seems a bit more prominent that Live at Leeds but I am still not sure if it is just the mix or if his performance is more energetic.
And when I watch the early Zep performance on Danish tv.......I still can't believe how hard that guy is hitting the drums. Just astonishing.
l like them both (Moon and Bonham).
Live at Hull is fascinating because Moon seems a bit more prominent that Live at Leeds but I am still not sure if it is just the mix or if his performance is more energetic.
And when I watch the early Zep performance on Danish tv.......I still can't believe how hard that guy is hitting the drums. Just astonishing.
Moon is more prominent at Hull, but I think I read that is because of the mike position.
It's a fantastic album though, with no trace of any filler.:D
i was flicking through parts of pete townshends new book, and found this part interesting. for those who don't know, pete townshend was guitarist, vocalist and writer of the who since they started back in the 60s, and is still a member to this date, and the who continue to tour in 2013. so if anyone knows about the band, pete is one of those people, so i think a quote from the man who wrote and played the music, about the very music he wrote and played, and written in a recently published book which is commercially available for anyone to buy and read from all good booksellers everywhere like amazon, and even electronically from places like itunes, is pretty definitive proof, and this on top of the proof that's been mentioned before. so lets settle any disputes about the who having filler by a quote from the man who wrote and created music for the who...
page 634
The next Who album, It’s Hard, came out on 4 September 1982. It nearly wasn’t released at all. When Roger heard the final mixes he wanted to hold it back, because to his ear it didn’t really feel finished. But with the tour closing in on us we were running out of time, and I persuaded him to let it stand.
There were two extraordinary moments from Roger on this album. The first was on ‘One Life’s Enough’, a slow ballad about acceptance, and the simple pleasure of making love. I thought this would be a song I would sing, as filler really, something to create some relief. Roger sang it himself, beautifully and tenderly. It’s one of my favourite vocal performances from him, equal to his discovery of that falsetto voice he had first used so brilliantly on Tommy.
The second was ‘Cry If You Want’. Again I thought I might have to sing this one, or at least share it with him. I’d tried to sing it a few times for the Chinese Eyes solo album and never pulled it off. Roger had learned the torrential stream of words by heart before he did the vocal, and he nailed it, almost fainting for lack of breath, the words come so thick and fast.
now that on top of all the proof that the who had filler, including quotes published in writing in a book by one of the key members of the group who wrote and played the songs, we can now finally get back on topic
So we still have the head in sand argument that opinion is fact when it is uniques opinion, but it isn't fact if it is an opinion he doesn't agree with.
Opinion can be fact, but then again, it isn't if it doesn't suit.
We finally get a track mentioned as filler, by Pete Townshend no less, but I'm sure he says he thought he'd sing it, and it would probably be filler, however it didn't turn out that way.
It's Hard is probaly their worst album, made at a difficult time, but sorry, no evidence of filler there.
Just shows unique sees things through different eyes to most, and will twist any words to prove his facts.
So we still have the head in sand argument that opinion is fact when in is uniques opinion, but it isn't fact if it is an opinion he doesn't agree with.
Opinion can be fact, but then again, it isn't if it doesn't suit.
We finally get a track mentioned as filler, by Pete Townshend no less, but I'm sure he says he thought he'd sing it, and it would probably be filler, however it didn't turn out that way.
It's Hard is probaly their worst album, made at a difficult time, but sorry, no evidence of filler there.
Just shows unique sees things through different eyes to most, and will twist any words to prove his facts.
you cant have an intelligent conversation with someone who
- lies - on post 262 he denied posting what he did post on post #110. as i highlighted on post #255.
- contradicts himself - after earlier proclaiming that on post #73 "who said there was a lot of filler on who albums?", but that was him on previous posts # 16, #43.
- who claims black is white, - continuously refusing to answer the question "how can it be a fact that the who had loads of filler, and a fact that the who didnt have loads of filler[/i]? he wont answer it, he cant, but still presents the uncredible as credible.
