ForumGarden

After the debacle that the Davy Jones thread descended to, I have a question.

Does 'Popular' necessarily mean bad ?

To expand on that, lets take for instance the unchallenged 'Bad' record "The Birdie Song"

It is slagged off by everyone, but when played at party gatherings it always gets people up on the floor.

It may not be great music, but it does have it's uses, like chewing gum or candy floss (cotton candy), none can be critically acclaimed for any great worth......but does it matter ?

I think the Davy Jones locker has to do with taking credit for music that you aren't playing.

It's uncontested that they weren't allowed to play their instruments. Depending which source you look at, Davy wasn't actually lip synching to his own vocals until the third album.

He was compared inaccurately to The Sex Pistols and Sid Vicious whereas a better comparison would have been Milli Vanilli... who will never be given accolades as great musicians.

Davy learned how to sing and pulled off some tours later on but that's after he won fame for someone else's talent so it's kind of pushing the envelope.

It wan't particularly their fault as they wanted to play and sing and weren't allowed... but Davy, in particular, had no musical ability at the start and would have been on drums but he was too short and they didn't think he was visible enough.

Popularity can be both good and bad. It depends on the amount of manipulation going on.

I thought of Milli Vanilli as well but they used others vocals... they were nothing but ventriloquists' dummies. Spot was incorrect about none of them being musicians, Mike Nesmith had had several songs covered by other, bigger musicians before the Monkees and Davy Jones, as Oscar already mentioned, was in a popular London play you might have heard of... Oliver!

It's a rare musician that doesn't cover someone else's music.

As far as popular... Snooki's popular and she's a waste of oxygen.

Bruv;1386342 wrote: Does 'Popular' necessarily mean bad ?Mike Batt was popular but I noticed he rarely put his name anywhere prominent on his records and when he got onto Top Of The Pops he wore a Womble suit.

This was not particularly about music, I was thinking about such things as Coca Cola, McDonalds burgers, Salad Cream, Coronation Street, The X Factor, Dallas......

But while on the subject of music, so Milli Vanilli, and say The Monkees or any other 'manufactured' group.......so what ?

Does it really matter, apart from the elitist right on brigade, demanding authenticity from their entertainers.

Hollywood manufactures dreams as do any film makers.......if you want reality don't ever turn on the TV or listen to any music, or eat processed food.

The likes of Joss Stone and Adele belting out soulful life worn ballads, just kids with voices.......but does it matter ?

spot;1386346 wrote: Mike Batt was popular but I noticed he rarely put his name anywhere prominent on his records and when he got onto Top Of The Pops he wore a Womble suit.


Nike don't have to plaster their name over every pair of trainers either, the tick tells you who's trainers you are wearing, The Wombles are Mike Batt.........doubt very much if he ever donned a womble suit though........very clever marketing trick, they could appear all over the place at the same time.

Bruv;1386342 wrote: After the debacle that the Davy Jones thread descended to, I have a question.

Does 'Popular' necessarily mean bad ?

To expand on that, lets take for instance the unchallenged 'Bad' record "The Birdie Song"

It is slagged off by everyone, but when played at party gatherings it always gets people up on the floor.

It may not be great music, but it does have it's uses, like chewing gum or candy floss (cotton candy), none can be critically acclaimed for any great worth......but does it matter ?


Only in someone's opinion.

And, I suppose none of it actually matters unless you want to voice your opinion.

Being aware that one's opinion doesn't make something bad or good can be quite helpful.

I'd much rather not remember-ember-ember what a Womble-omble-omble I am, thank you.

I note, irrelevantly but in passing, that the pristine new school I first occupied the year before taking my school certificate is, I hear, to be demolished, being considered worn out and no longer fit for purpose.

SnoozeAgain;1386345 wrote:

As far as popular... Snooki's popular and she's a waste of oxygen.

koan;1386343 wrote:

He was compared inaccurately to The Sex Pistols and Sid Vicious whereas a better comparison would have been Milli Vanilli... who will never be given accolades as great musicians.



. No Koan he was not compared Incorrectly to Sid Vicious or The Sex Pistols.

The song I posted In that thread 'My Way' was a cover version by Sid Vicious as a solo artiste and Not the Sex Pistols... There-fore. nowhere did I compare him to the Sex Pistols.

Please do try to read posts correctly and quote from them accurately rather than apply your own Inaccurate Interpretation.

Regardless, you are missing the entire point of my referral to the cover version of My Way by Sid Vicious.

