Favorite Bands

[Nic8]

Here's my list (not in order):

Janice Joplin
Jimy Hendrix
Led Zeppelin
The Doors
The Who
Deep Purple
Eric Clapton
Guns and Roses
CCR
Neil Young
Bob Seger
AC/DC
The Stones
Jethro Tull
Heart


More to come...

[Bazza]

Redskins
The Specials
The Beat
The Selecter
Dexys Midnight Runners
The Times
Love
Small Faces
The Prisoners
Television Personalities
Elvis Costello & The Attractions
The Shambles
? & The Mysterians
The Jam
The Chords
Purple Hearts
Makin' Time
The Dead 60s
Nick Drake
Ed Ball
The Strike

[Jesus Christ]

Primus
Norma Jean
The Dillinger Escape Plan
Misery Signals
etc..

[Invader Zim]

Placebo,
Tool,
The Manic Street Preachers,
system of a down,
The Police,
Pink Floyd,
The Beatles,
The rolling stones,
Thin Lizzy,
A perfect Circle,
Cap Down,


But it changes like the weather.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

My current top 5: (they also change like the weather)
The Beatles
Led Zeppelin
The Jimi Hendrix Experience
Pink Floyd
Cream

A few more:
Bob Dylan, John lenon, George Harisson, The Allman Brothers Band, Frank Zappa, 10cc, Eric Clapton, Albert Collins, Albert King, BB King, Magic Sam, Robert Johnson, John Lee Hooker, Muddy Waters, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Queen, Robin Trower, King Crimson, Yes, The Who, The Doors, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, Creedence Clearwater Revival, David Bowie, Jefferson Airplane, Peter Greene's Fleetwood Mac, Jethro Tull, Janis Joplin, The Pretenders, The Momas and the Papas, Marvin Gaye, Otis Redding, Aretha Franklin, Smokey Robinson, Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, James Brown, Dinah Washington, Chuck Berry, Nick Drake, Victor Jara, Violetta Parra, Ze Miguel Wisnik, Joao Gilberto, Gal Costa, Caetano Veloso, Gilberto Gil, Miles Davis, Stan Getz, John Coltrane, Charles Mingus, Thelonius Monk, The Roots, Wyclef Jean, Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Pearl Jam, The Mars Volta, Radiohead, Manu Chao

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

Nightwish
Iron Maiden
Judas Priest
Black Sabbath
Guns n' Roses
KISS
Van Halen
Whitesnake
Iced Earth
Sonata Arctica
Adam and the Ants

Recently i have also been listening to a lot of classical music, by korsakov, stravinsky and holst, an attempt by my g/f to culturise me methinks :), i also listen to old punk bands such as
dead kennedys, sex pistols, the damned, the clash, the ramones

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Black Sabbath
Guns n' Roses
KISS
Whitesnake

Wow!
I didn't know that people still listened to that trash.

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

personal taste, i didnt comment about some of (in my opinion) the utter shite you listed did i ? just isnt good manners

[celtopunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 10:55 PM

Wow!
I didn't know that people still listened to that trash.
Don't be dissing Black Sabbath, one of the greatest rock bands.
Oh and I noticed that you carefully edited out Van Halen from his list. So let me get this straight Victor. Black Sabbath is trash but Van Halen isn't? Sammy Hagar and all? Amazing!

Here's my list, I think this has been done before though:

The Clash
Dead Kennedys
THe Pogues
Social Distortion
Black Sabbath
X
Shane MacGowan
Citizen Fish
Subhumans
Bad Religion
Billy Bragg
Redskins
Dick Dale
Chumbawamba
Adjusters
Inciters
Mojo Nixon
THe Cramps
Ramones
Banda Bassotti
The Jam
Skatelites
Stiff Little Fingers
Paranoid Visions
Blood or Whiskey
Scott MX Turner and the Devil's Advocates
Les Partisans
Dick Gaughan, Christy Moore, Andy Irvine, Leon Rosselson...

That's enough.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I actually didn't mean to have Black Sabbath on there. But they're seriously not that good. The guitar may be good, but Ozzy sucks and their material was pretty weak aside from a few songs with good riffs.
And I don't like Van Halen that much, that's why I removed it from my list. Is there a problem, officer?

I'd say that both Van Halen and Black Sabbath are equally mediocre. And Sammy Hagar sucks. So did David Lee Roth, but not as much. Eddie was pretty cool, though, but so was Tony Iommi.

[celtopunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 12:49 AM
I actually didn't mean to have Black Sabbath on there. But they're seriously not that good. The guitar may be good, but Ozzy sucks and their material was pretty weak aside from a few songs with good riffs.
And I don't like Van Halen that much, that's why I removed it from my list. Is there a problem, officer?

I'd say that both Van Halen and Black Sabbath are equally mediocre. And Sammy Hagar sucks. So did David Lee Roth, but not as much. Eddie was pretty cool, though, but so was Tony Iommi.
So what is it about Sabbath that you don't like (and by Sabbath I mean first generation Ozzy Sabbath)? Songs that had lyrical substance? I guess they could have done more baby oh baby type stuff that so many of their contemporaries were doing but no they actually had something to say.

As for the officer bit, well see my prior post you put Sabbath in company with Whitesnake and some other cock rock bands, but omitted one of the biggest cock rock bands of the 80's Van Halen, hence my original question.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Are you trying to judge music on lyrical content?!
And are you implying that I appreciate bad lyrics?

Yes, a few of the bands I listed have songs with some pretty shite lyrics, but that's not what I like about them. I guess lyrical substance can be a plus, but it certainly doesn't determine whether a band's good or not.

And Van Halen, while not a particularly great band, had plenty more substance and musicianship than those crap bands like Whitesnake and KISS and whatever else he mentioned. Eddie is a really impressive guitarist. The lyrics were about the worst imaginable, I think, just judging from Running With The Devil which is the only VH song to which I vaguely know some lyrics. And they made some songs with cool riffs. Alex was also a pretty kick-ass drummer. Unfortunately, like Black Sabbath, a large majority of their music was terrible and the front men were ****s. A large part of both of those bands' songs were very simplistic, were heavy without substance, and had very lame, tedious melodies. Don't like it.

And I recall you criticizing Zeppelin's lack of lyrical quality. They had a few songs with some good lyrics. And the others which had not as good lyrics, still had poetically flowing lyrics. I don’t think they detracted from the greatness of their music. And they were heavy with substance.

[Urban Rubble]

And I recall you criticizing Zeppelin's lack of lyrical quality. They had a few songs with some good lyrics. And the others which had not as good lyrics, still had poetically flowing lyrics. I don’t think they detracted from the greatness of their music. And they were heavy with substance.

Whining about women and making references to Lord of the Rings made up about 80% of their lyrics. I like Zeppelin alright, but their lyrics were horrible. No offense.

Anyway:

The Clash
Stiff Little Fingers
Against Me !
Youth Brigade
Dead Kennedys
Swingin Utters
Rise Against
Subhumans
Propagandhi
The Sex Pistols
Johnny Clarke
The Mighty Diamonds
The Ethiopians
Peter Tosh
Culture
Congos
Lee Perry
Jacob Miller
Burning Spear
The Specials

Fuck, I don't know, I'm sure I've left out alot of bands I love, I just realized that this is fairly hard to do.

[Hampton]

Not going to include any rap in this one:

Jimi
Muddy Waters
Harry Chapin
Tom Waits
Stevie Wonder
Bad Religion
Leftover Crack
Peter Tosh
John Lee Hooker
Avenged Sevenfold
Shadows Fall
Atom and His Package
The Clash
Jonny Cash
Rise Against
Bad Brains

[FatFreeMilk]

CCR
Janis Joplin
Hendrix
ELO (sue me)
Rage Against the Machine
311
The Violent Femmes
Sublime
The Clash
Bad Religion
Prince and the Revolution
Social Distortion
*ooh I forgot LL Cool Jay.

The two bold one's NEVER change. I know I'm forgetting alot and sometimes some of those mentioned aren't my favorite. But right now they are. Yeah, this list changes a lot for me.

[refuse_resist]

Just to name a few...

Suicidal Tendencies
Misfits
Bad Brains
Dead Kennedys
Black Flag
Operation Ivy
D.I.
Ramones
The Clash
Aus-Rotten
T.S.O.L.
Oppressed Logic
Toxic Narcotic
Agnostic Front
Biohazard
Sick of it All
Earth Crisis
Strife
Deftones

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

led zepplin are the single most over-rated band in history, dont get me wrong, ive sat in a pub with robert plant, hes a great guy, and some of the music is good, but they dont deserve the god-like standard they seem to be given.

and black sabbath single-handedly created heavy metal, and with regards to lyrical substance, you need to read between the lines, listen to the music, not just dismiss cause its simplistic, their best was released in the 1970's so it aint gonna multi-layered super epic is it ?

im not going to defend van halen and kiss and whitesnake, they are what america produced in the 1980's, europe produced Europe and scorpions, all huge stadium filling bands that made millions, KISS still have millions of fans, its called music you can enjoy, no politics, no overwraught depth, just pure fun.

(just as a side note, whilst america were producing hair metal bands, britain had iron maiden and judas priest and ozzy osbourne, all arena filling heavy metal acts, pretentious bastards all of them, but they never changed to suit fad or trend, and well, they are responsible for heavy music today :) )

[che's long lost daughter]

Travis
Rage Against The Machine
And many more

[Postteen]

The Beatles
the WHO
Janis Joplin
Bob Dylan
Jimi Hendrix
Pink Floyd
the Doors
Deep Purple
Eric Clampton
the Stones

[GrYnEt]

-The national Bank
-Madrugada
-Big Bang
-The Doors
-Jet
-Green Day
-Joni Mitchell
-The White stripes
-The Hives
-pearl jam
-The Donnas
-The Sounds
-Radka Tònef
-Billy Bragg
-Bob marley
-Jeff Buckley
-Buena vista Social Club
-Thomas Dybdahl
-Damien Rice
-Kings of convenience
-Jimi Hendrix
-Led Zeppelin
-Pink Floyd
-Rolling Stones
-Sex Pistols
-The Clash
-The Who


just about it..:)

[Nic8]

On the topic of Led Zeppelin being overrated, I thought the same thing before I listened to some of their albums. You only here a small amount of their songs on the radio, and it is deffinately not their best stuff. After listening to the Early Days and Led Zepplin 3 all the way through, I realised they were gods. The point is, many people who haven't given Led Zeppelin a good listening to do think they are overrated based on the songs they hear on the radio and can't comprehend why people consider them gods based on the songs played on the radio. I'm not saying you, Sovietsky Souyuz, haven't given Led Zeppelin a good listening to, this is just what happens to a lot of people. Also, how'd you end up going to a pub with Robert Plant?

What do you consider to be "multi-layered super epic"? Maybe I don't really know what I'm talking about (if not, please inform me) but are songs like the End by the Doors not fairly epic, which was released in the lat 1960s? Or did I misunderstand your point about music not being epic before the 1970s?

By the way, I think a lot of you have really good taste in music.

[Mano Dayak]

not in order:

Princovia (Slovakian Punk Rock)
Ska-P
Skalariak
Zona A (Slovakian Punk Rock)
Ine Kafe (Slovakian Punk Rock)
Mano Negra

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

hey nic8 ........

by multi layered super epic i was probably being wrong in how i said it, i meant things like later pink floyd songs and the huge prog bands like Yes, which were 1970's acts, so i said it wrong lol............ also a lot of the 80's early goth and metal tended to be quite 'polyphonic' using operatic stylings to their music....

and i was in a place called bridgnorth near where i live in england, me and my dad went into a pub (cant remember the name sorry) and there was rob plant sittin havin a cold pint...so we went an had a chat, hes a really down to earth kinda guy, not big headed about his fame or his money, which is really kool......... also earlier this year, my friend got signed to his record label, and was interviewed by the man himself, so tis all good :)

[Pawn Power]

Leftover Crack
Morning Glory
System of a Down
Rancid
Toxic Narcotic

[refuse_resist]

im not going to defend van halen and kiss and whitesnake, they are what america produced in the 1980's, europe produced Europe and scorpions, all huge stadium filling bands that made millions, KISS still have millions of fans, its called music you can enjoy, no politics, no overwraught depth, just pure fun.

(just as a side note, whilst america were producing hair metal bands, britain had iron maiden and judas priest and ozzy osbourne, all arena filling heavy metal acts, pretentious bastards all of them, but they never changed to suit fad or trend, and well, they are responsible for heavy music today
Besides the hair metal bands, there was a lot of thrash metal going on during the 1980's.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

and black sabbath single-handedly created heavy metal, and with regards to lyrical substance, you need to read between the lines, listen to the music, not just dismiss cause its simplistic, their best was released in the 1970's so it aint gonna multi-layered super epic is it ?

To say that Black Sabbath single-handedly created heavy metal is extremely ignorant. Judas Priest began their career at approximately the same time as Sabbath. And there were countless other bands that hugely influenced heavy metal. To say that Sabbath did it single-handedly is to disregard that fact.