- who choses which info to use as evidence yet whilst avoiding overwhelming evidence to the contrary, - ie whilst there are alot of people whos opinion is that there was filler on who albums, ignores the others who think there wasnt.
- who keeps banging on about getting it back on topic whilst posting reams of off topic material aimed at continuing the off topic discussion, - a diversionary tactic, he knows hes on the ropes, he knows hes wrong, hes struggling to try to get back some credibility from a position that is ridiculous, he has to inflame the discussion then run away and hide behind the 'on topic' line. if he really wanted to get back on topic, hed stop replying at such great lengths.
- who makes statements but cannot support them - post #16 proclaiming that the who had loads of filler, but hasnt the knowlege to support that, after being repeatedly asked which tracks are filler he cannot reply, he doesnt know.
its clear that he has no intention of addressing the issues raised here, of supporting them, of backing them up, but just amuses himself by trying to lengthen the off topic discussion.
but this is nothing new, its also apparent that in previous protracted arguments he wasnt arguing because he seriously thinks that disco was greater then punk, or that british musicians largely ignored disco, if he was that interested in disco then why didnt he pass comment on the disco thread i started recently? surely someone that interested in disco would have passed comment?.. nah...its not the subject he is passionate about...its arguing, pointless, meaningless arguing.
What's that you say unique? There is an inferior version without Daltrey's vocal? Which might have been filler?
OK.
Do you have a link?
Ah I see - It was just an idea that doesn't actually exist.
Not to worry.
What's that you say unique? There is an inferior version without Daltrey's vocal? Which might have been filler?
OK.
Do you have a link?
Ah I see - It was just an idea that doesn't actually exist.
Not to worry.
ROTFL
This is uniques best evidence yet. One song could have been filler, but it wasn't. Thats enough to justify wild claims of loads of filler.
i was flicking through parts of pete townshends new book, and found this part interesting. for those who don't know, pete townshend was guitarist, vocalist and writer of the who since they started back in the 60s, and is still a member to this date, and the who continue to tour in 2013. so if anyone knows about the band, pete is one of those people, so i think a quote from the man who wrote and played the music, about the very music he wrote and played, and written in a recently published book which is commercially available for anyone to buy and read from all good booksellers everywhere like amazon, and even electronically from places like itunes, is pretty definitive proof, and this on top of the proof that's been mentioned before. so lets settle any disputes about the who having filler by a quote from the man who wrote and created music for the who...
i was flicking through parts of pete townshends new book, and found this part interesting. for those who don't know, pete townshend was guitarist, vocalist and writer of the who since they started back in the 60s, and is still a member to this date, and the who continue to tour in 2013. so if anyone knows about the band, pete is one of those people, so i think a quote from the man who wrote and played the music, about the very music he wrote and played, and written in a recently published book which is commercially available for anyone to buy and read from all good booksellers everywhere like amazon, and even electronically from places like itunes, is pretty definitive proof, and this on top of the proof that's been mentioned before. so lets settle any disputes about the who having filler by a quote from the man who wrote and created music for the who...
So we still have the head in sand argument that opinion is fact when it is uniques opinion, but it isn't fact if it is an opinion he doesn't agree with.
no it's not. if you took your head out the sand you might be able to see that
Opinion can be fact,
at lest you've learned one thing
but then again, it isn't if it doesn't suit.
but wrong there
We finally get a track mentioned as filler, by Pete Townshend no less, but I'm sure he says he thought he'd sing it, and it would probably be filler, however it didn't turn out that way.
i knew you would deny something was filler, even if the person who wrote and played the music said it was
It's Hard is probaly their worst album, made at a difficult time, but sorry, no evidence of filler there.
so the writer and performer on that album, who in his own words in his own book, stating a specific track was filler is not evidence?
Just shows unique sees things through different eyes to most, and will twist any words to prove his facts.
no twisting, as i've used quotes from other people, which you can check for yourself
you cant have an intelligent conversation with someone who
- lies - on post 262 he denied posting what he did post on post #110. as i highlighted on post #255.
don't you understand the difference between lies and a mistake?
