The PLAY MINNESOTA Thread!

AndySlash

vant0037 said:

and solo Paul/Wings is much more my taste live than anything the Beatles ever did. (Yes, I just said that

evenflow82

Lennon was the real talent in the Beatles (yes, I just said that).

vant0037

AndySlash said:

vant0037 said:

and solo Paul/Wings is much more my taste live than anything the Beatles ever did. (Yes, I just said that

What can I say? I think the Beatles are vastly overrated to begin with...(yes, I just said that!)...

But, all that aside, it was a great show.

Dirty Frank Z

George Harrison bump!

pjhawks

so more questions for the Minnesota folks from someone coming into the town for the show.

1 - is the Holiday Inn that is supposedly right across the street from the Xcel Center a good hotel to stay at?

2 - good bars within walking distance of the Xcel Center?

3 - Good area in Minneapolis for Saturday night life? good area with cool bars and food? easy to get cabs to and from St, Paul?

4 - best place to watch NFL football on sunday afternoon?

vant0037

pjhawks said:

so more questions for the Minnesota folks from someone coming into the town for the show.

1 - is the Holiday Inn that is supposedly right across the street from the Xcel Center a good hotel to stay at? --haven't stayed there since the State High School tournament, like, 15 years ago and it's been renovated since. It'll be good because of it's location.

2 - good bars within walking distance of the Xcel Center?
Yes, see below. Pub crawl being planned for Saturday night.

3 - Good area in Minneapolis for Saturday night life? good area with cool bars and food? easy to get cabs to and from St, Paul? Minneapolis has lots of good night life spots (NE MPLS, Uptown etc, but again, there will be a pub crawl Saturday night, starting at one end of west 7th (near the X) and ending at Amsterdam Bar (location of preparty on Sunday).

4 - best place to watch NFL football on sunday afternoon?

Lots of places will gave games on. Again, just about any of the bars on West 7th will have games on. Not sure which ones have NFL Sunday Ticket, but my experience is most bars do nowadays.

Hope that helps.

pjhawks

vant0037 said:

pjhawks said:

so more questions for the Minnesota folks from someone coming into the town for the show.

1 - is the Holiday Inn that is supposedly right across the street from the Xcel Center a good hotel to stay at? --haven't stayed there since the State High School tournament, like, 15 years ago and it's been renovated since. It'll be good because of it's location.

2 - good bars within walking distance of the Xcel Center?
Yes, see below. Pub crawl being planned for Saturday night.

3 - Good area in Minneapolis for Saturday night life? good area with cool bars and food? easy to get cabs to and from St, Paul? Minneapolis has lots of good night life spots (NE MPLS, Uptown etc, but again, there will be a pub crawl Saturday night, starting at one end of west 7th (near the X) and ending at Amsterdam Bar (location of preparty on Sunday).

4 - best place to watch NFL football on sunday afternoon?

Lots of places will gave games on. Again, just about any of the bars on West 7th will have games on. Not sure which ones have NFL Sunday Ticket, but my experience is most bars do nowadays.

Hope that helps.

cool thanks. helps a lot.

adoffin

any particular team you are a fan of? Alary's in downtown St. Paul (long walk from Holiday Inn, but doable) is a Bears bar on Sunday afternoons and there is excellent eye candy for staff. But yes, there will be plenty of other bars on W. 7th that should have all the games too. If you are planning on going to Minneapolis at any point, there is a train (Green Line) that runs between the two cities that will get you there and back in about 45 minutes each way.

pjhawks

adoffin said:

any particular team you are a fan of? Alary's in downtown St. Paul (long walk from Holiday Inn, but doable) is a Bears bar on Sunday afternoons and there is excellent eye candy for staff. But yes, there will be plenty of other bars on W. 7th that should have all the games too. If you are planning on going to Minneapolis at any point, there is a train (Green Line) that runs between the two cities that will get you there and back in about 45 minutes each way.

Eagles fan but they have a bye that weekend so really just relaxing watching. would like to see if vikings fans are crazy as us Northeast folks.

mcgruff10

Only singles left on tm as of this morning. Place is gonna be rocking!

Dirty Frank Z

McGoverns is the best place for football. It's a Steelers bar, but that's usually just the upstairs portion

evenflow82

No show is ever sold out. I'm sure their will be ticket scalpers selling for an arm and a leg outside the venue. So sad that some fans have to spend that much to see a show.

