Posts by Larry Fox5

Kevin Cox said:Personally, I lean more toward Beethoven. There's a certain power and intensity to his work. I guess that's just my taste.
Though, it's also great to unwind with some Chopin.

As for the idea that Mozart doesn't require "prerequisites" to be appreciated... I'm not so sure about that. You hear melodies from his compositions everywhere in American pop culture, but would the average person in the States actually sit down with the intention of listening to classical music?

It's all subjective. Mozart is brilliant, sure, but he's just not my vibe. It’s not like I won’t listen to him, but if I have the choice, I’d much rather dive into Bach, Liszt, Rachmaninoff, or even something like Copland.

Just finished watching that decent little doc about Gazza—honestly, it’s got some pretty cool deep dives into his life... mostly just him venting or hearing stuff from guys he played with, like Gary Lineker.

If you actually care about American soccer, you really need to check this out. 🙂

Alex Brown50 said:It makes zero sense trying to judge classical music and rock by the same yardstick. One is all about technical mastery and sophistication—while rock is basically just a Dionysian trance for the masses... But that doesn't make it any less "valuable"... obviously both genres borrow bits from each other.

Honestly, those shredder guitarists in rock don't really do it for me... I just don't see the point. Guys like Bob Dylan or Leonard Cohen are in their own league entirely—they're more like poets than pop stars. Even then, you can skip through a lot of their stuff, which is the downside of mainstream music—there’s no quality control when everything is driven by pure instinct.

What do you mean you don't see it? The point is the music! It’s simple—just like Bob Dylan was a legend because of his lyrics, other musicians are legends because of the actual sound, and the words don't even matter. Even with Jimi, the lyrics were pretty basic, but he pulled more out of that guitar than Dylan ever did from a pen. You could say the same about Santana—it's basically just him singing "listen to my rhythm, baby" over and over, but man, that composition is killer.

Why would Santana even need lyrics for a track like "Oye Como Va"—when the music itself says everything that needs saying?...

Look at him go—defending Dylan like his life depends on it. Whatever, let him have it... 🤣

Obviously, Bob is in a league of his own—no debate there. It just ticked me off how vague you were being—you basically pushed the actual music to the side instead of focusing on it.

To me, Dylan was always like Leonard Cohen—just someone who uses music as a vehicle to get the lyrics out. A guy with incredible poetry—except one grew up right here in the States where he could become a legend, while the other was stuck in some backwater nowhere that barely even understood him...

Matthew Young35 said:There’s something truly captivating about the way Dylan delivers a story through song. Take "Hurricane," for instance.

That’s easily one of my favorite Dylan tracks.

Matthew Anderson4 said:Oh, for sure. If you look at the pieces individually, Dylan's strength is strictly songwriting and melody. You won't find him on any "Top Vocalists" or "Top Guitarists" lists. But that doesn't touch his legacy. Nobody's claiming he's a virtuoso. The idea that he's the greatest solo artist in modern music is basically an axiom at this point. He earned that spot. (Where are all those mediocre players who actually had better technique but zero impact?) Great artists have always been storytellers. From Homer to now, it's the same thing. Dylan is a storyteller; the music is just the vehicle. And what a storyteller. His influence reaches way beyond just music. There hasn't been an American artist in the last 50 years who hasn't admitted being inspired by him. When you break him down into parts, you see the magic: the whole is way greater than the sum of its parts. That’s the wild part. Even if he isn't a top-tier guitarist or singer compared to his peers, the sheer quality of his body of work puts him right up there with the Beatles. It makes sense when you think about him stating he sold his soul to the devil. Dylan is sitting way up in the pantheon of true greats.

Look, I just can't get behind that. Music isn't just some "tool"—it’s at least as important as the lyrics, if you ask me... actually, it's more important. What about all the instrumental symphonies? Classical, jazz, folk, rock...

By your "formula," guys like Mozart, Bach, Haydn, Beethoven & stuff wouldn't even count as great artists—even though people were writing full symphonies for orchestras and scores for fifty different instruments. You basically can't even compose that stuff unless you have perfect pitch...