- contradicts himself - after earlier proclaiming that on post #73 "who said there was a lot of filler on who albums?", but that was him on previous posts # 16, #43.
don't you understand the difference between a question and a contradiction?
- who claims black is white,
i've never done that. now THAT IS A LIE!
another good example of how hippocritical you are
- continuously refusing to answer the question "how can it be a fact that the who had loads of filler, and a fact that the who didnt have loads of filler[/i]? he wont answer it, he cant, but still presents the uncredible as credible.
i have answered. don't you know the difference between answering a question, and not? i answered, it's just that you weren't satisfied with the reply
- who choses which info to use as evidence yet whilst avoiding overwhelming evidence to the contrary, - ie whilst there are alot of people whos opinion is that there was filler on who albums, ignores the others who think there wasnt.
no i haven't. now, that's both an incorrect assumption, and a lie. you don't know what i think, so can't tell if i ignore something or not. whether i acknowledge it or not is also another thing
- who keeps banging on about getting it back on topic whilst posting reams of off topic material aimed at continuing the off topic discussion,
not at all. it's people like yourself that have taken this off topic and kept it off topic. i have provided answers to the off topic posts, such as the answers to your repeated off topic questions. don't you get the irony about both moaning about not getting replies whilst at the same time moaning about the replies you do get?
- a diversionary tactic,
i'm quite aware you use this as a diversionary tactic to disguise when it's clearly pointed out when you are wrong, such as saying british people who are born on a british island aren't british
he knows hes on the ropes, he knows hes wrong,
far from it. i'm right and i've provided proof that i'm right. i've also provided proof that you are wrong, such as the links to the dictionaries that show that you didn't understand how to interpret the definition of a word, or the wiki link that shows that british people born on british islands are british
hes struggling
far from it
to try to get back some credibility
that's your opinion. a strange one that you consider credibility in an online forum with annonymous usernames with just a few people following the topic. it offers some insight into your way of thinking
from a position that is ridiculous,
well that's merely the opinion of someone that doesn't understand the difference between words such as baring and bearing, who has shown incapable of using the dictionary or even wikipedia correctly, thus from that point of view, it's understandable that you don't understand fully what is being discussed, thus considers it ridiculous. i also consider it ridiculous, but obviously from an entirely different viewpoint
he has to inflame the discussion then run away and hide behind the 'on topic' line. if he really wanted to get back on topic, hed stop replying at such great lengths.
now that's a good example of what is ridiculous. on topic is as per the thread title "the who vs led zeppelin - who do you prefer". it's not about etymology, philosophy, or explaining to people how a dictionary works, but simply which of two bands do people prefer
- who makes statements but cannot support them - post #16 proclaiming that the who had loads of filler, but hasnt the knowlege to support that, after being repeatedly asked which tracks are filler he cannot reply, he doesnt know.
wrong again. i've stated numerous times i can support what i've said, but i choose not to, and i will not do so regardless of how much trolling and baiting you or anyone else does
its clear that he has no intention of addressing the issues raised here, of supporting them, of backing them up, but just amuses himself by trying to lengthen the off topic discussion.
i think it's clear that i've proven you wrong, and it appears to me that you know you are wrong, yet again
but this is nothing new, its also apparent that in previous protracted arguments he wasnt arguing because he seriously thinks that disco was greater then punk,
another assumption
or that british musicians largely ignored disco, if he was that interested in disco then why didnt he pass comment on the disco thread i started recently?
that's easy, as you were baiting and i didn't take the bait
surely someone that interested in disco would have passed comment?.. nah...its not the subject he is passionate about...its arguing, pointless, meaningless arguing.
said the person trying to bait me so he could troll more. i thought it would bother you if i didn't reply, so you proved me right again
The Who - One Life's Enough
A wonderful performance by Daltrey and a track which deserves to be heard a lot more.
What's that you say unique? There is an inferior version without Daltrey's vocal? Which might have been filler?
i never said that, did i?
Do you have a link?