And there was a lot of music released in the 70s that wasn't simplistic at all. You even said so yourself.


(just as a side note, whilst america were producing hair metal bands, britain had iron maiden and judas priest and ozzy osbourne, all arena filling heavy metal acts, pretentious bastards all of them, but they never changed to suit fad or trend, and well, they are responsible for heavy music today

Judas Priest began in what? '74, '73? What hair metal was being produced in America at that time? And Ozzy began his career around 1970. There was certainly no hair metal in the early 70s. By the time America was actually producing hair metal, England and Europe were too.

[Nic8]

What's the difference between hair and thrash metal?

And that's awsome, meeting Robert Plant.

[wet blanket]

CAN <- An extraordinarily intriguing group, very talented, bizarre, and obscure.
The Beatles
Jimi Hendrix
Bob Dylan
Ray Barretto
Ciro Monteiro <- Best Samba singer ever.
Dizzy Gillespi

[The Forum Idiot]

1)The Breeders
2)Pixies
3)Nirvana
4)The Vaselines
5)REM

The rest in no real order at all:

The Clash, Green Day, The Offspring, Queens Of The Stoneage, Sonic Youth, Sex Pistols, Weezer, Silverchair, Megadeth, Metallica, Paul Simon, Iron Maiden, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Audioslave, Pearl Jam, Alice In Chains, The Amps, Sleater Kinney, The Datsuns, Echo And The Bunnymen, The Kinks, The Beatles, Kings Of Leon, Four Star Mary, Leadbelly, Linkin Park, Mudhoney*, L7*, I think that&#39;s it...

*these bands I haven&#39;t bought anything by or own anything by them....I just really like all teh clips i&#39;ve heard from the itunes music store.

And, to teh guy who asked for the difference between hair metal and thrash metal:

Thrash metal is much more like heavy metal, Hair metal is a lot more like pop. E.g. Hair metal is Van Halen, Guns &#39;n&#39; Roses, Aerosmith, KISS(kinda), basically anything ultra poppy which is under the metal section...Also, Motley Crue.......Thrash metal is Megadeth.

[Free Spirit]

You said favourite bands but people still write down some other great musicians that are "are" not in a band so I&#39;ll just add the great ones by my opinion&#33; :)
The Doors
Led Zeppelin
Jefferson Airplane
Jimi Hendrix
Pink Floyd
Janis Joplin
Deep Purple
Jethro Tull
Steppewolf
The Beatles-(John Lennon)
(Nirvana and Black Sabbath have some good songs)

[Vanilla Coke Kid]

Nirvana
Foo Fighters
Sublime
REM
Smashing Pumpkins
Tenacious D
The Darkness
The Offspring
Silverchair
Weezer
Franz Ferdinand
Queen

EDIT: I added Queen, I just had to...

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 07:01 PM

To say that Black Sabbath single-handedly created heavy metal is extremely ignorant. Judas Priest began their career at approximately the same time as Sabbath. And there were countless other bands that hugely influenced heavy metal. To say that Sabbath did it single-handedly is to disregard that fact.


There was certainly no hair metal in the early 70s.
I agree but Black Sabbath ,more so Tony Iommi, are more credited to creating the sound of Heavy Metal.
And if I am right Twisted Sister actually started in the mid 70s

ah well here is my list

The Clash
Dead Kennedys
Stiff Little Fingers
Soundgarden
Black Sabbath
International Noise Conspiracy
Faith No More
AC DC
there is probally more but i cant think right now

[celtopunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 09:22 PM
And if I am right Twisted Sister actually started in the mid 70s

I think they were very much influenced by the New York Dolls, makeup, women&#39;s clothes etc.

Getting back to Victor who said: "And there was a lot of music released in the 70s that wasn&#39;t simplistic at all."

That&#39;s a common theme in your posts, so and so&#39;s music is too simple.
Does music need to be or sound complicated for it to be good to you? Damn, I hope not. If so then the whole spirit of rock n roll has been lost on you.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If you didn&#39;t notice, that was a reply to this:

their best was released in the 1970&#39;s so it aint gonna multi-layered super epic is it ?

And that&#39;s just not true, because if you analyze 70s music, it was just as complex as today&#39;s music. Not necessarily complicated, just more substantial.

And good music doesn&#39;t need to be either substantial, complex, or non-simplistic. I listen to some folk and plenty of delta blues, most of which is very simple music. You can have an excess of simplism, like The Ramones and some other early punk, utter shit music trying to regress away from the progress that rock had made. And I probably shouldn&#39;t call it an "excess of simplism", because it&#39;s really no more simple than a lot of good music, it&#39;s just simplicity done improperly. Maybe it doesn&#39;t even have to do with the simplicity of it. But that&#39;s what tends to stand out for me.

[The Forum Idiot]

Back to the Black Sabbath point, Metal can&#39;t be pinned down on any real band or person. I&#39;ve seen both The Kinks and Led Zeppelin credited for its creation. It really depends how restrictive you are with the term metal....I know some people who claim metal started in the 80s and that NONE of the following are metal (this is just what my friend said, NOT ME):

Deep Purple
Black Sabbath
AC/DC
Metallica
loads which i can&#39;t think of...

[Vanilla Coke Kid]

I&#39;ve read band in the 60&#39;s such as the Hendrix Experience started the very early metal sound.

[The Forum Idiot]

Hmm...i s&#39;pose...go back far enough if it weren&#39;t for the 50s rollers then there wouldn&#39;t be metal.

[RageAgainstTheMachine]

my favourite bands are RATM, system of a down, FFAF, lostprophets, My chemical romance, Story of the year the list goes on

[Don't Change Your Name]

I want to say something:
I noticed many people don&#39;t listen to some music since they have some prejudice. And I recommend everyone to get rid of it. I&#39;ll tell you way: I used to think The Beatles were an overrated band that did stupid pop songs...until I listened to Abbey Road and strated paying more attention to their previous albums. I used to think CCR were some yanqui rednecks until I started listening their music. I used to think that Led Zeppelin was an overrated old hard rock band until I decided to take a good listen at them. I used to think Tool, The Police and Pink Floyd was boring until I payed attention to some of their songs. Something simmilar happened to me with the Rolling Stones and AC/DC. At first I thought that System Of A Down sucked but then I payed more attention to songs like Chop Suey&#33; and Spiders and i started liking it.
So please next time pay more attention to music: if you hear a band is great listen to it and understand their music.

[refuse_resist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 10:30 AM
What&#39;s the difference between hair and thrash metal?


Thrash metal is the more hardcore side to metal music. Bands like Slayer, Sepultura, old Metallica, Testament, etc. are all thrash metal, while bands like Def Leppard, Whitesnake, etc. which were way more commercial.


Thrash metal is Megadeth.
Meh, I guess some of their older stuff would somewhat fall under that category.

[celtopunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 01:18 AM
You can have an excess of simplism, like The Ramones and some other early punk, utter shit music trying to regress away from the progress that rock had made.

The progress that rock had made? What progress was that? A bunch of guitar wanks trying to come up with more complex and faster solos, trying to turn rock n roll into some kind of mordern day classical music. If I want classical, I&#39;ll listen to classical.

The Ramones were a great band, it was their simplicity and their attitude that made them great. If Joey was still alive I&#39;d go see them 100 times more before I&#39;d consider seeing a band like Yes even once. I pick Yes because to me they were a perfect example of what was wrong with rock music at that time, what was killing the spirit of rock n roll, a bunch of very talented musicians that made boring music, or more precisely boring rock n roll. (sorry for the run on) They didn&#39;t get rock n roll just like so many of their contemporaries. It was bands like the Ramones that SAVED rock n roll from the clutches of the self indulgent musicians of that era. Now I&#39;m not saying that talented musicians have no place in rock n roll, far from it. I&#39;m just saying having technical skills might make you a better musician but it doesn&#39;t make you a better rocker.

Roll over Beethoven...

[FlyTheFlag]

No particular order:

Stiff Little Fingers
The Clash
Sex Pistols
Ramones
Dropkick Murphys
Streetlight Manifesto
Flogging Molly
The Beatles
Against Me&#33;
Rise Against
GBH
Black Flag
Joe Strummer and the Mescaleros
Lawrence Arms
Senses Fail
RX Bandits
Street Dogs
Strike Anywhere
Thrice
The Strokes
Underoath
Alexisonfire
Dillenger Escape Plan

And many more...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

That&#39;s pretty musch what I&#39;d expect from a punk.
Because I believe that punk did not save rock, but ruined rock. I don&#39;t know what kind of authority you are on what exactly is the true nature of rock &#39;n roll, but if you you&#39;re right, I&#39;d have no problem saying that I dislike "true" rock &#39;n roll. Very early, undimensional 50s rock and overly-simplistic punk really bore me. I guess I don&#39;t like "real" rock.

And Yes is fucking incredible. Give me some Yes anyday over The Ramones.

Your criticism of an excess of solos in classic rock suggest that these musicians are somehow being wrongfully talented. I really don&#39;t understand how you can inherently dislike a solo or think that they&#39;re boring&#33; Why? is it because you somehow view them as a blatant show-ff of talent? Are they out of place? Don&#39;t really agree, I can kind of see that? And most still sound pretty freaking great&#33;

[refuse_resist]

Because I believe that punk did not save rock, but ruined rock.
How so? :huh:

If anything, punk (and hardcore) are the result of the evolutionary process of rocknroll, just like all the other sub-categories of rock that have came into existence over the years.

As far as solos go, I really love solos. There were also many good punk bands that did lots of solos too.

[Vanilla Coke Kid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 04:41 AM
No particular order:

Stiff Little Fingers
The Clash
Sex Pistols
Ramones
Dropkick Murphys
Streetlight Manifesto
Flogging Molly
The Beatles
Against Me&#33;
Rise Against
GBH
Black Flag
Joe Strummer and the Mescaleros
Lawrence Arms
Senses Fail
RX Bandits
Street Dogs
Strike Anywhere
Thrice
The Strokes
Underoath
Alexisonfire
Dillenger Escape Plan

And many more...
Add Sublime to that list, as they WERE the last good Punk band.

[The Forum Idiot]

Green Day? They&#39;r epunk...The Offspring? Bot still going, both good, both punk...


The solo debate is never going to finish....As a punk (not in the conventional sense but still) I&#39;m gonna point out the whole punk ethos: You can play shit, write shit lyrics, have shit timing but the punk tehory is that you don&#39;t need to be a great musician to make good music. You just gotta speak your mind, mean it and havea lot of punk soul and need for change. Its that effort, excitement and teh underdog factor that gets us punks going - NOT fantastic playing. It all depends whether you listen to music or you listen to the music makers. As a punk, its our job to do the latter as its a loty about the peoplenot the sound. E.g. Good Charlotte may look smell and sound like punk but they&#39;re not because they&#39;re controlled by a label, synth and production board thingy.

[Vanilla Coke Kid]

Exactly. I hate the people who think people&#39;s musical skills end at their instrument playing.

[The Forum Idiot]

Yup, I can&#39;t play shit but hand me a guitar with distortion and I&#39;ll give you a riff to remember.

[FlyTheFlag]

Originally posted by Vanilla Coke [email protected] 12 2004, 04:57 AM
Add Sublime to that list, as they WERE the last good Punk band.
As for Sublime... I enjoy a few of their songs, ie: &#39;Seed&#39;, but there&#39;s songs such as &#39;Summer Time&#39; that make me want to think otherwise.

[DaCuBaN]

As a punk, its our job to do the latter as its a loty about the peoplenot the sound. E.g. Good Charlotte may look smell and sound like punk but they&#39;re not because they&#39;re controlled by a label, synth and production board thingy.

Alright, but it should be about the music:

"Great minds discuss ideas, mediocre minds discuss events, small minds discuss people" -Eleanor Rooseveldt

[The Forum Idiot]

It IS about the music...punk MUSIC is only punk music when played by some one with rock&#39;n&#39;roll soul and can&#39;t be immitated and must be genuine will to share their views via music. Whether he technical abilities restrain them or not is what punks must break from. If you play shit you gotta make your shit sound good and that can only happen with a punk attitude. Its very hard to explain.

[Vanilla Coke Kid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 10:13 PM
As for Sublime... I enjoy a few of their songs, ie: &#39;Seed&#39;, but there&#39;s songs such as &#39;Summer Time&#39; that make me want to think otherwise.
Sublime are one of the best bands of the past 15 years&#33; Just listen to &#39;Date Rape&#39;, &#39;Smoke Two Joints&#39;, &#39;Greatest Hits&#39;, &#39;What I Got&#39;, &#39;Same In The End&#39;, &#39;April 29th 1992&#39;. And that&#39;s just a tip of the genius-built iceberg that is Sublime&#39;s music.

[Urban Rubble]

That&#39;s pretty musch what I&#39;d expect from a punk.
Because I believe that punk did not save rock, but ruined rock. I don&#39;t know what kind of authority you are on what exactly is the true nature of rock &#39;n roll, but if you you&#39;re right, I&#39;d have no problem saying that I dislike "true" rock &#39;n roll. Very early, undimensional 50s rock and overly-simplistic punk really bore me. I guess I don&#39;t like "real" rock.

