Who DOESN'T deserve the fame they have?

[Smudge91]

There are just soo many:
Jade Goody
Big Brother attention seekers
Kerry Katona
Paris Hilton
Jordan or Katie Price what ever she decides to call her self
Peter Andre. My god if i see another article about their divorce i may go insane.
And anyone else who insists that their life be played out on a tabloid newspaper or magazine like hello or ok.

 

[FallenJellyDoughnut]

Noone deserves fame until they truly earn it by doing something great.

 

[Sparrow]

Eh? If they're famous, who the fuck cares? This thread is just a bunch of people whining about people they don't like.

If someone is famous, then they earnt it. It doesn't matter wether you like them or not, point being if you think they're famous, but don't deserve it, it doesn't bloody matter because they're already famous.

...duh.

 

[supermole]

that sir is debatable and i personelly love the series

Oh, you can love it all right.
That doesn't make it good though.

and neither does you hating it make it bad

 

[Datalord]

OK, so i'm not gonna read 7 pages to see if these guys have been listed, Stephenie Meyer, EVERY CELEBRITY EVER, and Palin

 

[Broady Brio]

OK, so i'm not gonna read 7 pages to see if these guys have been listed, Stephenie Meyer, EVERY CELEBRITY EVER, and Palin

No one's said Palin I don't think.

 

[Kevlar Eater]

Basically Megan Fox, pro gamers, internet celebrities, and Soulja Boy (the latter I'd like to see kicked into that pit in 300).

 

[xplay3r]

Much better question, who do you think deserves to be more famous than they are? If they are at all.

Voltaire.
Voltaire Voltaire VOLTAIRE MOTHER FUCKING VOLTAIRE.

He is a musical GENIUS, and nobody acknowledges that because his music appeals to a somewhat obscure group. That doesn't change the fact that he has an incredible voice and is overall a very talented person.

<url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire>I agree.

Slightly more on topic: The Beatles.
I hate them so so so much. SO much.

I understand not liking thier music, everyone has diffrent tastes, but they do deserve the fame they have. The Beatles came from nothing, in a grimy dockworker town, and became one of the most recognized names, anywhere. Not only is it a honest-to-god rags to riches (well maybe not to riches, they didn't get paid much actually they got gyped out of a lot of money, so just to fame) story, they revolutionized the music industry. They were one of the first bands to write there own stuff, they constantly used newer, and more original recording techniques.

They were the spirt of an era, they represented the feeling of the youth at the time, and they changed peoples attitudes. They were the first famous people who were working class adn stayed working class, they were inventive and every single one of them had a good heart, and believed in the good in people, wich is hard to find, especaily today.

All I'm saying is it's fine if you don't like they're music, but don't disrespect what they did for the entire music industry, and what they did/do for people.

 

[IrirshTerrorist]

No celebrity deserves the ridiculous amount of fame they get. It is rarely proportional to there acting/singing/whatever ability. It usually is just who came along at the right time. Granted some celebrities are skilled at what they do, but they don't deserve to get paid That Much! and get all the fame.... (he says jealously scowling at pictures of the celebrities)

 

[Cakes]

that sir is debatable and i personelly love the series

Oh, you can love it all right.
That doesn't make it good though.

and neither does you hating it make it bad

It is a shitty piece of literature. The characters have about as much depth as a cardboard cut out, the locations and races are stock, every thing about it is shit. Now, if you're into that shit, good for you, but don't try to say it's quality literature.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Anyone who's family issues are being thrown about for ratings such as Jon and Kate. They have 8 kids. Big deal. You don't need to be making money off of their divorce and you certainly don't need to milk their family problems for ratings. That's one big thing I hate about the media.

 

[Berethond]

Much better question, who do you think deserves to be more famous than they are? If they are at all.

Voltaire.
Voltaire Voltaire VOLTAIRE MOTHER FUCKING VOLTAIRE.

He is a musical GENIUS, and nobody acknowledges that because his music appeals to a somewhat obscure group. That doesn't change the fact that he has an incredible voice and is overall a very talented person.

<url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire>I agree.

Slightly more on topic: The Beatles.
I hate them so so so much. SO much.

I understand not liking thier music, everyone has diffrent tastes, but they do deserve the fame they have. The Beatles came from nothing, in a grimy dockworker town, and became one of the most recognized names, anywhere. Not only is it a honest-to-god rags to riches (well maybe not to riches, they didn't get paid much actually they got gyped out of a lot of money, so just to fame) story, they revolutionized the music industry. They were one of the first bands to write there own stuff, they constantly used newer, and more original recording techniques.

They were the spirt of an era, they represented the feeling of the youth at the time, and they changed peoples attitudes. They were the first famous people who were working class adn stayed working class, they were inventive and every single one of them had a good heart, and believed in the good in people, wich is hard to find, especaily today.

All I'm saying is it's fine if you don't like they're music, but don't disrespect what they did for the entire music industry, and what they did/do for people.

I don't care where they were from.