Ah I see - It was just an idea that doesn't actually exist.
Not to worry.
ROTFL
i think you have confused a quote by the writer of that track who referred to the track as filler, as something i said myself. however i have a large amount of unrealeased who material so there could well be a version without roger singing, not that it makes the slightest bit of difference, and not that i'd post if if i did
This is uniques best evidence yet. One song could have been filler, but it wasn't. Thats enough to justify wild claims of loads of filler.
according to the writer and performer of the track, it was filler. so if you want to disagree with pete townshend who wrote that in his own book, take it up with him
that is not enough to justify wild claims of filler, but what i posted days/weeks ago is
Oooh, proof of "proof", how meta! Well, if you can prove your "proof" exists, then you MUST have proven what you say you've proven, right?
Wrong.
it's just proof. if you want to argue with the guy that wrote the music and played on it, writing in his own book that it's filler, then take it up with him. if you want to argue semantics, it's worth a thread of it's own
i've proven as a fact that the who had filler, and a key member of the band who wrote and performed the material in the studio and in concert has confirmed in his own book they had filler. clearly some people aren't happy they've been proven wrong, for the umpteenth time in at least one case, and some seem to take that hard, but that's what happens if you start arguing the toss about things you don't know about
anways, led zeppelin is still in the lead as per every time i've visited this thread
so let's get back on topic... The Who Vs Led Zeppelin
Who do you prefer ??
according to the writer and performer of the track, it was filler. so if you want to disagree with pete townshend who wrote that in his own book, take it up with him
that is not enough to justify wild claims of filler, but what i posted days/weeks ago is
No he said it filler on paper, on record it wasn't. The statement you've been arguing is based on filler material on the albums - which Pete says it isn't. Had he had though the finished version of the song was still filler, whose to say it would have been included on the album anyway.
no. pete said it was filler he's suggesting it turned out good. that's different from filler
I honestly don’t know if you are just being obstinate, whether this is blatant trolling or a bit of both. Townshend said what Soupietwist said he said and no amount of effort on your part to muddy the point is going to work.
Let me tell you exactly what is happening here. Adhering to your nonsense notion that opinions are facts, you say Pete’s words proves his song was filler. But AGAIN you are wrong. When being forced to adhere to the same stupid notion that opinions are facts, it actually proves the opposite. It proves the writer was WRONG that his song was filler. Hence, the song ISN’T filler. In short, once again your evidence simply does not prove what you say it proves.
You can’t escape the fact that you cited Townshend’s quote as proof of filler on Who albums. But it is not proof. Your quote is talking about ONE instance, which in no way proves multiple instances (this “loads of filler” you say you’ve proved) and, as I have already said, the ONE instance isn’t even filler anyway according to your own evidence. At best, all it proves is that Townshend understands what filler is, but then it’s hardly a difficult concept to grasp – I’d fully expect him to understand it.
Now… instead of going round in circles with this complete and utter nonsense, can’t you EVER concede that it is just his opinion? And that his opinion isn’t a fact?
Not literally, no. But figuratively? Yes you have and the evidence is all over this thread. You saying Pete didn’t say something he clearly did, according to a quote you cited, is just the latest example of it. But rob didn’t mean literally and if you have to argue semantics to call him a liar about it, you’ve already lost the argument in my book.
it's not about etymology, philosophy, or explaining to people how a dictionary works, but simply which of two bands do people prefer
You are the one who introduced all of these irrelevant things to the discussion. A discussion about which bands people prefer has nothing to do with proof and nothing to do with facts, yet you introduced them as though they were relevant. Then you tried to support your stance by introducing etymology and then by trying (and failing) to prove that the argument is more philosophical than it is in actual fact.
i've stated numerous times i can support what i've said, but i choose not to, and i will not do so regardless of how much trolling and baiting you or anyone else does
Which reinforces why nobody can or should ever take you seriously.
according to the writer and performer of the track, it was filler. so if you want to disagree with pete townshend who wrote that in his own book, take it up with him
No, according to the writer and performer of the track, he thought it would be filler and it turned out not to be.
