Louisa

Pub culture is alive and kicking in the suburbs and beyond, it's just gentrification has wiped out most traditional inner London boozers, because, you know, working class people can like it or lump it, who cares if they don't have anywhere to go for a drink locally. Sell up and move out, this area isn't yours anymore. As long as the wealthy newbies have somewhere to take their prams and eat poncy food that's all that really matters. Now put those pickled eggs in the bin and pass me those stuffed olives, this chateauneuf du papp tastes shit without them. Louisa.

Bring back smoking and bring back the jukebox. I don't wanna go into a boozer sat next to a load of yuppies with toddlers running a mock, drinking, eating and more than likely bragging about one thing or another. A pub also needs a dart board and a pool table. Long live the Man of Kent and Pyro, the last remaining bastions of working class pub culture. Louisa.

ED is boring now. The excitement of the earlier years of blow-in culture brought with it some sort of optimism and a nice healthy mix of old and new. Now the yuppies have taken over, all we are left with is bland soulless gastro pubs aimed primarily at people under 40(ish). Louisa.

A lovely little article in the Southwark News tells the story of the Jones & Higgins worker who was charmed by Bowie on a visit to Peckham in the mid 70's. A nice memory with a local connection. http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/when-granny-met-bowie/ Louisa.

I recently went to a fish and chip shop in the West Country which had been heavily recommended on Trip Advisor, in fact it had exclusively positive reviews. On arrival the elderly owner was keen to shove people through the conveyor belt process by handing you the menu whilst waiting close to the door. Then demanding your order within moments of taking your seat. The restaurant was busy, and it was towards the end of the summer season. The chips were anaemic on arrival and they even charged you for sauces (which is a real annoyance of mine). My question is, how heavily can we rely on Trip Advisor for providing honest and fair reviews? Are there processes in place to monitor who is reviewing for example? I mean it could well be certain businesses are giving themselves positive reviews to entice customers. What does everyone think? Louisa.

Marcus, How about a reference to Peckham's 'barrow boy' era which was mostly cockney and working class throughout most of the 20th century. I would advise popping to Manzes Pie and Eel house in Peckham where you will find numerous contributors. The whole Del Boy thing wasn't a million miles from the truth back in the 60's and 70's. Louisa.

Absolutely Otta. No one wants a repeat of the Diana scenario. And can you imagine the social media grief overdrive when our monarch eventually passes? We can all be respectful without being disproportionately over familiar and disingenuous in our 'grief'. Louisa.

When anyone died it's a tragic loss to someone, and empathy surely pays a big part in sympathising for something we can all relate to. Again, never really got the whole Bowie music thing, but unlike the Beatles, he was a low key individualist who never really conformed to the main stream (apart from that wayward period of the 1980's). He was influential, but arguably not mainstream enough to impact upon the direction music went in long term. Louisa.

By all means attack question and ridicule someone who has political and public influence. That surely comes with the territory. But for the life of me, why would anyone bother to talk about an older woman who happens to have zero influence on public life, and concentrate negativity on her for simply finding love in later life. I just do not understand why it's relevant. Louisa.

Honestly malumbu, this person got her David's mixed up and we went from some sort of grief (?) from Angie Bowie, to a a bizarre moment where Darren Day is checking to make sure David Gest isn't dead in bed? Louisa.

Well what a shambles tonight's episode of Celebrity Big Brother was. David Bowie's estranged ex-wife was informed of his death and the aftermath was exposed for all to see in a shambolic hour long episode in which she confides in a fellow house mate Tiffany about the news (who I've never even heard of?), who in turn misunderstands Angie and assumes David Gest (another fellow housemate of Liza Minelli marriage fame) has died in the diary room. She runs and tells everyone else who goes crazy and to top it all off, Darren Day (famous for?) goes to check on David Gest (who was sleeping) to see if he is dead? Louisa.

She did a great documentary series recently travelling across America and I really enjoyed it. She's not had the easy time of it in the press over the years and if she finds happiness who is anyone to judge? I don't understand why people are cynical. If a younger male celebrity got with a wealthier older woman, I bet we wouldn't have half the negative comments, and as for the reference to "skank" and "gold digger", disgraceful. Louisa.

I really like Jerry Hall. Why can't people be free to find love without everyone being so cynical all the time? She deserves some happiness after all these years. Good on her I say. Older women don't have to be left on the shelf. Louisa.

I've been awake all night Sue. Louisa.

