The Beatles. Just don't get it at all.
Plus size MTB tyres; it just seems a really really stupid idea.
Cameron Diaz.
Reality TV. I can't believe that this is where entertainment has ended up.
Tom Clancy. You can have too much technical detail in a novelzzzzzzzzzzz. Films were OK though.
And the very worst; rocket. horrible stuff which seems to be in EVERYTHING nowadays.
I don't get Instagram. An online photo album like countless others, with built-in filters to make your photos look worse. .
It's a cross between a photo album and a social medium - not unique but just the one that got critical mass at the right time š
Things you just don't get.
1. Celebrities.
2. "National treasure" - not the artifact but the human type.
3. Nobel peace prize.
4. Gourmet or artisan food or drink.
š
Oh, add Chewkw to the list of things I don't get. (-:
Talking of celebrities: I don't get celebrities who are celebrities because they're celebrities. I'm not explaining this very well, am I.
What I mean is, the types of people who go into Celebrity Big Brother because they were once on the regular Big Brother a few years back. You're not a celebrity, you're Dave from Bognor whose claim to fame is existing in a house for ten weeks; big whoop, so have I, I'd be more impressed if you'd lived outside of one for ten weeks with a bottle of White Lightning and a dog on a string for company.
You wouldn't call yourself a celebrity if you'd been a contestant on Deal or No Deal now, would you? If you won Mastermind, you might get invited back onto a Previous Winners Special, but not on a Celebrity edition. Odd. Just, odd.
Cougar - Moderator
Oh, add Chewkw to the list of things I don't get. (-:
I am your friend. (in a Peter Griffin way)
Cherished plates.
For those who can only afford a regular car that's just like all the others out there, it's the only way to give it a bit of individuality, other than doing stupid things like adding an extra 50-60kg of plastic tat, a huge zorst, or loads of inane stickers.
A friend of mine has managed to get hold of plates for her A3 on which the first letter is the month of her birth, the next two digits are the day, and the last three letters are the name all her friends call her; it's just the five digits.
Not at all ostentatious, but it's a nice touch to an otherwise plain black saloon car.
I've seen others that just make me smile, like H1 MUM, I saw once, or N11 NAA on a car parked round the back of Trinity Road police station in Bristol.
A mate has a personal plate, a random letter and 3 numbers followed by 3 letters that are his initials. He reckons it makes him a better driver, because people can identfy him easily if he's crap.
'Because the number plate is unique'
I struggle to remember a time when I face palmed harder...
The Beatles. Just don't get it at all.
You clearly have no historical context, or understand why The Beatles are one of the most important bands the world of music has ever seen; their contribution will never be equaled.
Sgt. Pepper forced others to truly up their game in both songwriting and studio creativity, and most were found very sadly lacking.
Brian Wilson turned into a recluse who couldn't stop himself endlessly tweaking things to try to equal it, the Stones on hearing it went to producer Glynn Johns and asked him to create new sounds, to which he replied "that's YOUR job!"
To be fair, it was George Martin who helped The Beatles in the studio, but they had the ideas, he helped them make sense of the technology available and create the sounds.
Just listening to the bits recorded to create songs like 'A Day In The Life', where they play live on a four-track, bounce it down onto another tape, then do the next bit on four-track, bounce, then do the next bit, the whole being created using the most basic studio facilities, that would now be done on a 24 channel desk and tweaked in ProTools.
But I guess that if you weren't there, you can't possibly understand how important they are; when they went to America in 1964 and performed on The Ed Sullivan Show, they were singing to 73 [i]million[/i] people! That's 45% of the US population! In January 1964 'I Want To Hold Your Hand' crept into the US chart at 45, starting a 15-week, 5 million-selling run, by February it was No1, and by April 4 they had the top-five consecutive places on the singles chart, and were in the middle of a 30-week run at the top of the album chart with three different albums.
That's back when sales were real, physical objects, actual vinyl records.