don't you understand the difference between a question and a contradiction?
you asked the question in reply to dp mentioning albums, so in the context to which it was posted by you, you were clearly claiming that you hadnt mentioned who albums when in fact you had.
another good example of how hippocritical you are
...and you bang on about my bad spelling?
i have answered. don't you know the difference between answering a question, and not? i answered, it's just that you weren't satisfied with the reply
oh you mean the fudged reply refering to contradictory facts in law? , well we are not talking about law here, stop trying to evade the question and answer it! the topic is "how can it be both a fact that the who had loads of filler on their albums, and a fact that who who didnt have loads of filler on their albums"... thats the question, now stop waffling and answer it.... prove me wrong! do it!....oh no, you cant, because they cannot both be true and as a 'fact' is "a truth, something that can be shown as such, something that cant be argued against" is proof itself that it is NOT factual, either way, that there was or wasnt filler on who albums... it opinion, nothing else.
no i haven't. now, that's both an incorrect assumption, and a lie. you don't know what i think, so can't tell if i ignore something or not. whether i acknowledge it or not is also another thing
you ignored all the definitions on what facts are that completely disprove opinions are facts, but chose to believe the one definition that you twisted to support your pov...however on closer examination of that 1 definition, even that doesnt support your pov.
not at all. it's people like yourself that have taken this off topic and kept it off topic. i have provided answers to the off topic posts, such as the answers to your repeated off topic questions. don't you get the irony about both moaning about not getting replies whilst at the same time moaning about the replies you do get?
OUCH! does you foot hurt? youve just shot a bloody great hole in it!
all of my posts have been on topic, all ive done is to ask you to support your original post and name the tracks you think are filler.... you took it off topic by refusing to answer the question, yet you do go into great lengths to answer off topic referances!
you might reply, but you dont answer the questions asked, i want answers... which tracks are factually filler on who albums?... thats a perfectly on topic question and one you could have answered three weeks ago but instead chose to amuse yourself by bickering all this bollox.(yes that was a deliberate spelling mistake).
i'm quite aware you use this as a diversionary tactic to disguise when it's clearly pointed out when you are wrong, such as saying british people who are born on a british island aren't british
well that's merely the opinion of someone that doesn't understand the difference between words such as baring and bearing, who has shown incapable of using the dictionary or even wikipedia correctly, thus from that point of view, it's understandable that you don't understand fully what is being discussed, thus considers it ridiculous. i also consider it ridiculous, but obviously from an entirely different viewpoint
now that's a good example of what is ridiculous. on topic is as per the thread title "the who vs led zeppelin - who do you prefer". it's not about etymology, philosophy, or explaining to people how a dictionary works, but simply which of two bands do people prefer
wrong again. i've stated numerous times i can support what i've said, but i choose not to, and i will not do so regardless of how much trolling and baiting you or anyone else does
so your opinion is worthless then... you state opinions, without supporting them, 'chosing not to' ... then why go to such great lengths to argue about it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
you fit this perfectly.
i think it's clear that i've proven you wrong, and it appears to me that you know you are wrong, yet again
you have done nothing of the sort...:D
that's easy, as you were baiting and i didn't take the bait
eh? how tf was posting a liink to a 'greatest disco songs' 'bait'? i didnt pass any opinion on it except that 'forget your chart fodder'. theres no bait there, theres no area of contension except that some of the tracks dont qualify as disco. it was a post simply about disco songs... but you appear to have little knowlege of those, nor who tracks (but still choses to argue.)
Comments
lol, and that its ok to post opinions but not back them up and ignore requests to do so but still expect said posts to be taken seriously!
thats controversial, calling the great led zep overrated!
yeah i too rate keith moon highly.