The Gowlett is a good shout for music/food/atmosphere etc Louisa.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Louisa Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I thought this thread was 'unpopular' music > > opinion > > That's you problem right there. Saying the Beatles > weren't influential or innovative isn't 'an > unpopular music opinion' - it's just plain daft. > > You can hate them to death but there's no argument > to be made here, except for the sake of it (i.e. > maverick ninny) As I stated earlier *Bob*, even if what you say is true (eg "maverick ninny"), who are you or anyone else to state what the rules are for disliking a particular band and discarding their influence, on a thread which is specifically designed for unpopular music opinion? A bizarre response which sounds suspiciously like goading ("for the sake of it" to quote your last message). Happy new year btw :) Louisa.

I thought this thread was 'unpopular' music opinion, as Otta rightly says. And who wrote the rules on the workings of what should and shouldn't be said on this thread *Bob*, if as you rightly point out musical taste is subjective? Or is this just another way of having a dig at me for the sake of it? Louisa.

The key point in your message foxy is arguably. Because, arguably if it wasn't for Bill Hayley's massive commercial success with the 1955 song "Rock around the clock" Elvis, The Beatles and everything that's happened since wouldn't exist. I'm sure kids nowadays could cite any number of influences on musical styles, all of which didn't really have a starting point, as influences come and go over many decades. Louisa.

But every musical genre of every era influences someone, that's just how music works! The Beatles loved Elvis, he didn't write a single song in his entire career. Definitely a performer, but not a writer. His innovation came from his hips, and in turn he was influenced by blues, country, gospel singers of his childhood. They were influenced by people from their era and so on. You can't use this argument of citing every single influence on ONE band. Influences come from many quarters. Louisa.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s fine to ?not like The Beatles?. You can > probably back yourself into the tight parking spot > of not liking all 275 songs.. if you?re really > determined to get a park. You can think Paul a > cock, hate John?s voice, sneer at Ringo?s > drumming, say George is the best of ?em (a > textbook one there) - but if you?re seriously > doing them down on innovation and influence then > you?re either squarely in Moron Territory or it?s > back to the maverick ninny. > > Let?s hope it?s just the latter. Like everyone who worships at the temple of Beatle perfection, you are blinded by the reality. 'beatlemania' was a manufactured foot-up which put an average band who wrote their own songs on a pedestal. If you're going to praise their 'innovation' and 'influence' you perhaps want to praise their management and record label of the the time, and not any specific uniqueness about them as a band IMO, which would and was matched by numerous bands coming out of the UK back then. Louisa.

Maxxi I have no reason to draw attention to myself. Just because a few die hard Beatles fans take umbrage to someone daring to question the holy mantra of the Beatles and their so called influence on popular culture, that's not my problem. No one should feel bad for piping up and saying actually they weren't all that, and have been excessively overrated for decades. I find it highly amusing that Beatles fans can't just take it on the chin, some people didn't like them, get over it! Louisa.

HonaloochieB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > WHAT? A distance before and a distance after? > Surely you know that's garbage. It's about > context, The Beatles were a time and place that > made a huge difference to pop music. Doubt they > knew they were doing it and they didn't set out to > do it, they did it. Nothing to do with 'different > generations'. You miss my point HonaloochieB. What im saying is they didn't necessarily make the difference you imply. They were on a par with other acts at the time coming out of Liverpool and other working class communities across this country, who ALL were influenced by early 50's Rock N Roll pioneers coming out of the states. They took the mantle on along with numerous other bands, and collectively influenced pop music later on. It wasn't some exclusive Beatles influence as you suggest. > > Not know who The Beatles are? Utterly daft, in > their pomp they were better known than the Popes, > the Prime Ministers, the Presidents, Mott The > Hoople and Miss World. Yes they were, but ask a kid nowadays who the Beatles are or their influence on popular culture and most kids wouldn't know or care, let alone be able to name a song. Louisa.

It's not 'another' (which one?) 'overated' pop group, it's THE pop group. Unless you at the least acknowlege that then it's just a born in the 50's pub ranter. Prefer the fackin' Stones, Me!! Who says they are "THE pop group"? I think if you ask people before the era and a distance after th3 Beatles era, most people would beg to disagree with you (if indeed they even know or care who the Beatles are!). I'm sure if my mother was asked about them she would say it was a bloody noise (different generations different opinions). My point about them being fortunate was that they happened to be in the right place at the right time in terms of publicity and everything else that adds to the ingredients of success. IMO their talent (which was undeniable but on a par with many, many other bands coming out of this country at that time), was just one minor aspect of their success and hence why I believe them to be vastly overrated. Louisa.

Clapton, the faces, the kinks. They were all doing the same thing, better in my opinion. And yet all the hype was about the Beatles? Paul had decent vocals (nothing out the ordinary) and was a basic bass player. Ringo basic/average drummer with no vocals. And as for John, yes he wrote some decent stuff early on but it soon faded. I must admit I did like George Harrison's solo stuff though. Louisa.

Clearly neither do you if you think the Beatles were so great and not influenced by existing artists. Louisa.