It's no comparison with Ed Sheeran, who's current ubiquitous presence in the charts is only due to bloody streaming!
Oh, sorry, if only you'd said. They are now my favourite band.
I don't get why anyone would want to live and work in that Lunnon (been there today horrible noisy crowded place).
Oh yeah I forgot about the Beatles, I don't get them either all sounds a bit twee to me.
You clearly have no historical context, or understand why The Beatles are one of the most important bands the world of music has ever seen; their contribution will never be equaled.
You are absolutely right, and I'd add that I also know nothing of music making. But I still don't get it. I get the Rolling Stones. I get Al Green, public enemy, Nirvana, Madonna, Orbison, Michael Jackson, Prince, I even get Queen, but a beatles song coming on the radio will make me switch the dial.
Cameron Diaz?
I like milkshake. Oh yes I do.
People that put their dog poo in a bag. And then hang it in a tree.
What I don't get is how surprised and offended dog-emptiers get when I rip them a new one for such behaviour.
They [i]honestly[/i] seem to think that it's ACTUALLY OK to do this.
Major SoC vendors who have shipped literally billions of devices, and yet their Makefiles are absolute piles of steaming junk.
Disgression means I can't say who. But chances are you're using one of their products to read this.
You clearly have no historical context, or understand why The Beatles are one of the most important bands the world of music has ever seen; their contribution will never be equaled.
So? Still doesn't mean I've got to like them.
I'm 56 - I've been around as long as the Beatles, so less of this "no historical context" nonsense, OK?
I have absolutely no clue what a disgression, SoC or makefile is.
"disgression"
He means "discretion", I think.
"SoC"
From context, "Software Companies"?
"Makefile"
A packed-up bundle of code/instructions for compiling a programme, IIRC.
(But your underlying point is well-made).
Yeah, discretion. Alzheimer's is finally kicking in.
SoC - system-on-chip.
Also while I'm at it - all those GNU autotools, libtool, etc. They're also junk.
Having lived in Asia for the last 15 years, and now back to the UK
I really don't understand more than 90% on this thread.
I don't get putting dog poo in a bag anywhere other than in towns and suburbs, what was wrong with good old stick and flick, under the hedge, hedges are natures dustbin, designed exactly with dog poo disposal in mind.
Spin - MemberAbout as funny as a boot in the baws as they say where I'm from.
Canvey?
"Cherished plates" - ah, I thought that was like a particular plate you liked to have your dinner on, which I could understand.
As for the Beatles, from what I remember none of their musical ideas were new, they 'adapted' the ideas of others; to produce music that was popular with many, but dull and twee to quite a few people - myself included.
Trying to explain stuff that people don't get. With the hope or expectation that they will then get it. I don't get that.
You clearly have no historical context, or understand why The Beatles are one of the most important bands the world of music has ever seen;
I think there's a number of "great" bands whose greatness was a product of their time. They were doing something no-one else was doing at the time. Looking back now through a sea of imitators they might not be all that, but they were groundbreaking. It's the Tolkien Effect.
The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Hendrix, Elvis, I'm mostly ambivalent to them and I don't really "get it" from a retrospective appreciation of music. But all of those artists (and numerous others) came along and made the audience go "what the hell is this?!" They all issued in a new wave of music. That's why they're revered as greats IMHO.
Jealousy, I don't get it.
n'dubz
People who dismiss the entire Beatles back catalogue on a whim, categorising it as all irrelevant no matter what music they produced at different stages in their career.
The need to buy clothes that offers free advertising to whatever brand is adorned in huge letters across the jumper/t-shirt.
Steam trains.
Impressive engineering 150 years ago but now?