For as long as I have been coming to this thread, the poll has been pretty equal and sometimes Zeppelin have been in the lead and sometimes they haven't. Being in the lead by 1 or 2 out of 70 isn't really a majority. If anything the poll has proved that both bands are pretty much equally liked.
to add and support you....
guess who posted this (post #110) "some people believe man never went to the moon or the world is flat, or the world was created in 7 days, but that doesn't mean they are right"
yet then went on to argue that opinions are facts! (when it suits)
Of course, the logical thing to do would be name some of this filler (it sounds as though there is far too much to name it all), and then let people judge.
name some of this filler? are you joking? that would be far too easy and would have ended this discussion weeks ago!
i mean, 'manintheque' identified the tracks he thinks of as 'filler' weeks ago and that went unchallenged, at least we can respect that pov regardless of whether we agree with it or not.
note too, that as his argument has got more and more ridiculous, his support has vanished. lol.
Well, I get fed up with seeing poor old Percy and his mate staging yet another comeback, with material that is rather poor when compared to their heyday. Sure, Zep have a legacy worthy of respect and praise, but the time has gone. A lesson that Townshend and Daltrey could also learn, to be fair.
Perhaps not technically best, but surely, the most fun and exciting drummer ever in a rock band.
i cant comment on the technicality of drum playing, i know nothing, but i know what i like and moon the loon impressed me, so that fits with your take on him.
l like them both (Moon and Bonham).
Live at Hull is fascinating because Moon seems a bit more prominent that Live at Leeds but I am still not sure if it is just the mix or if his performance is more energetic.
And when I watch the early Zep performance on Danish tv.......I still can't believe how hard that guy is hitting the drums. Just astonishing.
Moon is more prominent at Hull, but I think I read that is because of the mike position.
It's a fantastic album though, with no trace of any filler.:D
page 634
https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/who-i-am/id514013320?mt=11
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pete-Townshend-Who-I-Am/dp/000746603X
a couple of links so you can buy the book and confirm for yourself
THREAD TITLE: The Who Vs Led Zeppelin
and still in the lead as has been the case every time i've looked at this thread is led zeppelin
now let's try and keep this thread back on topic
Opinion can be fact, but then again, it isn't if it doesn't suit.
We finally get a track mentioned as filler, by Pete Townshend no less, but I'm sure he says he thought he'd sing it, and it would probably be filler, however it didn't turn out that way.
It's Hard is probaly their worst album, made at a difficult time, but sorry, no evidence of filler there.
Just shows unique sees things through different eyes to most, and will twist any words to prove his facts.
you cant have an intelligent conversation with someone who
- lies - on post 262 he denied posting what he did post on post #110. as i highlighted on post #255.
- contradicts himself - after earlier proclaiming that on post #73 "who said there was a lot of filler on who albums?", but that was him on previous posts # 16, #43.
- who claims black is white, - continuously refusing to answer the question "how can it be a fact that the who had loads of filler, and a fact that the who didnt have loads of filler[/i]? he wont answer it, he cant, but still presents the uncredible as credible.
- who choses which info to use as evidence yet whilst avoiding overwhelming evidence to the contrary, - ie whilst there are alot of people whos opinion is that there was filler on who albums, ignores the others who think there wasnt.
- who keeps banging on about getting it back on topic whilst posting reams of off topic material aimed at continuing the off topic discussion, - a diversionary tactic, he knows hes on the ropes, he knows hes wrong, hes struggling to try to get back some credibility from a position that is ridiculous, he has to inflame the discussion then run away and hide behind the 'on topic' line. if he really wanted to get back on topic, hed stop replying at such great lengths.
- who makes statements but cannot support them - post #16 proclaiming that the who had loads of filler, but hasnt the knowlege to support that, after being repeatedly asked which tracks are filler he cannot reply, he doesnt know.
its clear that he has no intention of addressing the issues raised here, of supporting them, of backing them up, but just amuses himself by trying to lengthen the off topic discussion.
but this is nothing new, its also apparent that in previous protracted arguments he wasnt arguing because he seriously thinks that disco was greater then punk, or that british musicians largely ignored disco, if he was that interested in disco then why didnt he pass comment on the disco thread i started recently? surely someone that interested in disco would have passed comment?.. nah...its not the subject he is passionate about...its arguing, pointless, meaningless arguing.
