Kinks...hijinks ?

["Kevin O'Neal" <kevinandt@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From: Marcus Surrealius
>Subject: Re: Stones vs Who vs Kinks
>
>> 1971 being when WN was released.
>
>WN is not the best Who album.

Your opinion.

>Why do you think the
>best Kinks album has to be the same year as WN?

I don't.
It's difficult to debate with you because you clip so little of the previous
text.
I wasn't saying we compare best vs. best in the same year, I was making the
point that by 1971 (WN) the Kinks were no longer on The Who's level (if you
want to insist they were "for a while").

Here's that text from previous post:

>>>The Kinks were certainly on the Who level for
>>>a while.
>>
>>Maybe before 1971.
>>After that, no way.

Which you obviously agree with considering you posted this about the Kinks
after 1971:

>> Everybody's in Showbiz ('72)
>> Preservation Act I ('73)
>> Preservation Act II ('74)
>
>See, I was very disappointed in this era and I
>CERTAINLY wouldn't recommend them

>> Now, please, are you comparing *any* album by The
>> Kinks to Who's Next?
>
>Sure! Lola vs The Powerman Etc. for one!

Ohhhh Kay.

>> Again, this isn't about what you or I feel, or *our*
>> opinions.
>
>I guess that's why you said ICSFM was better.

Just because I included my opinion, doesn't mean my opinion is the point.
And, I thought *you* were the one who said ICSFM was better.
What you talkin' about, Willis?

>> It's about mass popularity.
>
>Then (again) the Eagles rule.

Right.  If you insist.

>Sorry, I can't go with that argument.
<snip>
>The Eagles are definitely played on the radio more
>than The Who.

I can't make that statement.
And, I've written three times now that radio play, exposure via the airways
is just one meter.
It does have it's value.

>For that matter, Kinks songs have been
>used on The Sopranos, and Who songs have not! Ha-HA!

I don't need to list The Who's TV and Movie accomplishments.


> *couldn't* write anthems?
>
>The Who did no
>traditional Rock N Roll songs. Does that mean they
>couldn't?

It was a smart-ass reply.
I have no idea.

>> Beatles are perhaps even greater in the public's
>> mass opinion than The Who.
>
>The mass opinion is worth what you paid to get it.

I love the Beatles.  A whole *bunch* of people love the Beatles.
Mass opinion, means mass appeal, doesn't it?
Isn't that the point of the game?

The potential of a new song by Lennon and McCartney (if that could still be
possible) would far out weigh the potential for a song by just about any
other band in the world.

There is the potential for greatness to loyal fans.
But, there is also the potential for greatness to man kind.

>Zep was in the second wave, with Cream and Hendrix.

You mean the wave that completely blew the doors off music?  The wave The
Who continued on?

>> In the UK, perhaps.
>
>ALSO in the US.

Ah well.  I had a 50/50 shot.

>Billboard says these are the top
>five of each group:

What do you mean by "group" ?

>You don't really listen to the radio, do you?

Radio?  What's that?

>> In no way do I feel their best is even close to the
>> best of The Who
>
>Well, sorry, you're wrong about that.

You can't say "I'm wrong about that".
It's an opinion between fans.  That's why I wrote "feel"...as in my opinion.

But, beyond that, we can look at popularity beyond the loyal fans.

And, I'm sorry that I simply can not say that The Kinks are more important,
or better, or have grander songs than The Who.
Are others really saying that?

We're going round in circles

>I'm sorry you
>don't appreciate The Kinks, but that doesn't make
>their music any less great or important.

This is where, again, I state that it's not about my opinion.

Kevin in VT