What the fuck is over simplistic anyway ?

I&#39;m not a big fan of the Ramones, but I would gladly take them over some of the shit you listen to. When you start judging music on how complex and hard to play it is, it becomes less of an art and more of a contest. And that is exactly what alot of that shit degenerated into in the late 70&#39;s: a contest to see who could come up with the most complex shit. Not that that kind of thing doesn&#39;t have it&#39;s place, it does, but like I said, it becomes less of an art. There is such thing as melody and rythym, ever heard of it Victor ? Bands like Sham 69, the Clash and Stiff Little Fingers had it, bands like Yes do not.


Your criticism of an excess of solos in classic rock suggest that these musicians are somehow being wrongfully talented.

No, I don&#39;t think it&#39;s possible to be "wrongly talented". Sometimes it just gets to be too much. A song doesn&#39;t have to have a 2 minute guitar solo to be good. A guitarist does not have to prove how talented he is every second, sometimes a solo doesn&#39;t fit in the song structure.


I really don&#39;t understand how you can inherently dislike a solo or think that they&#39;re boring&#33; Why? is it because you somehow view them as a blatant show-ff of talent? Are they out of place? Don&#39;t really agree, I can kind of see that? And most still sound pretty freaking great&#33;

Yes, sometimes they don&#39;t fit, sometimes it&#39;s obvious the guy is showing off, sometimes it&#39;s just fucking too much. Sometimes I want to hear a short song. Sometimes I want to see a band show emotion and have a message instead of a bunch of pre fab pricks stroking their egos. Sometimes I want to see band and hear some music, not see a show.

FUCK

[DaCuBaN]

Its very hard to explain.

Perhaps because it doesn&#39;t make sense?


I want to see a band show emotion and have a message instead of a bunch of pre fab pricks stroking their egos.

It&#39;s not about how talented you are; but if you&#39;re shit you&#39;re shit&#33; No amount of desire is going to change that simple fact.

[The Forum Idiot]

BUT IT CAN&#33; If you have emotion you can make good music. FACT. END OF STORY. I know it, cause I&#39;m shit on guitar but when I want to I can pump out some riffs coz they have meaning. You clearly don&#39;t get the whole god damned punk ethic. Joe Strummer and Mick Jones were nothing special but the Clash were amazing. Also there&#39;s the lyrics. Your scrappy fabricated hair metal guitar heroes can play like gods can singa bout fucking in an elevator or whatever but where&#39;s the politics? Take, for example, The Clash. Arguably one of the best bands ever yet could they play for shit? NO. Yet they are amazing. Get with the theorum. Rock&#39;n&#39;Roll ain&#39;t about twiddling a solo on some overpriced PRS mega-guitar. Its about singing about something you believe in while strumming some power chords.

The ONLY person I listen to for the guitar is Hendrix. And even his instrumentals (Star Spangled Banner &#39;Nam version) had meaning.

[celtopunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 01:16 AM

Its very hard to explain.

Perhaps because it doesn&#39;t make sense?


I want to see a band show emotion and have a message instead of a bunch of pre fab pricks stroking their egos.

It&#39;s not about how talented you are; but if you&#39;re shit you&#39;re shit&#33; No amount of desire is going to change that simple fact.
Being a talented musician doesn&#39;t mean you can make good music either though. I&#39;ve heard plenty of technically gifted musicians who could play anything, but they couldn&#39;t write a decent song to save their life. So in that sense I agree if you are shit you are shit and no amount of talent and technical ability will save you.

And getting back to Victor, yes the true spirit and meaning of rock is lost on you.
You can try and simply write me off as a punk but I&#39;m really much more than that and as for the music that I love it goes way beyond punk and rock n roll.

Oh and I was really happy to see that so many others had views similar to mine on this subject.

[The Forum Idiot]

If you&#39;re shit you just gotta use emotion...I have a nasty awful voice but jam out Tourette&#39;s (nirvana) and i can make kurt cobain look like a dodgy old blink 182 throw out in terms of emotion and blood-curdling... Admittedly Tourette&#39;s is just screaming...

[joell]

the distillers
hole
rhcp
sublime
rancid
mintzkov luna
good charlotte
dropkick murphys
nirvana
slightly stoopid

[Nic8]

It takes a hell of a lot more than just emotion to make good music. You need a combination of both emotion and talent. Are you arguing that most metal bands don&#39;t have emotion (or are you specifically refering to aerosmith)? Care to elaborate on that? Maybe the clash had better lyrics than Aerosmith, that does not make them a better band.

And you can have massive guitar solos and still have emotion.

[The Forum Idiot]

I quite like Aerosmith but The Clash really are soooooo much better. You can have solos andwemotion and stuff but you can also make music without technical prowess. Here are some bands which were generally inferior musicians but still rock:

The clash
sex pistols
the beatles
the breeders
pixies
nirvana
bob dylan
Green day
velvet underground
Weezer
Mudhoney
the kinks

there are many many more i&#39;ve forgotten but meh...

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by The Forum [email protected] 16 2004, 02:52 PM
If you have emotion you can make good music.
Incorrect: If this was the case, then every member of our species could. After all, are we not all emotional creatures?


I&#39;m shit on guitar but when I want to I can pump out some riffs coz they have meaning.

It&#39;s mathematics. Music is the love of patterns, and no amount of &#39;emotion&#39; is going to make you capable of keeping a beat if you simply haven&#39;t got it in you. Back in my school days I had a good amount of musical ability and took it upon myself to teach one of my friends to play bass. Suffice to say, it didn&#39;t work. He&#39;s been playing for about seven years now, and he still sucks. He puts every ounce of his soul into it, but he still sucks.


You clearly don&#39;t get the whole god damned punk ethic.

"I&#39;ll do what I wan&#39;t&#33; I don&#39;t care&#33; Fuck&#33;"


Joe Strummer and Mick Jones were nothing special but the Clash were amazing.

Evidently our tastes in music differs greatly: The Clash were a mediocre band of their time in my eyes. They certainly do not last the test of time.


Also there&#39;s the lyrics. Your scrappy fabricated hair metal guitar heroes can play like gods can singa bout fucking in an elevator or whatever but where&#39;s the politics?

You&#39;ve surmised this from where? My music tastes couldn&#39;t be grouped into &#39;hair metal guitar&#39; - you couldn&#39;t be further from the mark. Whilst I like my Pink Floyd, Emerson Lake and Palmer, Frank Zappa; my real love is for stuff like Tim Buckley, Leo Kottke, Nick Drake - folk music.

So perhaps you were closer in asserting that I don&#39;t understand ;)


Take, for example, The Clash. Arguably one of the best bands ever yet could they play for shit? NO. Yet they are amazing.

Again, it&#39;s a matter of opinion. I think they were &#39;average&#39;.


Rock&#39;n&#39;Roll ain&#39;t about twiddling a solo on some overpriced PRS mega-guitar. Its about singing about something you believe in while strumming some power chords.

"Rock&#39;n&#39;Roll" is about the music. Everything else is secondary. You don&#39;t have to be a well versed musician to be good at rock&#39;n&#39;roll, but you still need to be capable.


The ONLY person I listen to for the guitar is Hendrix. And even his instrumentals (Star Spangled Banner &#39;Nam version) had meaning.

Here I think we find the root of our disagreement: Whilst you search for the energy and emotive qualities of music, I merely seek the music itself - to analyse and enjoy the sounds created.

I really couldn&#39;t give two shits what they were talking about. To take an example, it took me four years to actually hear what was being said in the opening lines of Dark Side of the Moon:


"For long you live and high you fly, smiles you give and tears you cry, all you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be".

It&#39;s quite profound, in a way and yet I was totally oblivious that this was the case: To me, the content was irrelevant. All that mattered was the sound: Past, present and future.

To conclude:


Being a talented musician doesn&#39;t mean you can make good music either though. I&#39;ve heard plenty of technically gifted musicians who could play anything, but they couldn&#39;t write a decent song to save their life. So in that sense I agree if you are shit you are shit and no amount of talent and technical ability will save you.


Indeed - this does work both ways. Suffice to say, there is an &#39;x&#39; factor in musicianship (probably accountable to the fact that we know very little about our cognotive abilities), but if the individual does not apply the effort to learn at least a degree of technical prowess, they will forever remain shit.

I&#39;d say it&#39;s a fair split: There are countless technical wizards around without an ounce of what I would consider &#39;talent&#39;, and similarly there are useless idiots with so much talent going to waste on them

What can you do, eh? ;)

[The Forum Idiot]

I guess your conclusion has some credibility...However in a similar way it depends on what music you like. I&#39;d rather listen to something with lyrics I like and/or can relate to than something that genuinely has great guitar unless that has something I can relate to....I prefer raw power and emotion....take, for example, The Shaggs - Philosophy Of The World was called the most technically incompetent album ever but it still has a strong fan base...Your idea of good music is different to mine in the end...A good beat is necessary I admit but once you get into teh groove of your isntrument it comes naturally if you know what I mean...its hard to explain... it may also depend on you as a person...e.g. being a geek I prefer punk because it is anotehr way of telling the world to fuck off which I could [can] never do successfully in school. Once my band has a demo out I&#39;ll show ya what I mean. you&#39;ll all see one day&#33;

Don&#39;t get me wrong though I don&#39;t hate guitar solos but you can&#39;t judge a band on their technical ability (or actually I can&#39;t rather than "you can&#39;t"). It may be different from person to person but it depends what you like...

[LuZhiming]

Favorite bands:

Graveland
Emperor
Bathory
Burzum
Virgin Steele
Summoning
Blut Aus Nord
Darkthrone
Gorgoroth
Manowar

[LuZhiming]

Favorite bands:

Graveland
Emperor
Bathory
Burzum
Virgin Steele
Summoning
Blut Aus Nord
Darkthrone
Gorgoroth
Manowar

[LuZhiming]

Favorite bands:

Graveland
Emperor
Bathory
Burzum
Virgin Steele
Summoning
Blut Aus Nord
Darkthrone
Gorgoroth
Manowar

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Oh, thank goodness Urban is here to repeat what somebody else just said with a bit more anger and a few untruths.


What the fuck is over simplistic anyway ?

I don&#39;t know why you asked this question, I already explained it.
As I said earlier, simplism doesn&#39;t necessarily lead to bad music. I like plenty of music that&#39;s very simple. It&#39;s a lack of substance and musical value that lead to bad, one-dimensional music. It has little to do with complexity and certainly nothing to do with how complicated or difficult to play it is. That&#39;s just something that you pulled out of nowhere. If you look at my list of bands, you&#39;ll see that there&#39;s plenty of music that&#39;s very easy to play, very simple, and still really groovy.


I&#39;m not a big fan of the Ramones, but I would gladly take them over some of the shit you listen to.

okay...


When you start judging music on how complex and hard to play it is, it becomes less of an art and more of a contest. And that is exactly what alot of that shit degenerated into in the late 70&#39;s: a contest to see who could come up with the most complex shit. Not that that kind of thing doesn&#39;t have it&#39;s place, it does, but like I said, it becomes less of an art. There is such thing as melody and rythym, ever heard of it Victor ? Bands like Sham 69, the Clash and Stiff Little Fingers had it, bands like Yes do not.

Where have I judged music on how complex and hard to play it is? That sort of thing can make a solo or a song impressive, but you&#39;re right, an impressive solo certainly doesn&#39;t necessarily make a good song. A good solo, however is very appropriate, is melodic, and can really make a great song or add a lot to a great song. If you look at my list again, you&#39;ll see that I have very few bands from the late 70s, so I don&#39;t even know why you mentioned that period. There was certainly an ass-load of shit during that time, especially the punk movement. =D

If you actually listen to Yes, you&#39;d know that it&#39;s very melodic music, much more so than punk. It&#39;s also rhythmic, not that you could really dance to it or anything, but rhythmic nonetheless.

And I recall that you liked Pink Floyd, no? A lot of their stuff is very comparable to Yes.


No, I don&#39;t think it&#39;s possible to be "wrongly talented". Sometimes it just gets to be too much. A song doesn&#39;t have to have a 2 minute guitar solo to be good. A guitarist does not have to prove how talented he is every second, sometimes a solo doesn&#39;t fit in the song structure.

After having read my list of bands, and hopefully had some familiarity with the listed bands, since you replied to the post, I don&#39;t understand how you&#39;d think that I only like songs which include a guitar solo.


Yes, sometimes they don&#39;t fit, sometimes it&#39;s obvious the guy is showing off, sometimes it&#39;s just fucking too much. Sometimes I want to hear a short song. Sometimes I want to see a band show emotion and have a message instead of a bunch of pre fab pricks stroking their egos. Sometimes I want to see band and hear some music, not see a show.

Most of the prog-rock bands, such as Yes, that you guys have been picking on, are the absolute anti-thesis of the arena-rock-type stuff that you seem to be criticizing here. There are, in fact, no arena-rock, glam rock, cock-rock type groups in the list with the exception of David Bowie and Queen.