A wonderful performance by Daltrey and a track which deserves to be heard a lot more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s063fUXLCY
What's that you say unique? There is an inferior version without Daltrey's vocal? Which might have been filler?
OK.
Do you have a link?
Ah I see - It was just an idea that doesn't actually exist.
Not to worry.
ROTFL
This is uniques best evidence yet. One song could have been filler, but it wasn't. Thats enough to justify wild claims of loads of filler.
Oooh, proof of "proof", how meta! Well, if you can prove your "proof" exists, then you MUST have proven what you say you've proven, right?
Wrong.
Erm surely that counts against your stance....Pete thought it maybe a filler, but it turned out not to be at all...
another good example of how hippocritical you are i have answered. don't you know the difference between answering a question, and not? i answered, it's just that you weren't satisfied with the reply no i haven't. now, that's both an incorrect assumption, and a lie. you don't know what i think, so can't tell if i ignore something or not. whether i acknowledge it or not is also another thing not at all. it's people like yourself that have taken this off topic and kept it off topic. i have provided answers to the off topic posts, such as the answers to your repeated off topic questions. don't you get the irony about both moaning about not getting replies whilst at the same time moaning about the replies you do get? i'm quite aware you use this as a diversionary tactic to disguise when it's clearly pointed out when you are wrong, such as saying british people who are born on a british island aren't british far from it. i'm right and i've provided proof that i'm right. i've also provided proof that you are wrong, such as the links to the dictionaries that show that you didn't understand how to interpret the definition of a word, or the wiki link that shows that british people born on british islands are british far from it that's your opinion. a strange one that you consider credibility in an online forum with annonymous usernames with just a few people following the topic. it offers some insight into your way of thinking well that's merely the opinion of someone that doesn't understand the difference between words such as baring and bearing, who has shown incapable of using the dictionary or even wikipedia correctly, thus from that point of view, it's understandable that you don't understand fully what is being discussed, thus considers it ridiculous. i also consider it ridiculous, but obviously from an entirely different viewpoint now that's a good example of what is ridiculous. on topic is as per the thread title "the who vs led zeppelin - who do you prefer". it's not about etymology, philosophy, or explaining to people how a dictionary works, but simply which of two bands do people prefer wrong again. i've stated numerous times i can support what i've said, but i choose not to, and i will not do so regardless of how much trolling and baiting you or anyone else does i think it's clear that i've proven you wrong, and it appears to me that you know you are wrong, yet again another assumption that's easy, as you were baiting and i didn't take the bait said the person trying to bait me so he could troll more. i thought it would bother you if i didn't reply, so you proved me right again i never said that, did i? i think you have confused a quote by the writer of that track who referred to the track as filler, as something i said myself. however i have a large amount of unrealeased who material so there could well be a version without roger singing, not that it makes the slightest bit of difference, and not that i'd post if if i did according to the writer and performer of the track, it was filler. so if you want to disagree with pete townshend who wrote that in his own book, take it up with him
that is not enough to justify wild claims of filler, but what i posted days/weeks ago is it's just proof. if you want to argue with the guy that wrote the music and played on it, writing in his own book that it's filler, then take it up with him. if you want to argue semantics, it's worth a thread of it's own
i've proven as a fact that the who had filler, and a key member of the band who wrote and performed the material in the studio and in concert has confirmed in his own book they had filler. clearly some people aren't happy they've been proven wrong, for the umpteenth time in at least one case, and some seem to take that hard, but that's what happens if you start arguing the toss about things you don't know about
anways, led zeppelin is still in the lead as per every time i've visited this thread
so let's get back on topic...
The Who Vs Led Zeppelin
Who do you prefer ??
This is the quote, " I thought this would be a song I would sing, as filler really,"
That suggests he didn't appreciate how good it was, until Roger sang it. He didn't write it as filler.
So how can it be filler then?:(
Yet another unique tirade of contradiction, and nonsense.