In response to Spot's claim that the creators of the Monkee's shoud be credited rather than the frontman Davy Jones, I gave an example of My Way by Sid Vicious. It was to show that It didn't matter who the creator of something Is, unless the right person performs It, It's useless.

The point Is... Had My Way been released by Sid Vicious first, It would never have sold as many copies as the Initial version by Sinatra.

My Way by Sid Vicious only reached number 7 In the UK charts where as Sinatra's version sold millions and stayed at number one all around the world. It was Sinatra's deliverence of the song that made It a wordwide great and not DSid's.... that... Is the point.

Thus... I was not comparing Sid Vicious to Davy Jones as you have Inaccurately posted here... I gave an example of how It Is the performer that makes something great or not and not the creator as Spot Imagines.

Sighhhhh !!!!

Bell-bottoms used to be "popular" but no matter how long anyone lives they'd never see an era in which it can be said is good.

If you take modern examples of viral videos (usually on youtube) I'd say it's a very good thing.

spot;1386363 wrote: I'd much rather not remember-ember-ember what a Womble-omble-omble I am, thank you.

I note, irrelevantly but in passing, that the pristine new school I first occupied the year before taking my school certificate is, I hear, to be demolished, being considered worn out and no longer fit for purpose.


Fact is whether you want to or not the music is indelible on your mind, you cannot stop remembering it and singing along to it, despite your better judgement telling you it isn't worthy enough.

Now that is what I am talking about.

Given the choice I would not sit down to an evening of Womble classics, but should one be played on the radio, it gives some sort of pleasure........despite my better judgement.



I shall ignore the irrelevant news of your school, as I ignored the other irrelevant posts..........

K.Snyder;1386397 wrote: Bell-bottoms used to be "popular" but no matter how long anyone lives they'd never see an era in which it can be said is good.


They were good for the textile industry, all that extra cloth ?

Bruv;1386419 wrote: I shall ignore the irrelevant news of your school, as I ignored the other irrelevant posts..........I'm considering an appeal to the Architectural Heritage Commission on the grounds that the school was one of the first non-domestic buildings in England to adopt brick in its construction, and is certainly the oldest-surviving example.

spot;1386438 wrote: I'm considering an appeal to the Architectural Heritage Commission on the grounds that the school was one of the first non-domestic buildings in England to adopt brick in its construction, and is certainly the oldest-surviving example.


Get on with it then and stop wasting your time posting irrelevant posts here.....

Unless of course I have missed something that ties it in with popularity.

You puzzle me. My post could barely have been more on-topic had it tried. Few of my attempts at being on topic have ever come so close. It was a deeply unpopular school in its time but that doesn't mean the buildings should just be scrapped.

spot;1386442 wrote: You puzzle me.
Not only you......

My post could barely have been more on-topic had it tried. Few of my attempts at being on topic have ever come so close. It was a deeply unpopular school in its time but that doesn't mean the buildings should just be scrapped.


The topic was popularity, not unpopularity.

Popularity on an International forum would presuppose people who visit might have some knowledge of the subject brought up as an example.

So it would be as pointless my bringing up the popularity of my maternal Grandmother in her younger days (that's another story) as you mentioning some obscure school.

Suppose you do a big reveal now......dah dah......your school was the world famous something or other............ and we all go Ahh!!

Bruv;1386448 wrote: Suppose you do a big reveal now......dah dah......your school was the world famous something or other............ and we all go Ahh!!My school was a scrubby county-town grammar whose headmaster at the time, an ex-boy himself, tried for decades to give it the pretensions of a fifth rate public school and failed dismally. He and I did not admire each other. My word he had a squalid and misguidedly smug mind, that chap, I've never known anyone else so self-deluded.

Is this thread now about Spot ?

Sigh

spot;1386453 wrote: My school was a scrubby county-town grammar whose headmaster at the time, an ex-boy himself, tried for decades to give it the pretensions of a fifth rate public school and failed dismally. He and I did not admire each other. My word he had a squalid and misguidedly smug mind, that chap, I've never known anyone else so self-deluded.


And THAT is ON topic ?

So on topic it couldn't be MORE on topic ?



I am off to have a quick Womble over at youtube for light relief

oscar;1386454 wrote: Is this thread now about Spot ?

Sigh


He will be over to your Police thread soon enough........no worries.

Bruv;1386456 wrote: And THAT is ON topic ?
It was a direct reply to your post!!

Bruv;1386457 wrote: He will be over to your Police thread soon enough........no worries. I'll go and watch some paint dry then.

Bruv;1386448 wrote: The topic was popularity, not unpopularity.

Popularity on an International forum would presuppose people who visit might have some knowledge of the subject brought up as an example.