AndySlash

pjhawks said:

1 - is the Holiday Inn that is supposedly right across the street from the Xcel Center a good hotel to stay at?

well, you can't beat the location. it's a holiday inn; it won't be super fancy but it will suffice.

pjhawks said:

2 - good bars within walking distance of the Xcel Center?

plenty of them. there's a good one in the liffey, an irish pub, right below the holiday inn, even.

pjhawks said:

3 - Good area in Minneapolis for Saturday night life? good area with cool bars and food? easy to get cabs to and from St, Paul?

as someone else said, the green line train runs between mpls and st paul. take it to minneapolis and get off at the warehouse/hennepin stop and you're right in the middle of downtown minneapolis nightlife.

pjhawks said:

4 - best place to watch NFL football on sunday afternoon?

mcgovern's would be fine and just a couple blocks from the holiday inn.

pjhawks said:

Eagles fan but they have a bye that weekend so really just relaxing watching. would like to see if vikings fans are crazy as us Northeast folks.

as someone who has experienced tailgating in the sports complex there in philly, no, no they are not.

AndySlash

vant0037 said:

What can I say? I think the Beatles are vastly overrated to begin with...(yes, I just said that!)...

evenflow82

The Beatles knocked down so many doors in pop music, to say they are overrated is borderline not an opinion but a lie. :-)

Dirty Frank Z

I share Vant's opinion. They are overrated.

vant0037

evenflow82 said:

The Beatles knocked down so many doors in pop music, to say they are overrated is borderline not an opinion but a lie. :-)

Here's what I ask: did THEY knock down doors that would've have been knocked down otherwise? Consider the times they were in...the 60s were an era of "death" in so many ways, that if not for them, isn't a fair statement to think that someone else would've/could've done whatever they did? The era oozed explosion, rejection, revolution...at some point, wouldn't someone else have been the thing that they were? I think it's certainly possible, and if that's the case, it makes me wonder if it was anything special that they did, or whether they were the lucky four who were annointed as such because they were doing what they were doing at the right time.

I come from a belief that music is art and as such, there are no awards for art. I believe it's all perspective and it's all context. When I state that I like the Stones far more than I do the Beatles, its from a place of opinion. Invariably, I get the response that I did here from Andy and evenflow82, which is disbelief that someone could think the Beatles are overrated. I never hear what their tangible legacy is, except for that nebulous phrasing of "knocking down pop doors" etc. That's fine, but again, I'll submit that its possible that they were knocking down doors that would've been knocked down anyway.

Ultimately, the Beatles are beloved for their sound. That's great. But we need to be clear on our terms. Are we affording enshrined places in music history based simply on whether a lot of people like(d) them? Or did they do something more that warrants their legendary statuses? The latter is what I'm referring to, because if all it takes is a lot of fans and high record sales, get ready for a lot of new "legends" from this generation.

So I'm not doubting that I'm in the minority when I say they are overrated. What I mean by that however is that I think there's a good majority of people that conflate the two and presume their legend based on the fact that they were the biggest band in the world for two decades. There's a difference between calling someone a legend because they sell a lot of records and calling someone a legend because they did something truly innovative. I question whether the Beatles and only the Beatles - in that timultuous cultural era - could've done whatever it is their credited for doing.

I question whether we could ever prove a positive (they are or aren't overrated) when talking about art and long-gone art at that, which is why what I've said here is opinion, and not a lie.

vant0037

Hey...was that a vant-rant?

Dirty Frank Z

How come the standard view is: no one can criticize the Beatles without first contending they are the greatest ever.

I think that's bs. I don't care for them. I don't care (know) about what they "broke down." And I'm sick of having to defend that opinion.

AndySlash

i swear we've had this conversation before, and i realize i am not going to change your opinion and arguing with you about this is a fruitless endeavor. but, man, you listen to what they were doing in the mid-to-late 60s and put it in context with everything else that was going on around them, then i just don't see how you CAN'T say they are one of the most influential bands ever, and deserving of all of the accolades they get, no matter how much it is. NOBODY did what the beatles did BEFORE the beatles did it. this isn't hyperbole. they started out playing the game, and i don't think anyone will say the early boy band beatles is their best work by any means. popular, yes. groundbreaking, no. but once they started doing their own thing, they changed everything. feedback on a record? the beatles did it first. recording innovations, like backwards vocals and double tracked audio? the beatles did it first. innovating the promotional music video? the beatles did it first. not to mention the actual songs they produced, which sounded like nothing else ever recorded, and gave all other musicians an idea of what could be accomplished in recorded music. and all of this was accomplished in 7 years.

i'm not a huge beatles mark, and there was a time i felt the way you did, but over time i realized i was wrong. maybe someday you will, too. that's all i'll say. otherwise we'll just be running in circles.

AndySlash

Dirty Frank Z said:

How come the standard view is: no one can criticize the Beatles without first contending they are the greatest ever.