Hasn't he realised that everyone else is giving a different opinion here to his, therefore the facts are he is wrong.
No he said it filler on paper, on record it wasn't. The statement you've been arguing is based on filler material on the albums - which Pete says it isn't. Had he had though the finished version of the song was still filler, whose to say it would have been included on the album anyway.
A sentence with the words Townshend, and filler is enough evidence by the look of it.!!
Perhaps we will get a definition of Townshend soon to prove it is filler.
I honestly don’t know if you are just being obstinate, whether this is blatant trolling or a bit of both. Townshend said what Soupietwist said he said and no amount of effort on your part to muddy the point is going to work.
Let me tell you exactly what is happening here. Adhering to your nonsense notion that opinions are facts, you say Pete’s words proves his song was filler. But AGAIN you are wrong. When being forced to adhere to the same stupid notion that opinions are facts, it actually proves the opposite. It proves the writer was WRONG that his song was filler. Hence, the song ISN’T filler. In short, once again your evidence simply does not prove what you say it proves.
You can’t escape the fact that you cited Townshend’s quote as proof of filler on Who albums. But it is not proof. Your quote is talking about ONE instance, which in no way proves multiple instances (this “loads of filler” you say you’ve proved) and, as I have already said, the ONE instance isn’t even filler anyway according to your own evidence. At best, all it proves is that Townshend understands what filler is, but then it’s hardly a difficult concept to grasp – I’d fully expect him to understand it.
Now… instead of going round in circles with this complete and utter nonsense, can’t you EVER concede that it is just his opinion? And that his opinion isn’t a fact?
He didn’t say it was filler. Even so, it is evidence of his opinion. It is not evidence of it being fact.
Not literally, no. But figuratively? Yes you have and the evidence is all over this thread. You saying Pete didn’t say something he clearly did, according to a quote you cited, is just the latest example of it. But rob didn’t mean literally and if you have to argue semantics to call him a liar about it, you’ve already lost the argument in my book.
You are the one who introduced all of these irrelevant things to the discussion. A discussion about which bands people prefer has nothing to do with proof and nothing to do with facts, yet you introduced them as though they were relevant. Then you tried to support your stance by introducing etymology and then by trying (and failing) to prove that the argument is more philosophical than it is in actual fact.
Which reinforces why nobody can or should ever take you seriously.
No, according to the writer and performer of the track, he thought it would be filler and it turned out not to be.
No it isn’t, no matter how many times you say it.
I prefer The Who. End of. Have no facts to back it up. It’s just my opinion.
you asked the question in reply to dp mentioning albums, so in the context to which it was posted by you, you were clearly claiming that you hadnt mentioned who albums when in fact you had.
...and you bang on about my bad spelling?
oh you mean the fudged reply refering to contradictory facts in law?
you ignored all the definitions on what facts are that completely disprove opinions are facts, but chose to believe the one definition that you twisted to support your pov...however on closer examination of that 1 definition, even that doesnt support your pov.
OUCH! does you foot hurt? youve just shot a bloody great hole in it!
all of my posts have been on topic, all ive done is to ask you to support your original post and name the tracks you think are filler.... you took it off topic by refusing to answer the question, yet you do go into great lengths to answer off topic referances!
you might reply, but you dont answer the questions asked, i want answers... which tracks are factually filler on who albums?... thats a perfectly on topic question and one you could have answered three weeks ago but instead chose to amuse yourself by bickering all this bollox.(yes that was a deliberate spelling mistake).
off topic nonsense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
you fit this perfectly.
so your opinion is worthless then... you state opinions, without supporting them, 'chosing not to' ... then why go to such great lengths to argue about it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
you fit this perfectly.
you have done nothing of the sort...:D
eh? how tf was posting a liink to a 'greatest disco songs' 'bait'? i didnt pass any opinion on it except that 'forget your chart fodder'. theres no bait there, theres no area of contension except that some of the tracks dont qualify as disco. it was a post simply about disco songs... but you appear to have little knowlege of those, nor who tracks (but still choses to argue.)