No, no they weren't. Revolutionized? Yeah.
But for the better? Hell. No.
Before them, you had small bands who would play in bars, and knew their audience. They would connect with you on a basic, amazing level. You didn't have these four guys playing to a ton of people. There's no way to connect to that. The Beatles, they just played their stuff and leave. There's no meeting of the listeners, no connection at all.They were one of the first bands to write there own stuffThat's freaking horse spit.

 

[Broady Brio]

Much better question, who do you think deserves to be more famous than they are? If they are at all.

Voltaire.
Voltaire Voltaire VOLTAIRE MOTHER FUCKING VOLTAIRE.

He is a musical GENIUS, and nobody acknowledges that because his music appeals to a somewhat obscure group. That doesn't change the fact that he has an incredible voice and is overall a very talented person.

<url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire>I agree.

Slightly more on topic: The Beatles.
I hate them so so so much. SO much.

I understand not liking thier music, everyone has diffrent tastes, but they do deserve the fame they have. The Beatles came from nothing, in a grimy dockworker town, and became one of the most recognized names, anywhere. Not only is it a honest-to-god rags to riches (well maybe not to riches, they didn't get paid much actually they got gyped out of a lot of money, so just to fame) story, they revolutionized the music industry. They were one of the first bands to write there own stuff, they constantly used newer, and more original recording techniques.

They were the spirt of an era, they represented the feeling of the youth at the time, and they changed peoples attitudes. They were the first famous people who were working class adn stayed working class, they were inventive and every single one of them had a good heart, and believed in the good in people, wich is hard to find, especaily today.

All I'm saying is it's fine if you don't like they're music, but don't disrespect what they did for the entire music industry, and what they did/do for people.

I don't care where they were from.

No, no they weren't. Revolutionized? Yeah.
But for the better? Hell. No.
Before them, you had small bands who would play in bars, and knew their audience. They would connect with you on a basic, amazing level. You didn't have these four guys playing to a ton of people. There's no way to connect to that. The Beatles, they just played their stuff and leave. There's no meeting of the listeners, no connection at all.They were one of the first bands to write there own stuffThat's freaking horse spit.

I really prefer if this didn't turn into a flame war.

 

[teisjm]

Noone, everyone has got the fame they deserve.
As i see it, fame in itself is not worth anything, it's what you're famous FOR that matters.
If you're famous for beeing totally awesome at something then gratz you deserve it, and it's good.
If you're famous for beeing a spoiled billionair heiress who's against wearing any underwear and making a sextape then gratz, half the world thinks you're an idiot and it's good

 

[xplay3r]

Much better question, who do you think deserves to be more famous than they are? If they are at all.

Voltaire.
Voltaire Voltaire VOLTAIRE MOTHER FUCKING VOLTAIRE.

He is a musical GENIUS, and nobody acknowledges that because his music appeals to a somewhat obscure group. That doesn't change the fact that he has an incredible voice and is overall a very talented person.

<url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire>I agree.

Slightly more on topic: The Beatles.
I hate them so so so much. SO much.

I understand not liking thier music, everyone has diffrent tastes, but they do deserve the fame they have. The Beatles came from nothing, in a grimy dockworker town, and became one of the most recognized names, anywhere. Not only is it a honest-to-god rags to riches (well maybe not to riches, they didn't get paid much actually they got gyped out of a lot of money, so just to fame) story, they revolutionized the music industry. They were one of the first bands to write there own stuff, they constantly used newer, and more original recording techniques.

They were the spirt of an era, they represented the feeling of the youth at the time, and they changed peoples attitudes. They were the first famous people who were working class adn stayed working class, they were inventive and every single one of them had a good heart, and believed in the good in people, wich is hard to find, especaily today.

All I'm saying is it's fine if you don't like they're music, but don't disrespect what they did for the entire music industry, and what they did/do for people.

I don't care where they were from.

No, no they weren't. Revolutionized? Yeah.
But for the better? Hell. No.
Before them, you had small bands who would play in bars, and knew their audience. They would connect with you on a basic, amazing level. You didn't have these four guys playing to a ton of people. There's no way to connect to that. The Beatles, they just played their stuff and leave. There's no meeting of the listeners, no connection at all.They were one of the first bands to write there own stuffThat's freaking horse spit.

I was using there origins as a point of coming from nothing to something.

They started out playing to small audiences, they played in one bar in germany for months, they played balls and county fairs, small areas all over the place, and they enjoyed having a connection witht he audiences. They stopped having connections with the audience because all the females (and a few males) in the crowd would just scream, and they had gigs all over the place, that had been booked within small time spans. They couldn't hear themselves play over the audience screaming. All they could do was try to hang onto what they knew (i.e. the guitar licks and drumming patterns) and just play, because they couldn't hear themsleves playing over the screams. Then they rushed off because they'd have to be four citys away by tomarrow. That's why half way through thier carrer they stopped playing live. They just put out records, because they couldn't improve onstage without being able to hear themselves. They couldn't meet the listeners either because anytime they even got close to a crowd they would claw, and grab whatever they could, they'd just be mauled.