Bands like Yes are absolutely not live show-oriented. Maybe you should listen to them, I think you&#39;d like it.


FUCK

Calm down there, buddy. It&#39;s just opposing music tastes.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Oh, thank goodness Urban is here to repeat what somebody else just said with a bit more anger and a few untruths.


What the fuck is over simplistic anyway ?

I don&#39;t know why you asked this question, I already explained it.
As I said earlier, simplism doesn&#39;t necessarily lead to bad music. I like plenty of music that&#39;s very simple. It&#39;s a lack of substance and musical value that lead to bad, one-dimensional music. It has little to do with complexity and certainly nothing to do with how complicated or difficult to play it is. That&#39;s just something that you pulled out of nowhere. If you look at my list of bands, you&#39;ll see that there&#39;s plenty of music that&#39;s very easy to play, very simple, and still really groovy.


I&#39;m not a big fan of the Ramones, but I would gladly take them over some of the shit you listen to.

okay...


When you start judging music on how complex and hard to play it is, it becomes less of an art and more of a contest. And that is exactly what alot of that shit degenerated into in the late 70&#39;s: a contest to see who could come up with the most complex shit. Not that that kind of thing doesn&#39;t have it&#39;s place, it does, but like I said, it becomes less of an art. There is such thing as melody and rythym, ever heard of it Victor ? Bands like Sham 69, the Clash and Stiff Little Fingers had it, bands like Yes do not.

Where have I judged music on how complex and hard to play it is? That sort of thing can make a solo or a song impressive, but you&#39;re right, an impressive solo certainly doesn&#39;t necessarily make a good song. A good solo, however is very appropriate, is melodic, and can really make a great song or add a lot to a great song. If you look at my list again, you&#39;ll see that I have very few bands from the late 70s, so I don&#39;t even know why you mentioned that period. There was certainly an ass-load of shit during that time, especially the punk movement. =D

If you actually listen to Yes, you&#39;d know that it&#39;s very melodic music, much more so than punk. It&#39;s also rhythmic, not that you could really dance to it or anything, but rhythmic nonetheless.

And I recall that you liked Pink Floyd, no? A lot of their stuff is very comparable to Yes.


No, I don&#39;t think it&#39;s possible to be "wrongly talented". Sometimes it just gets to be too much. A song doesn&#39;t have to have a 2 minute guitar solo to be good. A guitarist does not have to prove how talented he is every second, sometimes a solo doesn&#39;t fit in the song structure.

After having read my list of bands, and hopefully had some familiarity with the listed bands, since you replied to the post, I don&#39;t understand how you&#39;d think that I only like songs which include a guitar solo.


Yes, sometimes they don&#39;t fit, sometimes it&#39;s obvious the guy is showing off, sometimes it&#39;s just fucking too much. Sometimes I want to hear a short song. Sometimes I want to see a band show emotion and have a message instead of a bunch of pre fab pricks stroking their egos. Sometimes I want to see band and hear some music, not see a show.

Most of the prog-rock bands, such as Yes, that you guys have been picking on, are the absolute anti-thesis of the arena-rock-type stuff that you seem to be criticizing here. There are, in fact, no arena-rock, glam rock, cock-rock type groups in the list with the exception of David Bowie and Queen.

Bands like Yes are absolutely not live show-oriented. Maybe you should listen to them, I think you&#39;d like it.


FUCK

Calm down there, buddy. It&#39;s just opposing music tastes.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Oh, thank goodness Urban is here to repeat what somebody else just said with a bit more anger and a few untruths.


What the fuck is over simplistic anyway ?

I don&#39;t know why you asked this question, I already explained it.
As I said earlier, simplism doesn&#39;t necessarily lead to bad music. I like plenty of music that&#39;s very simple. It&#39;s a lack of substance and musical value that lead to bad, one-dimensional music. It has little to do with complexity and certainly nothing to do with how complicated or difficult to play it is. That&#39;s just something that you pulled out of nowhere. If you look at my list of bands, you&#39;ll see that there&#39;s plenty of music that&#39;s very easy to play, very simple, and still really groovy.


I&#39;m not a big fan of the Ramones, but I would gladly take them over some of the shit you listen to.

okay...


When you start judging music on how complex and hard to play it is, it becomes less of an art and more of a contest. And that is exactly what alot of that shit degenerated into in the late 70&#39;s: a contest to see who could come up with the most complex shit. Not that that kind of thing doesn&#39;t have it&#39;s place, it does, but like I said, it becomes less of an art. There is such thing as melody and rythym, ever heard of it Victor ? Bands like Sham 69, the Clash and Stiff Little Fingers had it, bands like Yes do not.

Where have I judged music on how complex and hard to play it is? That sort of thing can make a solo or a song impressive, but you&#39;re right, an impressive solo certainly doesn&#39;t necessarily make a good song. A good solo, however is very appropriate, is melodic, and can really make a great song or add a lot to a great song. If you look at my list again, you&#39;ll see that I have very few bands from the late 70s, so I don&#39;t even know why you mentioned that period. There was certainly an ass-load of shit during that time, especially the punk movement. =D

If you actually listen to Yes, you&#39;d know that it&#39;s very melodic music, much more so than punk. It&#39;s also rhythmic, not that you could really dance to it or anything, but rhythmic nonetheless.

And I recall that you liked Pink Floyd, no? A lot of their stuff is very comparable to Yes.


No, I don&#39;t think it&#39;s possible to be "wrongly talented". Sometimes it just gets to be too much. A song doesn&#39;t have to have a 2 minute guitar solo to be good. A guitarist does not have to prove how talented he is every second, sometimes a solo doesn&#39;t fit in the song structure.

After having read my list of bands, and hopefully had some familiarity with the listed bands, since you replied to the post, I don&#39;t understand how you&#39;d think that I only like songs which include a guitar solo.


Yes, sometimes they don&#39;t fit, sometimes it&#39;s obvious the guy is showing off, sometimes it&#39;s just fucking too much. Sometimes I want to hear a short song. Sometimes I want to see a band show emotion and have a message instead of a bunch of pre fab pricks stroking their egos. Sometimes I want to see band and hear some music, not see a show.

Most of the prog-rock bands, such as Yes, that you guys have been picking on, are the absolute anti-thesis of the arena-rock-type stuff that you seem to be criticizing here. There are, in fact, no arena-rock, glam rock, cock-rock type groups in the list with the exception of David Bowie and Queen.

Bands like Yes are absolutely not live show-oriented. Maybe you should listen to them, I think you&#39;d like it.


FUCK

Calm down there, buddy. It&#39;s just opposing music tastes.

[The Forum Idiot]

Fuck your prog stuff...Gimme something fast powerful emotional and power-chord abusive any day over prog....sure I like some slow music but come on, Ace Of Spades vs prog rock and its simple, you know its gonna be the Ace Of Spades...Sure I liek slow music but it still needs the power rarely found in it. E.g. I love MR Tambourine Man (Dylan),Heroin (velvet underground) and opinion by Nirvana

[The Forum Idiot]

Fuck your prog stuff...Gimme something fast powerful emotional and power-chord abusive any day over prog....sure I like some slow music but come on, Ace Of Spades vs prog rock and its simple, you know its gonna be the Ace Of Spades...Sure I liek slow music but it still needs the power rarely found in it. E.g. I love MR Tambourine Man (Dylan),Heroin (velvet underground) and opinion by Nirvana

[The Forum Idiot]

Fuck your prog stuff...Gimme something fast powerful emotional and power-chord abusive any day over prog....sure I like some slow music but come on, Ace Of Spades vs prog rock and its simple, you know its gonna be the Ace Of Spades...Sure I liek slow music but it still needs the power rarely found in it. E.g. I love MR Tambourine Man (Dylan),Heroin (velvet underground) and opinion by Nirvana

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Since when is progressive rock slow necessarily? There is plenty of fast and heavy prog rock, as there&#39;s also plenty of slow, melow prog rock. It sounds like you have no idea what you&#39;re talking about, I&#39;m afraid.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Since when is progressive rock slow necessarily? There is plenty of fast and heavy prog rock, as there&#39;s also plenty of slow, melow prog rock. It sounds like you have no idea what you&#39;re talking about, I&#39;m afraid.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Since when is progressive rock slow necessarily? There is plenty of fast and heavy prog rock, as there&#39;s also plenty of slow, melow prog rock. It sounds like you have no idea what you&#39;re talking about, I&#39;m afraid.

[DaCuBaN]

It sounds like you have no idea what you&#39;re talking about, I&#39;m afraid.

Beaten to the punch...

[DaCuBaN]

It sounds like you have no idea what you&#39;re talking about, I&#39;m afraid.

Beaten to the punch...

[DaCuBaN]

It sounds like you have no idea what you&#39;re talking about, I&#39;m afraid.

Beaten to the punch...

[Urban Rubble]

Well, I&#39;m sick of this stupid argument, I just wanted to formally announce that just because I have taken the same stance on a debate as "The Forum Idiot", does not mean I don&#39;t want to kick his teeth in.

[Urban Rubble]

Well, I&#39;m sick of this stupid argument, I just wanted to formally announce that just because I have taken the same stance on a debate as "The Forum Idiot", does not mean I don&#39;t want to kick his teeth in.

[Urban Rubble]

Well, I&#39;m sick of this stupid argument, I just wanted to formally announce that just because I have taken the same stance on a debate as "The Forum Idiot", does not mean I don&#39;t want to kick his teeth in.

[The Forum Idiot]

Why do you wanna kick my teeth in? For not liking music that doesn&#39;t no when to stop and go onto the next fucking song? Sure I ain&#39;t heard much prog rock but I know enough about it and I really don&#39;t like what I have heard...All I have heard are like 10 minute long fucking pointless crap...Sorry fans but its true.

[The Forum Idiot]

Why do you wanna kick my teeth in? For not liking music that doesn&#39;t no when to stop and go onto the next fucking song? Sure I ain&#39;t heard much prog rock but I know enough about it and I really don&#39;t like what I have heard...All I have heard are like 10 minute long fucking pointless crap...Sorry fans but its true.

[The Forum Idiot]

Why do you wanna kick my teeth in? For not liking music that doesn&#39;t no when to stop and go onto the next fucking song? Sure I ain&#39;t heard much prog rock but I know enough about it and I really don&#39;t like what I have heard...All I have heard are like 10 minute long fucking pointless crap...Sorry fans but its true.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Well, I&#39;m sick of this stupid argument

here, here


For not liking music that doesn&#39;t no when to stop and go onto the next fucking song?

So songs have a time limit now?
And it&#39;s quite clear you haven&#39;t heard much prog rock.


Sure I ain&#39;t heard much prog rock

Obviously


but I know enough about it

Did you know that a large majority of progressive rock doesn&#39;t involve extremely long tracks and various movements within a song?
Apparently you didn&#39;t know.
Then I guess you don&#39;t know enough. You don&#39;t know shit&#33;


nd I really don&#39;t like what I have heard

Of course not, you enjoy real musical virtuosos like Queens of the Stone Age...


All I have heard are like 10 minute long fucking pointless crap

Then you haven&#39;t hear enough to know shit, as I&#39;ve already said.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Well, I&#39;m sick of this stupid argument

here, here


For not liking music that doesn&#39;t no when to stop and go onto the next fucking song?

So songs have a time limit now?
And it&#39;s quite clear you haven&#39;t heard much prog rock.


Sure I ain&#39;t heard much prog rock

Obviously


but I know enough about it

Did you know that a large majority of progressive rock doesn&#39;t involve extremely long tracks and various movements within a song?
Apparently you didn&#39;t know.
Then I guess you don&#39;t know enough. You don&#39;t know shit&#33;


nd I really don&#39;t like what I have heard

Of course not, you enjoy real musical virtuosos like Queens of the Stone Age...


All I have heard are like 10 minute long fucking pointless crap

Then you haven&#39;t hear enough to know shit, as I&#39;ve already said.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Well, I&#39;m sick of this stupid argument

here, here


For not liking music that doesn&#39;t no when to stop and go onto the next fucking song?

So songs have a time limit now?
And it&#39;s quite clear you haven&#39;t heard much prog rock.


Sure I ain&#39;t heard much prog rock

Obviously


but I know enough about it

Did you know that a large majority of progressive rock doesn&#39;t involve extremely long tracks and various movements within a song?
Apparently you didn&#39;t know.
Then I guess you don&#39;t know enough. You don&#39;t know shit&#33;


nd I really don&#39;t like what I have heard

Of course not, you enjoy real musical virtuosos like Queens of the Stone Age...


All I have heard are like 10 minute long fucking pointless crap

Then you haven&#39;t hear enough to know shit, as I&#39;ve already said.

[DaCuBaN]

Queens of the Stone Age...

I&#39;ve heard them being branded as &#39;prog&#39; before.

I think the simple point is that so far, we&#39;ve all been guilty of &#39;musical snobbery&#39;. Fuck that shit. Your taste sucks, my taste sucks - the point is we enjoy it either way.