Walter Grant5 said:Just one more thing, brightpilot6. These kinds of debates never end well. Ego won't let people just disagree; it's always gotta go to extremes. You could throw any argument at them—even if I were channeling some high-brow critic like Roger Ebert himself—and nothing would stick. Everyone’s positions are already set in stone; we're all just going through the motions of trading blows. I hate it, but it feels like it's just hardwired this way. I want a stalemate. I want to wrap up these types of discussions—since this isn't just mindless trolling or messing around—the way they work in the real world. One guy says he loves it, the other says he hates it. How? Why? They vent a little, dig a bit deeper (like we do), and then it's over. Just "Alright, whatever, man. You want another drink?"

I don't feel like getting into the weeds of what "getting specific" actually means. You have to start believing in axioms. Not every truth can be proven. Explaining that takes too much effort, and it requires even more patience from the person on the other side.

But honestly, at its core, it's pretty damn simple.

It always comes back to that desperate need to be right—especially when we're talking about stuff as subjective as music or movies... just constant proving points for no reason...

Nobody’s willing to budge an inch—everyone just keeps trying to shove their own "absolute truth" down our throats... and newsflash, that kind of thing doesn't even exist...

Matthew Anderson4 said:Ever actually heard Dylan when he sings like a normal person?

Matthew Anderson4 said:This one hits way too hard:

Knopfler on guitar, Dylan on keys (might’ve even been Mick Taylor on this version, honestly can’t tell).

Matthew Anderson4 said:Dylan’s whole thing is how he nails every single note just right for the lyrics, like in this one. Sure, he doesn't have the best voice on the planet, but honestly, nobody else could pull off a song this perfectly as a complete package. That imperfect voice and how he works it—that’s his X factor.

Take this performance, for example. Gives me chills every single time. He tells the entire story within the first word he says.

Matthew Anderson4 said:Yeah, what Larry Fox5 said about Like a Rolling Stone? Spot on. There are definitely "better" versions out there. If some math nerd tried to analyze every one of Bob’s takes, his might not even crack the top 10. You could nitpick forever. But none of them hit quite as hard as his does. Same goes for All Along the Watchtower. Jimi took that track and turned it into an absolute rock anthem. But man, there's a reason Moore had Dylan's version in mind when he referenced it in Watchmen. It's hard to put into words, but I feel it deep down. Listening to Jimi's version just hits different—nothing else gets close, no matter how much you're vibing.

I don't care if he hits a few flat or sharp notes here and there—honestly, I value raw energy and actual emotion over perfect pitch any day... It’s about how a performer connects with the crowd! Take someone like Bruce Springsteen, for example—he might miss a note once in a while, but he absolutely lights up every stadium he steps into. Same goes for Bono from U2...
Look, maybe Dylan’s vibe just hits you differently because of his delivery—I get it—but even if we take the vocals out of the equation, the instrumentation is just... thin. Seriously, it's super lacking.

Not sure if you play guitar or whatever, but his sound is just plain basic—and honestly, I bet he doesn't even care that much since his whole thing was always about the lyrics anyway.

Just compare his guitar work to someone like Beck. It’s night and day.

vivideagle7 said:I don't know, man. To me, every cover is literally half as good as the original. Like, the only exception is Hendrix. Everything else just misses the mark.

Yeah, true—but the question is just which dimension we're talking about. Half the time Dylan is totally faking it, playing like he couldn't care less, and his voice? Absolute garbage. My old mentor always said he was a brilliant songwriter, sure, but a pathetic musician and singer at best...

Between Seal & Jeff Beck, Jimi & BB King, and even the Stones on *Stripped*, there are plenty of versions that are five classes better than the original.

Jessica Gonzalez said:I guess box office numbers don't really tell the whole story. It’s probably hard to make fair comparisons since today's massive blockbusters pull revenue from all over the globe, especially from emerging markets that have only recently gotten modern theaters to screen these films. Comparing something like an "Avengers" movie to anything else feels a bit silly, even if they do break records. Personally, I find it more reliable when a group of critics puts together a review or maybe even a ranked list. Of course, people will never agree on those lists, but they can help highlight certain trends. It seems like the big Hollywood studios aren't really making classics anymore; they just seem focused on making billions by selling junk.

Everything you said is true, I just want to point out that cash and viewership are exact metrics—unlike subjective vibes.

