Quote:
Originally Posted by newyawka
First of all, who the **** is this Duffy? I never said anything about a "Duffy." I said "Lady GaGa has won over my heart." And to the person who responded to me liking Duffy after the original poster of the whole "Duffy" comment, maybe if you took the time to read my post in it's entirety before commenting you wouldn't have made that comment and sounded like a dumbass who has no idea what's being discussed.
|
You don't have to call another ledgie a dumbass.
Quote:
|
Thirdly, the fact that I misspelled irrelevant is your main argument? Why did you even bother to post?
|
Don't worry about that. Bad grammar & rotten spelling are hallmarks of the fans, & anyone who calls you on it (except me) is bound to need a little editing, too.
Quote:
|
And finally, I was not dissing Stevie Nicks because honestly, it's Stevie Nicks who's still kept the band from becoming a total bore.
|
Some of these guys think Stevie Nicks is the one who MAKES the band a total bore.
I think this notion of relevance (& irrelevance) needs defining. In most contexts, it seems to mean nothing more than marketing mumbo-jumbo -- popularity measured in sales figures, & only in current sales figures, at that. Only here & there (for example, in Gerald's post) is relevance discussed in terms of artistic influence or even more general ideas as status in popular culture. In that sense, Fleetwood's relevance is higher than most of their contemporaries in the late 1970s but not so high as, say, the Stones, the Who, U2, Dylan, Mitchell, & the other seminal figures in rock & pre-rock.