All I have heard are like 10 minute long fucking pointless crap

To which I could retort that all punk is a minute and thirty (two if you&#39;re lucky&#33;) of mindless noise, played by talentless idiots; it totally misses the point. When something seems &#39;pointless&#39; it&#39;s not for lack of function - it&#39;s that you cannot see any purpose.

Threads like this, &#39;fun&#39; though they seem do nothing, gain nothing, and only serve to drive apart people. On that note, I&#39;m gone :cool:

[DaCuBaN]

Queens of the Stone Age...

I&#39;ve heard them being branded as &#39;prog&#39; before.

I think the simple point is that so far, we&#39;ve all been guilty of &#39;musical snobbery&#39;. Fuck that shit. Your taste sucks, my taste sucks - the point is we enjoy it either way.


All I have heard are like 10 minute long fucking pointless crap

To which I could retort that all punk is a minute and thirty (two if you&#39;re lucky&#33;) of mindless noise, played by talentless idiots; it totally misses the point. When something seems &#39;pointless&#39; it&#39;s not for lack of function - it&#39;s that you cannot see any purpose.

Threads like this, &#39;fun&#39; though they seem do nothing, gain nothing, and only serve to drive apart people. On that note, I&#39;m gone :cool:

[DaCuBaN]

Queens of the Stone Age...

I&#39;ve heard them being branded as &#39;prog&#39; before.

I think the simple point is that so far, we&#39;ve all been guilty of &#39;musical snobbery&#39;. Fuck that shit. Your taste sucks, my taste sucks - the point is we enjoy it either way.


All I have heard are like 10 minute long fucking pointless crap

To which I could retort that all punk is a minute and thirty (two if you&#39;re lucky&#33;) of mindless noise, played by talentless idiots; it totally misses the point. When something seems &#39;pointless&#39; it&#39;s not for lack of function - it&#39;s that you cannot see any purpose.

Threads like this, &#39;fun&#39; though they seem do nothing, gain nothing, and only serve to drive apart people. On that note, I&#39;m gone :cool:

[Djehuti]

Well, most of the bands I listen to is swedish bands that you have probably not even heard of...but I listen to some brittish music to, like:

Cock sparrer, Cockney Rejects, Angelic Upstarts, Agnostic Front, Sham 69, Opressed, Business, 4-Skins, Oi Polloi, etc...

[Djehuti]

Well, most of the bands I listen to is swedish bands that you have probably not even heard of...but I listen to some brittish music to, like:

Cock sparrer, Cockney Rejects, Angelic Upstarts, Agnostic Front, Sham 69, Opressed, Business, 4-Skins, Oi Polloi, etc...

[Djehuti]

Well, most of the bands I listen to is swedish bands that you have probably not even heard of...but I listen to some brittish music to, like:

Cock sparrer, Cockney Rejects, Angelic Upstarts, Agnostic Front, Sham 69, Opressed, Business, 4-Skins, Oi Polloi, etc...

[The Forum Idiot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 06:51 PM
I&#39;ve heard them being branded as &#39;prog&#39; before.

I think the simple point is that so far, we&#39;ve all been guilty of &#39;musical snobbery&#39;. Fuck that shit. Your taste sucks, my taste sucks - the point is we enjoy it either way.



To which I could retort that all punk is a minute and thirty (two if you&#39;re lucky&#33;) of mindless noise, played by talentless idiots; it totally misses the point. When something seems &#39;pointless&#39; it&#39;s not for lack of function - it&#39;s that you cannot see any purpose.

Threads like this, &#39;fun&#39; though they seem do nothing, gain nothing, and only serve to drive apart people. On that note, I&#39;m gone :cool:
Queens Of The Stone Age as prog? BULLSHIT&#33; They&#39;re stoner rock/light metal kinda...They&#39;ve got more in common with Nirvana than Pink Floyd...And this shit about punk songs being too short is crap, one of the definitive punk anthems, God Save The Queen is over 3 minutes, Nirvana&#39;s Smells Like Teen Spirit (grunge grew out if punk) is like 5 minutes&#33; But seriously...some songs just get too longa nd you wanna move onto the next one for something different... Punk music is NOT just noise...Look at songs by The Clash - all very meaningful...some even too meaningful. We reallys hould stop this but there are some points I need to make...It depends in what you&#39;re looking for in a song...if its meaningful, passionate, etc you really want something fast, powerful and over before it gets boring then punk&#39;s your answer...I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve ever heard a good non-punk (note, punk includes punk movements like grunge) love song written after the 70s except "InLove" by the Datsuns, don&#39;t get me wrong I&#39;m sure some are out there but punk epitomises the romantic, dramatic and passionate "live fast die fast" theory essential to great love songs...Just take a listen to Redundant by green day, About A Girl by Nirvana and the amazinG Ever Fallen In Love by the BUzzcocks.

[The Forum Idiot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 06:51 PM
I&#39;ve heard them being branded as &#39;prog&#39; before.

I think the simple point is that so far, we&#39;ve all been guilty of &#39;musical snobbery&#39;. Fuck that shit. Your taste sucks, my taste sucks - the point is we enjoy it either way.



To which I could retort that all punk is a minute and thirty (two if you&#39;re lucky&#33;) of mindless noise, played by talentless idiots; it totally misses the point. When something seems &#39;pointless&#39; it&#39;s not for lack of function - it&#39;s that you cannot see any purpose.

Threads like this, &#39;fun&#39; though they seem do nothing, gain nothing, and only serve to drive apart people. On that note, I&#39;m gone :cool:
Queens Of The Stone Age as prog? BULLSHIT&#33; They&#39;re stoner rock/light metal kinda...They&#39;ve got more in common with Nirvana than Pink Floyd...And this shit about punk songs being too short is crap, one of the definitive punk anthems, God Save The Queen is over 3 minutes, Nirvana&#39;s Smells Like Teen Spirit (grunge grew out if punk) is like 5 minutes&#33; But seriously...some songs just get too longa nd you wanna move onto the next one for something different... Punk music is NOT just noise...Look at songs by The Clash - all very meaningful...some even too meaningful. We reallys hould stop this but there are some points I need to make...It depends in what you&#39;re looking for in a song...if its meaningful, passionate, etc you really want something fast, powerful and over before it gets boring then punk&#39;s your answer...I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve ever heard a good non-punk (note, punk includes punk movements like grunge) love song written after the 70s except "InLove" by the Datsuns, don&#39;t get me wrong I&#39;m sure some are out there but punk epitomises the romantic, dramatic and passionate "live fast die fast" theory essential to great love songs...Just take a listen to Redundant by green day, About A Girl by Nirvana and the amazinG Ever Fallen In Love by the BUzzcocks.

[The Forum Idiot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 06:51 PM
I&#39;ve heard them being branded as &#39;prog&#39; before.

I think the simple point is that so far, we&#39;ve all been guilty of &#39;musical snobbery&#39;. Fuck that shit. Your taste sucks, my taste sucks - the point is we enjoy it either way.



To which I could retort that all punk is a minute and thirty (two if you&#39;re lucky&#33;) of mindless noise, played by talentless idiots; it totally misses the point. When something seems &#39;pointless&#39; it&#39;s not for lack of function - it&#39;s that you cannot see any purpose.

Threads like this, &#39;fun&#39; though they seem do nothing, gain nothing, and only serve to drive apart people. On that note, I&#39;m gone :cool:
Queens Of The Stone Age as prog? BULLSHIT&#33; They&#39;re stoner rock/light metal kinda...They&#39;ve got more in common with Nirvana than Pink Floyd...And this shit about punk songs being too short is crap, one of the definitive punk anthems, God Save The Queen is over 3 minutes, Nirvana&#39;s Smells Like Teen Spirit (grunge grew out if punk) is like 5 minutes&#33; But seriously...some songs just get too longa nd you wanna move onto the next one for something different... Punk music is NOT just noise...Look at songs by The Clash - all very meaningful...some even too meaningful. We reallys hould stop this but there are some points I need to make...It depends in what you&#39;re looking for in a song...if its meaningful, passionate, etc you really want something fast, powerful and over before it gets boring then punk&#39;s your answer...I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve ever heard a good non-punk (note, punk includes punk movements like grunge) love song written after the 70s except "InLove" by the Datsuns, don&#39;t get me wrong I&#39;m sure some are out there but punk epitomises the romantic, dramatic and passionate "live fast die fast" theory essential to great love songs...Just take a listen to Redundant by green day, About A Girl by Nirvana and the amazinG Ever Fallen In Love by the BUzzcocks.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

But seriously...some songs just get too longa nd you wanna move onto the next one for something different

Like what? I&#39;d like to know what prog songs you&#39;ve heard.


And this shit about punk songs being too short is crap, one of the definitive punk anthems, God Save The Queen is over 3 minutes, Nirvana&#39;s Smells Like Teen Spirit (grunge grew out if punk) is like 5 minutes&#33;

This is the worst argument I&#39;ve ever fuckin seen. Since wen does the length of the song dictate how good it is? I could just as easily show you dozens of progressive tracks that are under two minutes, but what the fuck would that prove?

In fact... I think I will, let&#39;s see.

Pigs on the Wing by Pink Floyd is 1:25
Are You Hung Up? by Frank Zappa is 1:24
Harry You&#39;re a Beast by Frank Zappa is 1:21
Cheerio by Jethro Tull is 1:10

Now what the fuck did that just prove?


Punk music is NOT just noise...Look at songs by The Clash - all very meaningful...some even too meaningful.

Are that stupid that you couldn&#39;t see that DC what just trying to make a point when he made that question? He specificaly wrote, "It totally misses the point. [to make criticisms like that]"

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

But seriously...some songs just get too longa nd you wanna move onto the next one for something different

Like what? I&#39;d like to know what prog songs you&#39;ve heard.


And this shit about punk songs being too short is crap, one of the definitive punk anthems, God Save The Queen is over 3 minutes, Nirvana&#39;s Smells Like Teen Spirit (grunge grew out if punk) is like 5 minutes&#33;

This is the worst argument I&#39;ve ever fuckin seen. Since wen does the length of the song dictate how good it is? I could just as easily show you dozens of progressive tracks that are under two minutes, but what the fuck would that prove?

In fact... I think I will, let&#39;s see.

Pigs on the Wing by Pink Floyd is 1:25
Are You Hung Up? by Frank Zappa is 1:24
Harry You&#39;re a Beast by Frank Zappa is 1:21
Cheerio by Jethro Tull is 1:10

Now what the fuck did that just prove?


Punk music is NOT just noise...Look at songs by The Clash - all very meaningful...some even too meaningful.

Are that stupid that you couldn&#39;t see that DC what just trying to make a point when he made that question? He specificaly wrote, "It totally misses the point. [to make criticisms like that]"

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

But seriously...some songs just get too longa nd you wanna move onto the next one for something different

Like what? I&#39;d like to know what prog songs you&#39;ve heard.


And this shit about punk songs being too short is crap, one of the definitive punk anthems, God Save The Queen is over 3 minutes, Nirvana&#39;s Smells Like Teen Spirit (grunge grew out if punk) is like 5 minutes&#33;

This is the worst argument I&#39;ve ever fuckin seen. Since wen does the length of the song dictate how good it is? I could just as easily show you dozens of progressive tracks that are under two minutes, but what the fuck would that prove?

In fact... I think I will, let&#39;s see.

Pigs on the Wing by Pink Floyd is 1:25
Are You Hung Up? by Frank Zappa is 1:24
Harry You&#39;re a Beast by Frank Zappa is 1:21
Cheerio by Jethro Tull is 1:10

Now what the fuck did that just prove?


Punk music is NOT just noise...Look at songs by The Clash - all very meaningful...some even too meaningful.

Are that stupid that you couldn&#39;t see that DC what just trying to make a point when he made that question? He specificaly wrote, "It totally misses the point. [to make criticisms like that]"

[DaCuBaN]

Well said, RedZep :D

I think I may be able to articulate my point, briefly, better than at first...


some songs just get too long and you wanna move onto the next one for something different

You state this like it&#39;s objective fact, when in fact ( :lol: ) it&#39;s subjective opinion. Can&#39;t you understand that music is just all different, and even in fact trying to &#39;brand&#39; into certain genres is an utterly futile task?

[DaCuBaN]

Well said, RedZep :D

I think I may be able to articulate my point, briefly, better than at first...


some songs just get too long and you wanna move onto the next one for something different

You state this like it&#39;s objective fact, when in fact ( :lol: ) it&#39;s subjective opinion. Can&#39;t you understand that music is just all different, and even in fact trying to &#39;brand&#39; into certain genres is an utterly futile task?

[DaCuBaN]

Well said, RedZep :D

I think I may be able to articulate my point, briefly, better than at first...


some songs just get too long and you wanna move onto the next one for something different

You state this like it&#39;s objective fact, when in fact ( :lol: ) it&#39;s subjective opinion. Can&#39;t you understand that music is just all different, and even in fact trying to &#39;brand&#39; into certain genres is an utterly futile task?