Even Rolling Stone gathered a bunch of "music experts" to publish their list of greatest songs ever, and they put "Like A Rolling Stone" at number one, which makes zero sense... It's not even because the song is bad or because those people are biased, it's just that as a composition, it doesn't pass any actual test. You have to look at a track as a whole, and from a musical standpoint, it's below average.

C-F-G Em-Dm........ total nonsense.

The fact that every single cover of that song is better than the original tells you everything you need to know about how musically weak it is.

Trying to rank these things is just impossible—and honestly, trying to even agree on what the criteria should be? Forget about it...

It’s one thing if we're talking hard metrics like viewership numbers or actual box office revenue........., but it's a whole different story when you assemble some "panel of five experts" who sit in their ivory towers making subjective judgments about whether a movie is "good." Even people in their own industry call out those critiques for being nothing more than personal opinions.

Movies like Rain Man, Papillon, Sin City, or Fargo......... they're all absolute classics that should have been on that list for a dozen different reasons, yet they aren't.

Just look at this guy from Washington... 🤦

I'm not even gonna bring up Interstellar since I haven't seen it—but seriously, brightpilot6, you're swinging from one extreme to the other and now you're trying to act like Odyssey didn't matter...

For god's sake, the movie was made over 50 years ago without any of the crazy computer simulations they have now, and even then, it was the first... the absolute pioneer for every modern sci-fi flick out there.

vivideagle7 said:It’s nowhere near a masterpiece for me. I’m not saying it’s a bad movie—the concept itself is actually pretty solid—but there are so many rough edges. Between the lead actor's performance, the weak emotional beats, and all the clichés, it struggles. Even the ending felt off; you have this potentially great story that just collapses into some silly action sequence at the finish line.

Look, I'm not even going to bring up the fact that it won four Oscars or that it's sitting in the IMDb Top 20 best movies ever—because you can always argue those are subjective ratings, or that it's just "mainstream," or whatever other excuse people use to dismiss them.

But you cannot deny the reality that The Matrix is a Matrix milestone Sci-Fi, and honestly, it's about way more than just the special effects. The story itself left such a massive footprint that the term "Matrix" became shorthand for the total illusion of the world we live in.

Back to the movie itself. That "bullet time" thing? At the time they were filming, it was absolutely groundbreaking stuff—totally unheard of—and since then, it's become a basic standard in thousands of movies released after The Matrix. The style, the vibe, the whole spirit of this film... it's a cult classic for a reason.

If I had to choose between the red pill or the blue pill right now, I’d probably grab the blue one just so I could experience this movie all over again. 🙂

vivideagle7 said:A good idea alone doesn't make a movie great. Take The Matrix or Inception, for example; both have incredible concepts, but the execution can be hit or miss depending on who you ask.

I honestly don't even know what to say to you... The first Matrix is a total Masterpiece—you can love or hate that kind of vibe, fine—but calling it a poorly made movie is just straight-up insanity...

brightpilot6 said:Thanks, guys 👍

And honestly, being 45 is already starting to feel heavy on my shoulders 😢

hm, 🤔

Not just the same generation, but we were basically born days apart—at this rate, I'll probably end up being the one teaching you soccer tricks back in kindergarten... 🤣

We always suspected cancer—tough on the outside, but soft as mush once you get inside.

The only real weak spot is that white smudge on the armor plating.

The conclusion is just wild.

If American voters actually picked anyone remotely close to this PDF football nonsense—Karamarko & co.—the Republican Party probably wouldn't even clear the election threshold... 🤣

Keith Miller30 said:How am I even supposed to respond to that? You’re making assumptions without any actual basis. Honestly, the only way to settle this is if we happen to run into each other in person, so I can personally demonstrate whether my current financial situation would ever necessitate defending someone online just for a paycheck.

I could easily cast that same shadow over anyone representing the opposing side, but frankly, I don't have the heart to be quite that malicious or twisted.

Give me a break. 🤣

Come on, just admit you're getting some kind of kickback from defending him so aggressively. Honestly, I doubt anyone would even call you out on it... 😉

wiredfalcon2 said:There’s really only one fight that actually matters, and that’s the struggle between the haves and the have-nots. Everything else? Just fairy tales for kids.

So, how exactly do you define "rich" and "poor"?

I mean, seriously... how much money do you actually need to have before you start seeing everyone else through that lens?