Also it's not horse spit, most major bands in the very earlie sixtys and late 50's used songs that were written by others. They tried to get the beatles to play a song they didn't write, (it's called "what you do to me" and was handed to gerry and the pace makers I believe) and they tried it but it didn't feel right, after that the only time they did songs they didn't write were one they did covers of other songs in the early days.

I really prefer if this didn't turn into a flame war.

I don't think it will, or at least I'm not trying to make it a flame war. I'm simply trying to debate his opinion on the band, and he's trying to debate mine, if it goes beyond a simple debate, I won't reply, and I'll move on, but I don't think he's trying to start a fight. I hope not at least, I'm just debating points of view with him, that's all.

Am I right Berethond? Or is this debate not as ...eh friendly as I thought it was, I mean you're not pissed, or in a bad spirit about this discussion are you? Am I correct in thinking we're just discussing the matter here?

 

[Hollock]

dane cook he's a c- comedian at very very best f actor at best.

 

[Berethond]

Much better question, who do you think deserves to be more famous than they are? If they are at all.

Voltaire.
Voltaire Voltaire VOLTAIRE MOTHER FUCKING VOLTAIRE.

He is a musical GENIUS, and nobody acknowledges that because his music appeals to a somewhat obscure group. That doesn't change the fact that he has an incredible voice and is overall a very talented person.

<url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire>I agree.

Slightly more on topic: The Beatles.
I hate them so so so much. SO much.

I understand not liking thier music, everyone has diffrent tastes, but they do deserve the fame they have. The Beatles came from nothing, in a grimy dockworker town, and became one of the most recognized names, anywhere. Not only is it a honest-to-god rags to riches (well maybe not to riches, they didn't get paid much actually they got gyped out of a lot of money, so just to fame) story, they revolutionized the music industry. They were one of the first bands to write there own stuff, they constantly used newer, and more original recording techniques.

They were the spirt of an era, they represented the feeling of the youth at the time, and they changed peoples attitudes. They were the first famous people who were working class adn stayed working class, they were inventive and every single one of them had a good heart, and believed in the good in people, wich is hard to find, especaily today.

All I'm saying is it's fine if you don't like they're music, but don't disrespect what they did for the entire music industry, and what they did/do for people.

I don't care where they were from.

No, no they weren't. Revolutionized? Yeah.
But for the better? Hell. No.
Before them, you had small bands who would play in bars, and knew their audience. They would connect with you on a basic, amazing level. You didn't have these four guys playing to a ton of people. There's no way to connect to that. The Beatles, they just played their stuff and leave. There's no meeting of the listeners, no connection at all.They were one of the first bands to write there own stuffThat's freaking horse spit.

I was using there origins as a point of coming from nothing to something.

They started out playing to small audiences, they played in one bar in germany for months, they played balls and county fairs, small areas all over the place, and they enjoyed having a connection witht he audiences. They stopped having connections with the audience because all the females (and a few males) in the crowd would just scream, and they had gigs all over the place, that had been booked within small time spans. They couldn't hear themselves play over the audience screaming. All they could do was try to hang onto what they knew (i.e. the guitar licks and drumming patterns) and just play, because they couldn't hear themsleves playing over the screams. Then they rushed off because they'd have to be four citys away by tomarrow. That's why half way through thier carrer they stopped playing live. They just put out records, because they couldn't improve onstage without being able to hear themselves. They couldn't meet the listeners either because anytime they even got close to a crowd they would claw, and grab whatever they could, they'd just be mauled.

Also it's not horse spit, most major bands in the very earlie sixtys and late 50's used songs that were written by others. They tried to get the beatles to play a song they didn't write, (it's called "what you do to me" and was handed to gerry and the pace makers I believe) and they tried it but it didn't feel right, after that the only time they did songs they didn't write were one they did covers of other songs in the early days.

I really prefer if this didn't turn into a flame war.

I don't think it will, or at least I'm not trying to make it a flame war. I'm simply trying to debate his opinion on the band, and he's trying to debate mine, if it goes beyond a simple debate, I won't reply, and I'll move on, but I don't think he's trying to start a fight. I hope not at least, I'm just debating points of view with him, that's all.

Am I right Berethond? Or is this debate not as ...eh friendly as I thought it was, I mean you're not pissed, or in a bad spirit about this discussion are you? Am I correct in thinking we're just discussing the matter here?

Exactly. It's like a freaking cult.
I hate cults. I can respect them for not playing live after realizing they wouldn't improve, and not just adding more speakers. The (only) other reason I can respect the Beatles is because they practiced six hours a day in that bar in Germany.

<youtube=h6TIEkB4_F8>Also, I don't know who you're listening to, but a lot of people wrote their own music back then. A lot.

I could also bring up their compositional techniques, which infuriate me. But I won't, because then I'll probably just sound like a pretentious dick. (Which I'm sure I am, but that's besides the point.)

 

[RaNDM G]

I better question to ask would have been "Who does?"

 

[Kud]

I truly, and utterly, want to say, god

agreed.