[rebelred]

-Tool
-A Perfect Circle
-Rage Against The Machine
-Primus
-Pigmy Love Circus
-The Melvins
-Helmet
-Pink Floyd
....ect.

[The Forum Idiot]

To which I could retort that all punk is a minute and thirty (two if you&#39;re lucky&#33;) of mindless noise, played by talentless idiots; it totally misses the point. When something seems &#39;pointless&#39; it&#39;s not for lack of function - it&#39;s that you cannot see any purpose.


Here DC implies that all punk is too short. And insults it, I suppose he really could have been taking the piss kinda but he sure as fuck coulda made it clearer. This was the basis for my argument. A long song doesn&#39;t mean its bad but come on...could u listen to 30 minutes of the same song? I&#39;m not saying you do necessarily but its my point. I like short sharp bursts of MUSICAL FREEDOM (aka punk to all you ignorant folk) rather than long songs...don&#39;t get me wrong, Heroin by Velvet Underground is amazing but it just...well...gets boring, and by definition "progressive" music should be long enough to progress into a different sound...which would normally take quite a lot longer than a 1:30 second blast of Green Day fun...


However I will admit the band I&#39;d listened to and was told were prog is in fact not...Some dumbass said they were which limits by prog history to a few songs from Ummagumma by PF which are ok and a few frank zappa songs (But i never considered him prog)...meaning I accept I was wrong about knowing a decent ammount (I gonna kill the motherfucker who told me this band (you won&#39;t know them) are prog) but still, by definition prog shud take a while....

[Urban Rubble]

Why do you wanna kick my teeth in? For not liking music that doesn&#39;t no when to stop and go onto the next fucking song? Sure I ain&#39;t heard much prog rock but I know enough about it and I really don&#39;t like what I have heard...All I have heard are like 10 minute long fucking pointless crap...Sorry fans but its true.

I don&#39;t actually want to kick you teeth in.

I said that because you have taken up a point I agree with, but your points suck ass so you&#39;re making my point look invalid. You&#39;re screwing up my argument, that&#39;s why I left the thread.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Prog by definition does not need to be long. It&#39;s called progressive because, supposedly, it is a progression of mainstream rock. All prog rock bands have songs of different lengths. Most stuff by the Moody Blues, for example, is between 4 and 8 minutes. Jethro Tull tends to have some slightly shorter tracks at around 3 or 4 minutes. Stuff like King Crimson tends be much longer with each song at least 6 minutes, but more lasting over 10 minutes. Yes has even longer songs. They tend to have songs with various movements within a song, so a single track can be over 25 minutes long. Frank Zappa&#39;s albums are all very different. The songs I used as an example all came from We&#39;re Only in it for the Money, which is just a bunch of songs making fun of psychedelic acid hippy rock, and most songs are under 2 minutes. Stuff like Hot Rats, however, has much longer songs.

[celtopunk]

I never really considered Jethro Tull or Frank Zappa prog rock, although I have only listened to a fraction of the great music that Zappa made. The other bands that you mention definitely come to mind when I think of prog rock along with the likes of Genesis, ELO, Eloy, Hawkwind and Pink Floyd. However the self proclaimed encyclopedia of prog rock (http://www.gepr.net/bandlist.html#) does proclaim that Zappa and Tull are prog rock.

Oh and don&#39;t you think pointing out a 1:25 Pink Floyd song as an example of how prog rock can have short songs is a bit ... disingenuous?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Don&#39;t you think that pointing out a five minute Nirvana song as an example of how punk can be long is extremely disingenuous? Especially when you realize that Nirvana isn&#39;t even a punk band. Nirvana&#39;s closer to metal than anything else.

But I think it&#39;s very ignorant to say that prog rock is in general very long. Most of it is around 5 minutes. A small minority of prog songs are extremely long (10 to 30 minutes).

I&#39;m not very familiar with Eloy and Hawkwind.

While we&#39;re on the subject, what do you guys think of art rock? Like 10cc.
I&#39;ve even heard of Supertramp, Moody Blues, Asia, Genesis, Nektar, Rush, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Alan Parsons Project, and Yes classified as Art Rock.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

classifications of rock... so many, so varying... I&#39;ve heard Pink floyd called art rock, space rock, acid rock, and a certain idiot told me they were punk rock. It&#39;s kind of pointless to argue for hours on end about what group a band fits into.

But myself, it&#39;s all aobut classic rock, especially Hendrix.

[celtopunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 01:43 AM
Don&#39;t you think that pointing out a five minute Nirvana song as an example of how punk can be long is extremely disingenuous? Especially when you realize that Nirvana isn&#39;t even a punk band. Nirvana&#39;s closer to metal than anything else.

But I think it&#39;s very ignorant to say that prog rock is in general very long. Most of it is around 5 minutes. A small minority of prog songs are extremely long (10 to 30 minutes).

I&#39;m not very familiar with Eloy and Hawkwind.

While we&#39;re on the subject, what do you guys think of art rock? Like 10cc.
I&#39;ve even heard of Supertramp, Moody Blues, Asia, Genesis, Nektar, Rush, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Alan Parsons Project, and Yes classified as Art Rock.
Well you said yourself Nirvana wasn&#39;t a punk band but I would say they were closer to punk than they were to metal. "From Cradle to the Grave" by the Subhumans is a better example of a long punk song or "Stars and Stripes of Corruption" by Dead Kennedys, but off te top of my head I don&#39;t know how long they are.

You should checkout Hawkwind I think Ginger Baker played with them at some point as did Lemmy from Motorhead.

I like King Crimson a bit the rest of those bands...

[Wiesty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 04:03 AM
CCR
Janis Joplin
Hendrix
ELO (sue me)
Rage Against the Machine
311
The Violent Femmes
Sublime
The Clash
Bad Religion
Prince and the Revolution
Social Distortion
*ooh I forgot LL Cool Jay.

The two bold one&#39;s NEVER change. I know I&#39;m forgetting alot and sometimes some of those mentioned aren&#39;t my favorite. But right now they are. Yeah, this list changes a lot for me.
2 good bands. ESPECIALLY SUBLIME
k im like the biggest sublime critic, have like posters and 5 of their cds (i need 3 more) and when i finally get some moeny im gonna go pick up their dvd

[Don't Change Your Name]

I&#39;d go see them 100 times more before I&#39;d consider seeing a band like Yes even once. I pick Yes because to me they were a perfect example of what was wrong with rock music at that time, what was killing the spirit of rock n roll, a bunch of very talented musicians that made boring music, or more precisely boring rock n roll. (sorry for the run on) They didn&#39;t get rock n roll just like so many of their contemporaries. It was bands like the Ramones that SAVED rock n roll from the clutches of the self indulgent musicians of that era.

The Ramones = reactionary rock?
And what did they save rock from? You mean rock is better now? And with crap like the "Nu Metal" shit???
Rock music sucks nowadays...


Since when is progressive rock slow necessarily? There is plenty of fast and heavy prog rock, as there&#39;s also plenty of slow, melow prog rock. It sounds like you have no idea what you&#39;re talking about, I&#39;m afraid.

Yes, there&#39;s plenty of variety in what can be called prog rock.

The Forum Idiot, you probably think prog rock is just stuff like "The Wall"

Some music that was called prog rock that you should listen:
King Crimson: the whole "Red" album, "21st Century Schizoid Man", "Larks Tongues In Aspic, Part 2" and maybe even some of their latest stuff ("Vrooom comes to mind for example)
Yes: "Roundabout", "Heart Of The Sunrise", "Yours Is No Disgrace"
Jethro Tull: "Aqualung, "Locomotive Breath", "Wind Up"
Pink Floyd: the "Animals" album
Other stuff like Dream Theater

Even bands like Led Zeppelin are considered prog rock by some people&#33;

That music&#39;s far more interesting and entertaining that the Ramones or whichever "look at us and how pseudo-revolutionaries we are&#33;" punk band
(If you prefer Green Day to "Roundabout" because you think it&#39;s more entertaining, you suck)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Here here, Infiltrado&#33;

Those are very good suggestions.

If you&#39;re just getting into prog, Crimson is an excelent place to start. Red and In The Court of the Crimson King are my personal favorites. Yes and Pink Floyd may be harder to get into. Jethro Tull is cool. Lacks variety, but they&#39;re still pretty rad.

I&#39;d like to point out thet there&#39;s plenty of really shitty prog rock that you should all stay away from, particularly any band named after a geographic location, like Kansas, Asia, and Europe. Most of the stuff by the Blue Oyster Cult and such is pretty bad as well.

Frank Zappa freakin&#39; rocks the shit.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

That site you posted earlier, the "encyclopedia of Prog" or some shit is kind of strange. They list loads of prog bands, but then they include Queen and Frank Zappa who are very ambiguously progressive, like you said, and leave out Europe and the Blue oyster Cult. Both of whom are clearly progressive.

[anarchy means I litter]

coheed and cambria
thursday
daft punk
anatomy of a ghost
the kinison
thrice
alexionfire
death cab for cutie
the cure
bright eyes
desaparecidos
atreyu
jet
my chemical romance
a static lullaby
overshadowed (local. and the guitarist is god.)
outkast
mae
ben kweller
the get up kids
atom and his package
as i lay dying
alkaline trio
coldplay
saves the day
afi
the strokes
the unicorns
copeland
maroon 5
iron and wine (obviously)
the juliana theory
taking back sunday
brand new
placebo
dream theatre
saosin
mos def
sunny day real estate
the lyndsay diaries
texas is the reason
dead poetic
slow coming day
rooney
from autumn to ashes
tenatious D
in flames
dashboard confessional
the clash
the ramones
fall out boy
sublime
dead prez
rage against the machine
the crystal method
anti flag
the mars volta
unearth
killswitch engage
the black dahlia murder

just to name a........lot.

[celtopunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 10:18 PM
That site you posted earlier, the "encyclopedia of Prog" or some shit is kind of strange. They list loads of prog bands, but then they include Queen and Frank Zappa who are very ambiguously progressive, like you said, and leave out Europe and the Blue oyster Cult. Both of whom are clearly progressive.



BOC were prog rock??? I don&#39;t see it or should I say hear it. And yeah Asia, Europe and Kansas did pretty much suck. The only thing cool about Kansas was the album cover with John Brown on it.

As for El Infiltr(A)do and these comments:
The Ramones = reactionary rock?

Prove it, one member was conservative the rest were not and nothing in their lyrics was "reactionary".

El Infiltr(A) says: And what did they save rock from? You mean rock is better now?

Yes, better than if the self-indulgent crap of the 70&#39;s had managed to continue unabated.

El Infiltr(A) says:
And with crap like the "Nu Metal" shit???
Rock music sucks nowadays...

No you suck because you are too lazy to seek out good music, you like so many others expect it to be handed to you and it isn&#39;t so you turn on the classic rock station and wax nostalgic for the music of the 60s and 70s and say I wish I was around in the 60s so I could have gone to Woodstock.

[The Forum Idiot]

Ok, onthe nirvana punk argument: You are an idiot (the guy who said they were more metal than punk). Nirvana are grunge, grunge is the biggest off shoot from brit punk but happened in America. Smells Like Teen Spirit has even been called a punk song rather than grunge. Nirvana are the punkiest of the grunge movement (well....maybe the breeders or mudhoney are punkier but meh).


Anyways, to end all the arguing.

I like my music
You like yours
The Ramones are overrated.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I know Nirvana was grunge, but they&#39;re still pretty fucking metallic. I&#39;ve seen more similarities between Nirvana and metal that with punk. They&#39;re much more guitar-oriented than any punk I&#39;ve ever heard. But it doesn&#39;t really matter.

[Urban Rubble]

Ok, onthe nirvana punk argument: You are an idiot (the guy who said they were more metal than punk). Nirvana are grunge, grunge is the biggest off shoot from brit punk but happened in America. Smells Like Teen Spirit has even been called a punk song rather than grunge. Nirvana are the punkiest of the grunge movement (well....maybe the breeders or mudhoney are punkier but meh).

Dude, you&#39;re starting to piss me off now. You know nothing.

"Grunge" is not a kind of music, it is an offshoot of metal. Have you ever heard the Bleach album ? How in the fuck can you possibly think that is more punk than metal ? It&#39;s slowed down metal, plain and simple.