The Beatles- ground breaking and changed music
The Rolling Stones- nice white middle class lads doing black music
Hendrix- groundbreaking
Elvis- nice white middle class lad doing black music under control of svengali figure
šÆ Your memory is very poor.from what I remember none of their musical ideas were new,
For me certain bands are just one you dont really like very much - Queen and Blur for example though I would not say they were shit
TBH anyone who does not get the Beatles [ influence] is not worth listening to on music as they clearly dont get the subject matter.
Sean Paul. Whoever thinks when they are making a record that it needs a bit of Sean Paul really shouldn't be making records.
I don't get lots of things. The most recent thing I didn't get was those high up handlebars on motorbikes. The ones that are above the riders head. Why are they like that?
Drawings on your skin are a bit odd. I know lots of people like them and stuff and that's cool, but they confuse me. I can't understand it at all.
TBH anyone who does not get the Beatles [ influence] is not worth listening to on music as [b]they clearly dont get the subject matter[/b].
You're just being silly now. Let's have a chat about Alan Holdsworth, if you really want to talk about ground-breaking and influential.
Some of us know [i]quite a lot[/i] about music, and still consider the Beatles to have been purveyors of throw-away pop...
Oh, and voting conservative and thinking that the Con way is the only way.
yet here we are 50 years after they split still discussing the throw away pop* with the musically informed šSome of us know quite a lot about music, and still consider the Beatles to have been purveyors of throw-away pop
You dont have to like them you just have to not say things like that.
* its a fair description of their early work to be fair.
The thing that irks me about the Beatles is that they appear to get credit for an entire decade (and more) of music. There were other bands from the same period that were as good as and in some cases much better than the Beatles. Units sold does not equate to greatness, it's just a sign of popularity and making your music accessible to the widest possible audience. It's not the way all artists choose to do it though.
Oh balls, I didn't want to get involved in this silliness - but if you think Sgt Peppers and The White Album were made by a band trying to be popular and sell more albums, well, you're hearing something very different to me.
Why so many people who customarily make most local and medium distance journeys in cars still think that ebikes (pedelecs) are 'cheating'.
I don't get why Roxy Music are not in the Rock n Roll Hall of fame, now they were a group who were innovative and changed things.
I don't get how some people don't get that music is a matter of taste.
I do get that the Beatles are important, but I don't get their music. They influenced a lot of bands I do get though so I'm glad they existed. But it does nothing for me, I don't even find it interesting enough to really dislike. But that's OK too.
You dont have to like them you just have to not say things like that.
You've got that point entirely arse over tit, haven't you?
You declared that because some of us don't agree with your assessment of the importance of the Beatles, we're not qualified to have an opinion - remember?
TBH anyone who does not get the Beatles [ influence] is not worth listening to on music as they clearly dont get the subject matter.
Well I've probably forgotten more about music than you'll ever know - and I [i]still[/i] find little about the Beatles to be impressed by.
And yes, DezB, that includes the likes of Sergeant Pepper's... which was a predictable, of-its-time, "[i]let's see what happens if we play back the same tune twice at the same time while pressing on the flange of one tape reel...[/i]" example of fannying about in the studio.
[b]Being able to write a catchy pop tune [i]is not[/i] the culmination of human artistic and creative endeavour[/b].
funkmasterp - Member
The thing that irks me about the Beatles is that they appear to get credit for an entire decade (and more) of music. There were other bands from the same period that were as good as and in some cases much better than the Beatles. Units sold does not equate to greatness, it's just a sign of popularity and making your music accessible to the widest possible audience. It's not the way all artists choose to do it though.
If you were 'there' they were indeed a bit of a girlie group and blokes needed to be 'cool' and like other edgy bands, The Stones, Cream, The Who, Jimmy Hendrix they all had followings, but the truth is as musicians which all these guys were, they all had mutual respect. The Beatles were pretty much gone by the seventies when things really got into gear, but their work with lots of other musicians (George Harrison and Ravi Shankar springs immediately to mind) their production and studio work with George Martin, just laid the ground for everything to come. Brian Wilson Pet Sounds would never have come to pass without the Beatles, they just spurred everyone else on to greater effort.
