In Reply to: Sure posted by LWR on March 15, 2007 at 18:58:31:
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.Just because I have heard someone's song, and maybe even liked it, that certainly does not mean that I would consider them to be a legend.
(If so, then wouldn't Britney Spears be an even bigger legend? Damn, that hurts to even write that!)Nope, sorry, can't buy it.
To me, a legend is someone who has a substantial body of work that will be remembered for decades, at least.
Britney won't be.
(Thank God!)
Neil, maybe, but not by hundreds of millions.
To me, the only few who would be considered to be in that catagory would be: First and foremost, Frank Sinatra, followed closely by The Beatles, and then in no particular order, The Stones, The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, etc...There are lots of groups and singers that I like, some a lot, that I doubt will be considered to be "legendary", merely because the vast majority of the population will never remember them. Heck, even Buffalo Springfield would probably fall into that catagory, because you could probably play any of their songs for the common man, and he might even remember having heard it before, but he would have forgotten the name of the group.
Legend's names are not forgotten, IMHO.Anyway, keep up the good work of tweaking Duilawyer's nose, and while you're at it, have a go at Yech, as he is fun to provoke too!
:-)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Sure - Raiderman 07:43:24 03/16/07 (1)
- Let's call it 'around 99million' - LWR 07:48:33 03/16/07 (0)