Mudhoney is not "punkier". They aren&#39;t punk.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 2 2004, 05:44 PM
"Grunge" is not a kind of music, it is an offshoot of metal. Have you ever heard the Bleach album ? How in the fuck can you possibly think that is more punk than metal ? It&#39;s slowed down metal, plain and simple.
Incorrect. &#39;Grunge&#39; formed off something of a merger between a sound captured most notably by the Melvins and then a host of bands which had a blues/country/soft rock sort of mix, best done by the Meatpuppets, with influence from Iggy Pop, Henry Rollins, and other such artists. Nirvana is certainly included in this too, the Melvins and the Meatpuppets are two of their most cited bands as influences. The Melvins were Metal(and much more), but the Grunge scene took away the heavier elements of the Melvins and mixed them with a more ear-friendly and catchier style of songwriting, which threw away all Metal elements. They did this to a lesser, but highly significant extent to the more raw and minimalistic Punk elements as well. Also, these bands mixed the Punk and what I&#39;ll call Meatpuppets style in a way in which the Blues and Country elements were still there, but less obvious, and compared with stuff by the Meatpuppets and such bands, the mix made Grunge rawer(But as said earlier, it wasn&#39;t so raw when compared to Punk). Lastly, these bands added a more poppy sound to this, which included song structure(especially the reliance on typical 3 idea Classic Rock structure), preciseness, vocals, more simple-beat friendly drums, and "better" production. This is essentially what so-called Grunge is, it has nothing to do with Metal, and little to do with Punk. Compare Nirvana to anything that&#39;s considered Metal. Compare to the vast and varied amount of 70s/80s Heavy/Power Metal bands ranging from Black Sabbath, Scorpions, Budgie, Rush, Accept, Judas Priest and Iron Maiden to Heavy Load, Cirith Ungol, Brocas Helm, Manilla Road, DIO, Virgin Steele, and Manowar to the First Wave of Black Metal bands like Venom, Hellhammer, Celtic Frost, Bulldozer, Sodom, Mercyful Fate, Sarcofago, and the still groundbreaking Bathory, to the early Speed Metal bands(too many to name), and of course the many NWOBHM bands. Or compare it to Metal in a more developed state. Compare it to Thrash, Slayer, Exodus, Overkill, early-Metallica, Megadeth, Death Angel, Forbidden, Dark Angel, Kreator, Destruction, Slaughter(Can) etc. Compare it to the second wave of Black Metal, Graveland, Havohej, Mutiilation, Burzum, Emperor, Gorgoroth, Enslaved, Darkthrone, Beherit, etc. Compare it to Doom Metal and Doom/Death bands like Amorphis, Candlemass, My Dying Bride, Anathema and the rest. Compare it to the huge wave of Speed/Power bands around the time of Helloween, Running Wild, Rage, Sinner, Grave Digger, Cutty Sark, etc. Compare it to all of the waves and types of Death Metal, starting with Possessed, Death, and Slaughter to Morbid Angel, Cannibal Corpse, Carcass, to At The Gates and the multitudes of others. Compare it to the Post-Death Grindcore stuff that&#39;s been out for a while. Compare it to more experimental Metal bands like the Black Electronic Metal band Thorns, or the Electronic Metal band Ulver, or the Avant-Garde Metal band Arcturus, or the Psychadelic Black Metal band Sigh, or the Power/Black/Post-Black sound of later Summoning, or the Death-Jazz Metal sound of Cynic and Atheist. Compare it to the newer acts of Power and Black Metal, or the new so-called Viking, Folk, Pagan, Epic, Avantgarde, Post-Black and even Progressive etc. Metal bands. Even a comparison to "fake" Black Metal bands like Cradle of Filth and early-Dimmu Borgir will merit this. You can compare it to the whole genre if you want, and it is obvious Nirvana is not an offshoot of Metal or slowed down Metal, it has nothing to do with Metal in any sense at all.

Just in case you believe ideology has some role in classification, then it should be said that (from this ideologically assumption-driven mindset) Grunge bands were ideologically a more laid-back, less rule-based, and less elitist version of Punk in the style of very early-Henry Rollins and the multitude of other such bands. This case isn&#39;t all that different from the pure musical interpretation, they again have nothing to do with Metal, and only have a bit more of Punk influence.

Do not accuse others of not knowing anything when this very obviously applies to you. You should not speak of Metal like this when you clearly don&#39;t know anything about the genre.

[dark fairy]

led zeppelin
tool
rolling stones
the who
hendrix
guns&#39;n&#39; roses
perfect circle
Black Sabbath
AC/DC
The Doors

that&#39;s all i can think of at this moment

[The Forum Idiot]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 2 2004, 05:44 PM
Dude, you&#39;re starting to piss me off now. You know nothing.

"Grunge" is not a kind of music, it is an offshoot of metal. Have you ever heard the Bleach album ? How in the fuck can you possibly think that is more punk than metal ? It&#39;s slowed down metal, plain and simple.

Mudhoney is not "punkier". They aren&#39;t punk.
Dude, just don&#39;t argue with me about grunge. Just don&#39;t I know much much more than you. Kurt Cobain hated 90% of metal, loved 90% of punk and ha dthe whole damn punk ethos. Sure, Bleach is VERY metallish but Nevermind isn&#39;t, Neither is Incesticide, or any of the live bootlegs I have. Mudhoney DEFINED grunge. Go geta text book on the early 90s buddy. Grunge grew out of punk, alice in chains, nirvana, L7, Babes In Toyland, Pearl Jam, Sound Garden, Mudhoney and more are ALL grunge and ALL have some influence from punk (all except sound garden and pearl jam have an extremely high influence from punk). Just don&#39;t argue with me on this. I know this as FACT. get over it. Argue with me about prog and say the same stuff i just did but not grunge.

To the guy with the very long post: I&#39;d call the Melvins metal but apparently they&#39;re technically treated as punk...i dunno, I&#39;ve never heard much. I&#39;d say that the grunge sound is a good mix of both punk and metal but it depends how you look at it...Bands like Pearl Jam and Alice In Chains are very metal influenced while mudhoney, nirvana and L7 aren&#39;t. It depends how you look on it. either way, nirvana are grunge. FACT.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It may have grown out of shit (that&#39;s what it sounds like), but I don&#39;t give a rat&#39;s ass.

Grunge is very guitar-oriented and metallic. Punk is neither. Kurt Cobain hated pop hair-metal. Everyone did (and does). But his music indeed had a lot to do with metal&#33;

[The Rotten One]

Oh, for fuck&#39;s sake&#33; Why has this gone on for five bloody pages?&#33;

First off, music is a living thing. It is changing and evolving. Nobody can say that rock sucks now. Good music still exists. Just because you&#39;re a lazy sod who can&#39;t be bothered to change the station does not mean that the music of the modern world is bad. Britney and Justin do not define the world of music. No band will every define music. Some say love it or leave it. I say love it or change it.

Second, Idiot, you truly are an Idiot. It&#39;s obvious that you not only no nothing about prog, but also nothing about punk, and quite frankly, nothing about music in genral. So to quote Mark Twain, It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Please shut up.

Third:Here is my list.

The Clash
Pink Floyd
The Who
The Beatles
The Sex Pistols
Frank Zappa
Hendrix
Leftover Crack
800 Octane
The Velvet Underground
Bad Brains
And many, Many More.

[The Forum Idiot]

Where the fuck did I say something which is incorrect about punk? Dumbass.

[The Rotten One]

Saying that Mick Jones was a"technically inferior" musician is not only blatantly incorrect, it&#39;s an insult. Also, who the fuck are you to try and teach anyone about the "punk ethos"? You cannot define the whole of a griop of bands and their musical styles with a rebellious blurb. I consider myself a punk, as do you. But we are completely different. Punk can&#39;t be defined by tight pants covered in patches and a fifty quid leather jacket. You are a wanker for thinking it can.
Also, Nirvana an offshoot of &#39;77? I don&#39;t know where the fuck you got THAT, but then again you might have a reason, so please, elaborate.

[GrYnEt]

Nick Drake

[RageAgainstTheMachine]

Lostprophets
Funeral for a friend
My chemical romance
Slipknot
Rage against the machine
System of a down
Story of the year
Green Day
Coheed and cambria
When reason sleeps....... Theres hundreads more but i cant think

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Wow, Nick Drake as a single fabvorite musician... I&#39;ve never seen that before.

He&#39;s really good, by the way. Nice choice.
I like Bob Dylan better, though.

[The Forum Idiot]

Originally posted by The Rotten [email protected] 5 2004, 05:16 PM
Saying that Mick Jones was a"technically inferior" musician is not only blatantly incorrect, it&#39;s an insult. Also, who the fuck are you to try and teach anyone about the "punk ethos"? You cannot define the whole of a griop of bands and their musical styles with a rebellious blurb. I consider myself a punk, as do you. But we are completely different. Punk can&#39;t be defined by tight pants covered in patches and a fifty quid leather jacket. You are a wanker for thinking it can.
Also, Nirvana an offshoot of &#39;77? I don&#39;t know where the fuck you got THAT, but then again you might have a reason, so please, elaborate.
LO-FUCKING-L&#33;

*laughs till brains explode*

Ok, lets look at the FACTS which you have clearly forgotten.

A) You don&#39;t fucking know me nearly as well as you think.

B) Oh, come ON&#33; Mick Jones as a really good musician? BULLSHIT&#33; sure he had some amazing riffs but technically speaking he&#39;s bollocks (just like Kurt Cobain who I also idolise).

C)I never gave them the "rebellious blurb." The punk ethos is play what you want, how you want and don&#39;t give a shit about what people think. Also political correctness helps butis not necassary. At least that&#39;s some of the ethos, also be what you want and speak what you think.

D)I don&#39;t where tight pants or leather jackets. I wear smelly 4 year old t-shirts from Warhammer Games Day and crappy trousers. You never asked me about my theories on the punk ethos so don&#39;t quote what is only in YOUR head. Dumbass.

E) Look at Nirvana&#39;s MUSIC (or should I say listen to). Its a LOT like the Sex Pistols in terms of riffs and clearly clash inspired lyrics. Don&#39;t bring out any bullshit on Kurt not liking the Clash either. Coz he fucking well did and I have evidence of that. Not an offshoot in terms of genre....but so far as music, attitude and ethos go it was.

F) You clearly don&#39;t listen to much punk outside the Sex Pistols. I listen to many punk and proto-punk bands (sadly not as much as I&#39;d like).

My papa was there and here are his thoughts on Mick Jones: "He started off pretty rubbish".

May I ask tyou for a list of the 70s punk bands you have actually heard?

[captain anarchy]

the cure
nirvana
the smiths
anti flag
the misfits
danzig
korn
cradle of filth
marilyn manson
rammstein
jimmy hendrix
the greatful dead
the eels
suicide
slipknot
propagandi
sex pistols
dead kenadys
the exploited
david bowie
the mamas and the papas
adema

[commiecrusader]

In no particular order:
coheed & cambria
rufio
my chemical romance
the used
immortal technique
the killers

If I could only listen to two cd&#39;s for the rest of my life:
Perhaps, I Suppose ~ Rufio
The Used ~ The Used

and for humour.....

goldielookinchain

YOUFUCKINKNOWSIIIIIIIIT&#33;&#33;&#33;

[CPK]

Here it goes.

Sublime
Necro
Rage Against the Machine
Metallica
Cypress Hill
Wu-tang
Pitbullfarm
Thastrom
Non Phixion
Nirvana
Beck
The Beatnuts
Slipknot
The Streets
New Kids on the Block

Oh shit there&#39;s so many.
I also like maybe one of two songs from other bands, but I wouldn&#39;t say I like the band you know? No point in putting every damn band on this list.
I like instrumentals, so I can freestyle with some friends. We made a few songs so far hehe.
Well don&#39;t flame me for what I put down, I respect what you people listen too.

[The Rotten One]

Originally posted by The Forum [email protected] 6 2004, 04:43 PM
LO-FUCKING-L&#33;

*laughs till brains explode*

Ok, lets look at the FACTS which you have clearly forgotten.

A) You don&#39;t fucking know me nearly as well as you think.

B) Oh, come ON&#33; Mick Jones as a really good musician? BULLSHIT&#33; sure he had some amazing riffs but technically speaking he&#39;s bollocks (just like Kurt Cobain who I also idolise).

C)I never gave them the "rebellious blurb." The punk ethos is play what you want, how you want and don&#39;t give a shit about what people think. Also political correctness helps butis not necassary. At least that&#39;s some of the ethos, also be what you want and speak what you think.

D)I don&#39;t where tight pants or leather jackets. I wear smelly 4 year old t-shirts from Warhammer Games Day and crappy trousers. You never asked me about my theories on the punk ethos so don&#39;t quote what is only in YOUR head. Dumbass.

E) Look at Nirvana&#39;s MUSIC (or should I say listen to). Its a LOT like the Sex Pistols in terms of riffs and clearly clash inspired lyrics. Don&#39;t bring out any bullshit on Kurt not liking the Clash either. Coz he fucking well did and I have evidence of that. Not an offshoot in terms of genre....but so far as music, attitude and ethos go it was.

F) You clearly don&#39;t listen to much punk outside the Sex Pistols. I listen to many punk and proto-punk bands (sadly not as much as I&#39;d like).

My papa was there and here are his thoughts on Mick Jones: "He started off pretty rubbish".