It was such an amazing period to live through and just a reminder something you youngsters tend to forget, my Original Copy of Sgt Pepper (I've still got it) is MONO, stereo only really arrived in 67-68 I'll never forget the moment I first heard the different sounds coming from separate speakers...
Junkyard - lazarus
Some of us know quite a lot about music, and still consider the Beatles to have been purveyors of throw-away pop
yet here we are 50 years after they split still discussing the throw away pop* with the musically informed
The thing is, it's easy to use terms like 'throw away pop' now fifty years on, but at the time we were a naive and largely unsophisticated audience, I had no idea why for instance Norwegian wood should be especially good, but those lyrics, at that timeā¦ Sorry, not throw away at all. True when I look back it was all in black and white, colour didn't come until Sgt Pepper, but by then they had already been so prolific and cheered up very austere times and set the bar way above chuck away pop.
[i]Sergeant Pepper's... which was a predictable, of-its-time,[/i]
Well, I was 3 years old, so can't comment on that with the same authority, but that goes against everything I've ever read about it.
Honestly though, I really don't give a toss what other people don't get (or "like" as this thread seems to have evolved into)
DezB - Member
Sergeant Pepper's... which was a predictable, of-its-time,Well, I was 3 years old, so can't comment on that with the same authority, but that goes against everything I've ever read about it.
Well I was nineteen and can tell you, predictable was the last thing you could have said, I'd honestly like whoever said that to give an example of some other 1967 album that in any way was similar.
(The Beatles) a bit of a girlie group
[img] 
[/img]
See also Hitler and The NSDAP - 'a bit of a Nationalist group'
š
The Beatles- ground breaking and changed music
The Rolling Stones- nice white middle class lads doing black music
True to an extent, but the Stones wrote much better tunes.
I don't get why folk on here insist on using expensive bike branded products - chain lube, fork oil, brake fluid when generic equivalents that are much cheaper work as well
chakaping - Member
The Beatles- ground breaking and changed music
The Rolling Stones- nice white middle class lads doing black music
True to an extent, but the Stones wrote much better tunes.
Maybe a bit later but they initially broke with covers and remember the Beatles pre dated the stones by a couple of years and in the sixties a year was a long time. The Beatles were playing Hamburg before the Stones were even formed. Love me Do hit the charts in 62, the year the Stones got together.
After the initial success of "Beatlemania" in 1963 record companies began clamouring for Groups and it became easier for all those that followed to get a deal. So, love em or hate them or as most of us did enjoy them as background music, don't deny what they did for others, they were key.
Didn't the Beatles just copy the Monkees though?
*Runs and hides
.
You've got that point entirely arse over tit, haven't you?
No read NW posts you dont have to personally dig them you do have to understand their influence and reach and not consider them to be a throwaway pop band - especially when being discussed 5 years later as this certainly negates the throwaway bit.
If you are going to make grandiose appeals to your own authority dont include ANY doubt ...facepalmWell I've probably forgotten more about music than you'll ever know
thinking this is what they did is not the culmination of understanding of popular music its just a failure to grasp /undertsandBeing able to write a catchy pop tune is not the culmination of human artistic and creative endeavour.
Again you dont have to like them you just have to accept what they did and not say things like that.
[quote=chakaping ]The Beatles- ground breaking and changed music
The Rolling Stones- nice white middle class lads doing black music
True to an extent, but the Stones wrote much better tunes.
RACIST they were not better than the black folks
Sorry that this has gone way OT - The Beatles were very influential, that's a given, but they weren't the only band from that time to be influential. Just one of many who (in my eyes) get all of the credit. They should maybe get 60% at best.
They were likely influenced by their peers as much as they influenced them. This combined with their initial mass appeal will have given them the power, money and time to arse about in the studio to a greater degree. I still don't like them that much though and don't rate any of their albums or solo stuff, singles is a different story though š