So it would be as pointless my bringing up the popularity of my maternal Grandmother in her younger days (that's another story) as you mentioning some obscure school.

Suppose you do a big reveal now......dah dah......your school was the world famous something or other............ and we all go Ahh!!


spot;1386458 wrote: It was a direct reply to your post!!


That Post ?

But only the bits you wanted to reply to ?

That's a clever device for my own future use, throw a word in and then respond to the queries about it any way you want to

Bruv;1386464 wrote: That's a clever device for my own future use, throw a word in and then respond to the queries about it any way you want toHad I not replied as I did, the incorrect implication that my "school was the world famous something or other" would have sat uncorrected on the site and misled generations yet unborn. How else I might refute the slur than by posting a refutation I'm not sure.

spot;1386468 wrote: Had I not replied as I did, the incorrect implication that my "school was the world famous something or other" would have sat uncorrected on the site and misled generations yet unborn. How else I might refute the slur than by posting a refutation I'm not sure.
You're assuming that future generations will care enough ... Go and start a thread on schools and let's get this one back on topic.

spot;1386468 wrote: Had I not replied as I did, the incorrect implication that my "school was the world famous something or other" would have sat uncorrected on the site and misled generations yet unborn. How else I might refute the slur than by posting a refutation I'm not sure.


I had considered my own 'device' .......ignoring.....but it's a boring Saturday here.

So the post to refute the off topic original one is justified ?

It's like arguing with the wife.......or nailing jelly to the wall.

Bruv;1386476 wrote: I had considered my own 'device' .......ignoring.....but it's a boring Saturday here.

So the post to refute the off topic original one is justified ?

It's like arguing with the wife.......or nailing jelly to the wall.
Back to topic....

Do you remember Afro perms In the 70's ? God, how many people ruined their hair for life ?

oscar;1386478 wrote: Back to topic....

Do you remember Afro perms In the 70's ? God, how many people ruined their hair for life ?


Don't perms grow out ?

What about the latest tanning craze, now that's one to worry about for the future

oscar;1386478 wrote: Back to topic....

Do you remember Afro perms In the 70's ? God, how many people ruined their hair for life ?I'm starting to see that "popular" can only be defined by a specific group which means that the definition of "popular" is quite relative and that it's important for people to agree upon it's meaning. Having said that I'd have to say that I'd never known afro perms to be "popular" in this context, if they were I would see quit alot more photos of asians walking around sporting one

K.Snyder;1386483 wrote: I'm starting to see that "popular" can only be defined by a specific group which means that the definition of "popular" is quite relative and that it's important for people to agree upon it's meaning. Having said that I'd have to say that I'd never known afro perms to be "popular" in this context, if they were I would see quit alot more photos of asians walking around sporting one


Please don't let previous posts alter the purpose of my opening post.

The meaning of popular is:

Widely liked or appreciated: Of, representing, or carried on by the people at large: Fit for, adapted to, or reflecting the taste of the people at large: Suited to or within the means of ordinary people: Originating among the people.

Some popular things are local to an area, Afro Permed hair was popular in the UK for a short period, remember Kevin Keegan ?

The question really is supposed to be about whether general popularity amongst the proletariat lowers the worth of the something.

Bruv;1386487 wrote: The question really is supposed to be about whether general popularity amongst the proletariat lowers the worth of the something.


But it's looking at the problem backwards. If the proletariat buys into an image then the image is by its nature naff within five years, for the simple reason that the proletariat declares it to be naff within five years. Consider Watney's Red Barrel.

Or Stella Artois?

Foreign, that. Fine if it's vodka but a bit odd if it's beer.

Is Stella considered naff these days then?

Bruv;1386487 wrote: ...

The question really is supposed to be about whether general popularity amongst the proletariat lowers the worth of the something.


I don't know that it's necessarily the case, but for something to be popular, quality is not actually a requirement.

And some things start out very good, and the popularity raises the market to a point that production begins to fail quality.

Back to Whitney, when she became popular, she began doing more songs, and the style of music changed to accommodate the public taste (or lack of)

This is something that many "artists" fall into.

And that's another product I'd never buy because of this guy.

Adrian Brody makes women melt/ Stella Artois - YouTube

Grrr

As Bruv mentioned tanning and Snooze referred to adverts....

This man has done more for Duluxe Woodstain than any other ad.

David Dickinson Tops Up Tan - YouTube

LarsMac;1386520 wrote: I don't know that it's necessarily the case, but for something to be popular, quality is not actually a requirement.