May I ask tyou for a list of the 70s punk bands you have actually heard?
A) Sorry if I pissed you off
B)Sure, Mick started out pretty rubbish. But saying that he didn&#39;t become an amazing musician is like saying that because his third grade poetry was shite Cobain wasn&#39;t a great lyricist. They are.
C)There, look, you tried to define it again. That&#39;s what I&#39;m bloody saying. It&#39;s complicated, don&#39;t try to make it simple.
D) I don&#39;t wear tight pants or patches either. I wear bland jeans and DIY&#39;d shirts from thift shops.
E) It&#39;s clear I don&#39;t listen to as much Nirvana as I should, but now that you explained it, they do have some Pistol esqe runs.
F) I listen to as much music as I can my filthy little mitts on, Punk or no.

And here is my list of 77-80 bands I have heard (Bands I have yet to find music by with a *, band I&#39;ve seen live with a &#33;) :
Sex Pistols
The Clash
The Damned &#33;
Sixousie and the Banshees
The Ramones
UK Subs &#33;
Social Distortion &#33;
The Exploited &#33;
Sham 69
The Buzzcocks*
Eater*
Eddie and the Hot Rods*
The Flowers of Romance

So no, I don&#39;t just sit around being Pretty Vacant, arsehole.

[Funky Monk]

What is making me buzz at the moment.

Chilis
Incubus
Interpol
Coheed And Cambria
Radiohead
Lemonjelly
Cooper Temple Clause



And reading previous posts i am reminded of something else,
The GLC&#33;

[The Forum Idiot]

Originally posted by The Rotten [email protected] 14 2004, 05:16 AM
A) Sorry if I pissed you off
B)Sure, Mick started out pretty rubbish. But saying that he didn&#39;t become an amazing musician is like saying that because his third grade poetry was shite Cobain wasn&#39;t a great lyricist. They are.
C)There, look, you tried to define it again. That&#39;s what I&#39;m bloody saying. It&#39;s complicated, don&#39;t try to make it simple.
D) I don&#39;t wear tight pants or patches either. I wear bland jeans and DIY&#39;d shirts from thift shops.
E) It&#39;s clear I don&#39;t listen to as much Nirvana as I should, but now that you explained it, they do have some Pistol esqe runs.
F) I listen to as much music as I can my filthy little mitts on, Punk or no.

And here is my list of 77-80 bands I have heard (Bands I have yet to find music by with a *, band I&#39;ve seen live with a &#33;) :
Sex Pistols
The Clash
The Damned &#33;
Sixousie and the Banshees
The Ramones
UK Subs &#33;
Social Distortion &#33;
The Exploited &#33;
Sham 69
The Buzzcocks*
Eater*
Eddie and the Hot Rods*
The Flowers of Romance

So no, I don&#39;t just sit around being Pretty Vacant, arsehole.
When you say "amazing musician" you realize many would not consider Slash an amazing musician and Slash can by far play MUCH better than Mick Jones could ever hope for.

A)so you should be

B)See above

C) That IS the definition of punk tho. Punk is about simplicity, that simplicity being thinking doing and being what you want and not giving a shit what others say. ANY punk would agree with me that that is the basic idea.

D)My clothes smell and look like shit...I don&#39;t really buy new ones until all otehrs are ripped to shreds...

E)You really need more nirvana....pick up some Breeders and Pixies on the way

F)I will try any band with heart which genuinely try and play their stuff once at least. Your list is a bit...errr....far below 77-80. And you forgot the Slits. Arguably better than the Sex Pistols by far.

Also, some would argue about the Sex Pistols being real punk considering they were brought together by soem guy and their whole persona and facade was created and made up. And lets face it, they&#39;ll be remembered for the controversy and the suicide rather than the music which is actually relatvively rubbish when you listen to anything apart from a few songs. Don&#39;t get me wrong, I love them but don&#39;t preach at me like I&#39;m some dumbass Blink 182 fan (I hate them which you prolly didn&#39;t realize and may change your view of me) then go off and put Nevermind The Bollocks on.


On another note, if you want to hear some new music you should like (the breeders, more nirvana, some buzzcocks, slits, pixies, vaselines, etc, etc) just email me or something and I&#39;ll send them to you. maybe we shud quit all this bickering and shit, try eachother&#39;s music then judge. Punk has changed. At least we shoudl be able to agree now that what is, to anyone who actually cares about punk, utter trash gets called punk (Sum 41, Blink 182, New Found Glory, Alien Ant Farm, Bowling For Soup, etc).

[Iika]

No body&#39;ll know these, I don&#39;t like foreign music that much. :P

Avain
Fintelligens
Kapasiteettiyksikkö
Konala Cartelli
Gabriel Centaurion
Mariska
Masalan SWAT
Ambassa
Akma
In Flames
Wir Sind Helden
Eminem
Agitprop (I can count that as my favourite, although I don&#39;t listen to them that much)
Linkin Park

Okay, there&#39;s a few bands that aren&#39;t Finnish. Most of these are hiphop/rap-music.

[SgtPepper369]

Woody Guthrie
Bob Marley
The Cars
Talking Heads
The Clash
The Who
K-Os
Public Enemy
Rage Against The Machine
The Skatelites
Toots and the Maytalls
The Venkmans
Jimmy Cliff
Olodum
Lee "Scratch" Perry
Wesley Willis
Arlo Guthrie
Bob Dylan
Bruce Springsteen
The Rolling Stones
The Beatles
Weezer
Phish
Blackstar
Jurrasic 5
K-Os
Rakim
KRS-ONE
Grateful Dead
String Cheese Incident
moe.
Creedence Clearwater Revival
REM
The Roots

[The Rotten One]

Originally posted by The Forum Idiot+Oct 14 2004, 04:46 PM--> (The Forum Idiot @ Oct 14 2004, 04:46 PM)
The Rotten [email protected] 14 2004, 05:16 AM
A) Sorry if I pissed you off
B)Sure, Mick started out pretty rubbish. But saying that he didn&#39;t become an amazing musician is like saying that because his third grade poetry was shite Cobain wasn&#39;t a great lyricist. They are.
C)There, look, you tried to define it again. That&#39;s what I&#39;m bloody saying. It&#39;s complicated, don&#39;t try to make it simple.
D) I don&#39;t wear tight pants or patches either. I wear bland jeans and DIY&#39;d shirts from thift shops.
E) It&#39;s clear I don&#39;t listen to as much Nirvana as I should, but now that you explained it, they do have some Pistol esqe runs.
F) I listen to as much music as I can my filthy little mitts on, Punk or no.

And here is my list of 77-80 bands I have heard (Bands I have yet to find music by with a *, band I&#39;ve seen live with a &#33;) :
Sex Pistols
The Clash
The Damned &#33;
Sixousie and the Banshees
The Ramones
UK Subs &#33;
Social Distortion &#33;
The Exploited &#33;
Sham 69
The Buzzcocks*
Eater*
Eddie and the Hot Rods*
The Flowers of Romance

So no, I don&#39;t just sit around being Pretty Vacant, arsehole.
When you say "amazing musician" you realize many would not consider Slash an amazing musician and Slash can by far play MUCH better than Mick Jones could ever hope for.

A)so you should be

B)See above

C) That IS the definition of punk tho. Punk is about simplicity, that simplicity being thinking doing and being what you want and not giving a shit what others say. ANY punk would agree with me that that is the basic idea.

D)My clothes smell and look like shit...I don&#39;t really buy new ones until all otehrs are ripped to shreds...

E)You really need more nirvana....pick up some Breeders and Pixies on the way

F)I will try any band with heart which genuinely try and play their stuff once at least. Your list is a bit...errr....far below 77-80. And you forgot the Slits. Arguably better than the Sex Pistols by far.

Also, some would argue about the Sex Pistols being real punk considering they were brought together by soem guy and their whole persona and facade was created and made up. And lets face it, they&#39;ll be remembered for the controversy and the suicide rather than the music which is actually relatvively rubbish when you listen to anything apart from a few songs. Don&#39;t get me wrong, I love them but don&#39;t preach at me like I&#39;m some dumbass Blink 182 fan (I hate them which you prolly didn&#39;t realize and may change your view of me) then go off and put Nevermind The Bollocks on.


On another note, if you want to hear some new music you should like (the breeders, more nirvana, some buzzcocks, slits, pixies, vaselines, etc, etc) just email me or something and I&#39;ll send them to you. maybe we shud quit all this bickering and shit, try eachother&#39;s music then judge. Punk has changed. At least we shoudl be able to agree now that what is, to anyone who actually cares about punk, utter trash gets called punk (Sum 41, Blink 182, New Found Glory, Alien Ant Farm, Bowling For Soup, etc). [/b]
Alright, I can dee your point about Slash and Mick. And yeah, my clothing as shite, and I still Don&#39;t quite agree with you on the Ethos bit. And when I said "77-80" I meant 1977 through 1980.

Other than that, the Pixies rule. Stuff like Gigantic, Debasers, Where is my Mind, ect. Brilliant. I recently went to see them. Frank Black is like a little rocknroll butterball on stage. Hee-Hee.

Yeah, the Slits. Did you know that Johnny Rotten is Ari Upp&#39;s godfather?

Malcom McLaren was an arsefuck. But I do think that the Sex Pistols were the genuine article.

And as pertaining to the shit some call punk now, let&#39;s all just take some sound advice: Nevermind the Bollocks.

[The Forum Idiot]

I read about the johnny rotten - ari up thing once but I wasn&#39;t too sure...My dad says he(johnny rotten) married Ari Up herself but I&#39;m more inclined to trust your view. Also, on the subject of Nevermind The Bollocks HMV have a sale on it for £3.99&#33; I&#39;m planning on getting mine some time (right now my Dad has it on record but won&#39;t put it on a tape for me).

Also, I have the Pixies live at Brixton Academy 2004 CDs...very limited...check out *thinks* http://www.disclive.com

They rule for that kinda stuff.

[2ndgenSocialist]

sublime
bob marley


there are more i like but i can do without them, these 2 at top tier by far.

[ComradeChris]

System of a Down
Fear Factory
Mudvayne
Rage Against the Machine (Zack de la Rocha)
Mathew Good(Band)
Disturbed
Slipknot
Stuck Mojo
Kataklysm
Ben Harper
Rammstein
Manson
Nile
Nickelback
Pantera
Metallica
Probot
Apocalyptica
Bionic Jive
Tragically Hip
John Lenin (primarily; but all the Beatles too)
Jimmy Hendrix
I&#39;m drawing a mind blank, I know there&#39;s quite a few more.

[celtopunk]

Originally posted by The Forum [email protected] 18 2004, 05:07 PM
I read about the johnny rotten - ari up thing once but I wasn&#39;t too sure...My dad says he(johnny rotten) married Ari Up herself but I&#39;m more inclined to trust your view. Also, on the subject of Nevermind The Bollocks HMV have a sale on it for £3.99&#33; I&#39;m planning on getting mine some time (right now my Dad has it on record but won&#39;t put it on a tape for me).

Also, I have the Pixies live at Brixton Academy 2004 CDs...very limited...check out *thinks* http://www.disclive.com

They rule for that kinda stuff.
Lydon became her step dad, his current wife Nora is Ari&#39;s mom. She was like 14 when she started in the Slits so I don&#39;t think Johnny would have married her.

[Purple]

Pink Floyd
Nine Inch Nails
Prince
The Sisters of Mercy

[The Forum Idiot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 10:18 PM
Lydon became her step dad, his current wife Nora is Ari&#39;s mom. She was like 14 when she started in the Slits so I don&#39;t think Johnny would have married her.
LOL It would be funny.

[Ironmaiden_g2]

lake of tears
orphaned land
iron maiden
after forever
lacuna coil
black sabbath
dark tranquility
ours
in flames
bruce dickinson
pink floyd
savatage

[The Forum Idiot]

YAY IRON MAIDEN DUDE&#33;

[The Rotten One]

Originally posted by The Forum [email protected] 20 2004, 04:41 PM
LOL It would be funny.
Lydon was still a teen ager in 1977&#33; IF THESE FIGURES ARE TRUE, HE WOULD ONLY BE FIVE YEARS OLDER THAN HIS STEP-DAUGHTER&#33; That would be like my housemate wedding my father. That would make Nora almost seventy&#33; I highly doubt the veracity of CeltoPunk&#39;s Statement.

[celtopunk]

Originally posted by The Rotten [email protected] 21 2004, 07:05 PM
Lydon was still a teen ager in 1977&#33; IF THESE FIGURES ARE TRUE, HE WOULD ONLY BE FIVE YEARS OLDER THAN HIS STEP-DAUGHTER&#33; That would be like my housemate wedding my father. That would make Nora almost seventy&#33; I highly doubt the veracity of CeltoPunk&#39;s Statement.
Well he was born in 1956 so that puts him at 48 now and 21 in 1977 decidedly NOT a teenager. As he was in his early 20&#39;s in the Pistols days, is it so inconceivable that he married a woman 10 to 15 years his senior while in his early 20&#39;s?

And you can doubt my statement and the facts all you want but it won&#39;t make it any less true.

It would be even more absurd to say that he is her godfather because he would only have been a child when she (Ari) was born.

[The Forum Idiot]

Wow, johnny&#39;s as old as my dad&#33; And no its not totally inconceivable, especially for a "punk" (well...a punk controlled by those he hates).