I think that's bs. I don't care for them. I don't care (know) about what they "broke down." And I'm sick of having to defend that opinion.

it's ok to not like their music. that's not the issue. i won't ever fault someone for not liking their music. but there just isn't any way i could ever say the beatles are overrated, even if i hated every single thing they put out.

vant0037

AndySlash said:

i swear we've had this conversation before, and i realize i am not going to change your opinion and arguing with you about this is a fruitless endeavor. but, man, you listen to what they were doing in the mid-to-late 60s and put it in context with everything else that was going on around them, then i just don't see how you CAN'T say they are one of the most influential bands ever, and deserving of all of the accolades they get, no matter how much it is. NOBODY did what the beatles did BEFORE the beatles did it. this isn't hyperbole. they started out playing the game, and i don't think anyone will say the early boy band beatles is their best work by any means. popular, yes. groundbreaking, no. but once they started doing their own thing, they changed everything. feedback on a record? the beatles did it first. recording innovations, like backwards vocals and double tracked audio? the beatles did it first. innovating the promotional music video? the beatles did it first. not to mention the actual songs they produced, which sounded like nothing else ever recorded, and gave all other musicians an idea of what could be accomplished in recorded music. and all of this was accomplished in 7 years.

i'm not a huge beatles mark, and there was a time i felt the way you did, but over time i realized i was wrong. maybe someday you will, too. that's all i'll say. otherwise we'll just be running in circles.

See? This is what I needed. An argument, that while I'm not sure I entirely agree, is at least principled. Too often we let personal taste inform broader claims about where a band lies historically, and I think you've done a fair job articulating the broader point. Nice work Andy.

vant0037

I still think we owe it to the Beatles, whether we're defending or impugning their legacy, to decide how much weight to give the context and times they lived in as a factor in what they did. Does it matter more or less that, although they might have been the first to do something, there quite possibly could've been some other group that would've come along and done what they did, given the turbulence of those times (artistically)?

I ask because:

I don't think there would've been another Michael Jackson.
I don't think there would've been another Bob Dylan.

I think that adds to their legacies and greatness.

Any other examples?

Do the Beatles fit that statement? That's what I'm wrestling with. (again, I realize this is impossible to conclusively argue, but fun nonetheless)

Dirty Frank Z

I'd hesitate in claiming the Beatles were the first to do "blah blah" considering it's impossible to pinpoint the first time something was truly done in any genre of music. They very might have been the first to find success with something but the history of music is far to vast and so obscure at times. Memphis blues? Delta blues? That music had plenty of distortion. "Rocket 88" is credited as the first rock n roll song. It's distorted.

evenflow82

Whatever your opinion, the Beatles evolved quickly and forced many other bands to step up their game.

AndySlash

i don't hesitate at all. i stated facts. the beatles WERE the first to have feedback on a record. they WERE the first to use backwards vocals and double tracked audio on their records. they changed how music videos were filmed, edited, and presented. 50+ years of history and no one has found an alternative. does it mean it doesn't exist? no, i guess not. but if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around...

vant0037

AndySlash said:

i don't hesitate at all. i stated facts. the beatles WERE the first to have feedback on a record. they WERE the first to use backwards vocals and double tracked audio on their records. they changed how music videos were filmed, edited, and presented. 50+ years of history and no one has found an alternative. does it mean it doesn't exist? no, i guess not. but if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around...

Sounds they had some great producers and audio techs? Again, is this their genius or someone else's or theirs by virtue of dumb blind luck?

AndySlash

to vant's point, i will say is that those four individuals (and their producer, engineers, etc., to be fair) came together and produced what is largely regarded as one of if not the most influential catalogs of music ever. that happened, and it happened when it happened. we can discuss hypotheticals and what-if's, but it will still remain that it was the beatles - not the who, not dylan, not elvis, not hendrix, not the stones, not michael jackson, not some busking band on the streets of 1964 london - that gets recognized in those terms. to try and twist "the times" as some sort of reason for NOT giving the beatles their due seems pretty weak. i don't think that type of approach to a legal argument would fare well in court, yeah?

AndySlash

vant0037 said:

Sounds they had some great producers and audio techs? Again, is this their genius or someone else's or theirs by virtue of dumb blind luck?

i posted the above before i saw this, and i do give the people they worked with some credit for sure, george martin quite a bit. but again, it was those individuals working together. one different ingredient and ??? = hypotheticals. if you read up on the beatles, you will see that they experimented a lot, they being the band. and they never wanted to record the same thing twice. they were forward thinkers, through and through. and it showed in the results.

and a lot of genius inventions and ideas can be attributed to dumb blind luck. just because you got lucky once, doesn't mean you can always recreate that luck. and it doesn't mean you should be knocked down a peg for putting your dumb luck discovery into practice.

AndySlash

i knew i'd get worked up at this. damn you vant! circles, i say!