Is it our familiarity with the popular item that diminishes it's apparent value, so making it naff ?

Everybody thought Dallas was praiseworthy, then all of a sudden it was naff.

Soap operas are the staple of TV these days, many are minor theatrical marvels, just by the amount of hours aired, they are often seen as naff.

A burger is a nourishing well balance addition to anyone's diet, are they naff or not ?

My point was does it really matter ?

Naff or bad, poorly executed, bland and uninspired, if it's popular and satisfies a need....................does it really matter ?

Bruv;1386534 wrote: Naff or bad, poorly executed, bland and uninspired, if it's popular and satisfies a need....................does it really matter ?
There's no need to bring sex into it, this was a clean thread until now.

spot;1386538 wrote: There's no need to bring sex into it, this was a clean thread until now.


It is not always wise to broadcast your own private life and it's shortcomings.

Bruv;1386540 wrote: It is not always wise to broadcast your own private life and it's shortcomings.


Ah well. At least it's still popular.

Spot tries consistently to point out that popularity is subjectively based on a group of one. lol

It's sort of true.

Ever gone to a comic-con? You'd be shocked what's popular.

Youtube has gone about devising a way to determine that. Anyone here an expert on popular? What's your view count?

Nevertheless, some people insist that popularity can be determined by what they want to be popular and the very people finding spot offensive are only failing to see the joke is on them. You can't stop popular but you can object to it with all your "I love five hour long feature film" hearts.

hey Bruv.... There's been many a time I have a decent selection of food In the fridge and freezer but I just yearn for a Pot Noodle and have to go down the garage and get one.... Chicken and mushroom flavour of course.

It's amazing how many people agree with me :-3

oscar;1386617 wrote: hey Bruv.... There's been many a time I have a decent selection of food In the fridge and freezer but I just yearn for a Pot Noodle and have to go down the garage and get one.... Chicken and mushroom flavour of course.

It's amazing how many people agree with me :-3


That kind of sums up popularity to me.

I find Pot Noodles an affront to mankind, the ultimate naff of naffness.

I have tried them several times, and have thought it was me not making them properly.

Always a rock hard pea or lump of something that doesn't re-hydrate......

Much rather have a jam sandwich.

While saying that, THAT is what I mean about popularity, Pot Noodles itch a spot, fill a need, so are not necessarily bad, they are just not for me.

Bruv;1386636 wrote: That kind of sums up popularity to me.

I find Pot Noodles an affront to mankind, the ultimate naff of naffness.

I have tried them several times, and have thought it was me not making them properly.

Always a rock hard pea or lump of something that doesn't re-hydrate......

Much rather have a jam sandwich.

While saying that, THAT is what I mean about popularity, Pot Noodles itch a spot, fill a need, so are not necessarily bad, they are just not for me.


No-one will ever admit to buying Pot Noodles but you can bet they bloody well do.

I've never tried the Korean version though.... Pot Poodle

Marketing seems to trump quality these days.

Back to Stella.

When I was in Belgium, Stella was, it seemed, popular in some bars. I tried it, and hated it.

Nasty stuff. I thought it was just that the one I tried came from a skunked barrel, or something, but in Belgium, there are so many to choose from, I moved on.

Later, on a trip to the UK, I tried it again at a little Italian restaurant in High Wycomb.

Still tasted skunky.

Later, when they announced Stella in the US, a friend bought some. We tried it, and yup, sure enough, same skunky taste as before.

I don't understand. How can something so foul be so popular?



IF you take a Budweiser in a can, leave it out in the sun for a week, then chill it, and open, it will taste better than a fresh Stella.

Burgers.

Highly underrated in some circles. I have found burgers that were heaven on a bun.

But if you ask half the American market about burgers, you will get something about McDonald's or Wendy's or some such.

IF that is your experience with burgers, you have not truly experienced a hamburger.

It's all about marketing. Nobody cares about quality.

I would have to agree with you to an extent.

Never got into Stella enough to have an opinion, I have drunk it, can't say I thought it was 'skunky' just not my taste.

I have drunk Budweiser, about as much as Stella, not my taste, far too bland for me, nothing special compared to a good English Bitter......served warm.

Unless Coca cola had spent fortunes on advertising it wouldn't be found in every corner of the planet, it is nothing special, it refreshes you when you need a cold drink on a hot day and nothing else is available.

Many companies would like the turnover Coke Cola spend on advertising alone

America has spray cheese In a can.

Apparently It sells well there.

EASY CHEESE: Make Anytime Cheesy Time – NabiscoWorld

Hope British Chav's don't hear about It.... They'll want It