Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
If its any consolation, us grumpy old men can just sit back and watch the boys of one direction measure the remainder of their cuteness (measured in weeks) and then we'll see how anyone would bother to remember them as long as the last boy band before them
Pop music is just a mf business where boybands are just churned out, a generic bunch of fresh eyed youngsters with blue eyes and blond hair have them make monies from teenage girls and then get older and be forgotten
Same rule applies for pop princesses to teenage boys The worst thing is? We're all completely helpless in letting it happen, and / or oblivious to it all while its happening
There are only 1 or 2 exceptions to the rule like Justin Timberlake but to endure you actually needed talent
|
|
|
|
Roar #1
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Condemned666 wrote:If its any consolation, us grumpy old men can just sit back and watch the boys of one direction measure the remainder of their cuteness (measured in weeks) and then we'll see how anyone would bother to remember them as long as the last boy band before them
Pop music is just a mf business where boybands are just churned out, a generic bunch of fresh eyed youngsters with blue eyes and blond hair have them make monies from teenage girls and then get older and be forgotten
Same rule applies for pop princesses to teenage boys The worst thing is? We're all completely helpless in letting it happen, and / or oblivious to it all while its happening
There are only 1 or 2 exceptions to the rule like Justin Timberlake but to endure you actually needed talent I don't think the boys in One Direction really care if they are remembered in 10/15 years. They've spent years, how ever many traveling the world in private jets and partying with super models and when ever they finish up whether it be in 1 or 5 years they will all have $50 odd million in the bank and will be able to retire in their early 20's. And I'd put Justin Bieber, although not in the same class as Justin timberlake, also as an exemption to the rule. All the people who bag out Bieber and call him talentless have no idea what they are talking about. He plays piano, guitar, drums and if you actually listen to him sing live, he is very good vocally. And he puts on a very entertaining live performance. He's been at the top of the music world for 5 years now and has been paying the wages of a team of people since he was 12. And with $150 million in the bank he's achieved more already by the age of 20 then 95% of any other artists will in their whole careers.
|
|
|
spfc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.6K,
Visits: 0
|
which decade had the friendliest bogans?
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
rocknerd wrote:sydneyfc1987 wrote:afromanGT wrote:Kid A onwards was when Thom Yorke turned into a massive fucking wanker and ruined the band. Kid A is arguably Radiohead's best album. Its perfect, one of the best records of all time. I feel sorry for you that you can't appreciate it or Radiohead's albums that followed it. radiohead suck they're as lousy as coldplay. This is not the first time I've stated this fact Well if you say it, it must be true. Silly me. Seriously, you're an idiot.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
sydneyfc1987 wrote:rocknerd wrote:sydneyfc1987 wrote:afromanGT wrote:Kid A onwards was when Thom Yorke turned into a massive fucking wanker and ruined the band. Kid A is arguably Radiohead's best album. Its perfect, one of the best records of all time. I feel sorry for you that you can't appreciate it or Radiohead's albums that followed it. radiohead suck they're as lousy as coldplay. This is not the first time I've stated this fact Well if you say it, it must be true. Silly me. Seriously, you're an idiot. Anyone who speaks so effusively in their praise of Radiohead should be regarded as a fanboy and their opinions subsequently disregarded.
|
|
|
Glenn - A-league Mad
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.2K,
Visits: 0
|
As mass produced American Idol pop has increased the quality of music has diminished. That dosnt mean great stuff is not coming out, just means that it is suffocated.
When I was a young fella, I would have flat out said 90's all the way. But over time I started listening to more and more music from different decades, and it more or less evens out.
An example - first time I listened to early Beatles stuff like 'she loves me' I though WOW this is great, but it was the pop music of its day and gets stale quickly. But there later music like 'let it be' I can and still love to hear pop up on the Ipod.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
You may as well argue which colour is better. Every decade had crackin bands.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:sydneyfc1987 wrote:rocknerd wrote:sydneyfc1987 wrote:afromanGT wrote:Kid A onwards was when Thom Yorke turned into a massive fucking wanker and ruined the band. Kid A is arguably Radiohead's best album. Its perfect, one of the best records of all time. I feel sorry for you that you can't appreciate it or Radiohead's albums that followed it. radiohead suck they're as lousy as coldplay. This is not the first time I've stated this fact Well if you say it, it must be true. Silly me. Seriously, you're an idiot. Anyone who speaks so effusively in their praise of Radiohead should be regarded as a fanboy and their opinions subsequently disregarded. So in other words anybody who considers Radiohead great musicians can't tell others that comparing them to Coldplay is ridiculous? I'm sure I dislike a lot of the music you or Rocknerd may be into but you don't see me proclaiming "facts" regarding their shittyness.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
SUBJECTIVE PREFERENCE INTERNET FIGHT.
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Think about the 90s It started with grunge (Nirvana, Soundgarden, to a lesser extent Pearl Jam and the Screaming Trees) and stadium rock through u2 and r.e.m, bands which had a career and could play into a second decade
In England there was the Britpop war between Oasis, Blur, The Verve, Manic St Preachers and Radiohead were a band keen to compete in Britpop too but there was an element of art rock
And then came the rave scene with the Prodigy, Leftfield, Underworld, The Chemical Brothers
At the end of the decade, Britpop imploded, and there was an influx of more downbeat bands such as Massive Attack, Portishead, Tricky and even some guy called Moby
The women of song in that decade was interesting too, with Natalie Merchant, Juliana Hatfield, Kim Deal (of the Pixies), Kim Gordon of Sonic Youth and Liz Phair kicking it off, rounding it off with Beth Orton , Alison Goldfrapp and Beth Gibbons of Portishead
Edited by condemned666: 2/6/2014 01:44:21 PM
|
|
|
marconi101
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:Anyone who speaks so effusively in their praise of Radiohead should be regarded as a fanboy and their opinions subsequently disregarded. You're absolutely right. Millions of Radiohead fans are deluded and stuck in a nonsensical vacuum of appreciation and recognition, waiting for the voice of reason from a nocturnal Melburnian bartender with over 70,000 posts on a football forum Late 60's to mid 70's was the best time IMO Edited by marconi101: 2/6/2014 03:26:05 PM
He was a man of specific quirks. He believed that all meals should be earned through physical effort. He also contended, zealously like a drunk with a political point, that the third dimension would not be possible if it werent for the existence of water.
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
The only one downside with radiohead was they spanned an era from britpop to the indie / hipster / diy era with Bon Iver, and nowadays James Blake and now James Vincent Mcmorrow
the only downside is Radiohead might have run their course as a band in their most recent record though, they've become very set in their ways and sound, it happens to the best of them though :(
What about the ladies? A lot of music is also built by women too, its not all masculine robust music! It goes from Nico working with Velvet Underground in the 60s, Deborah harry and Blondie in the 70s, Annie Lennox and Madonna in the 80s, Courtney Love and others in the 90s, Amy Winehouse and Florence and the Machine in the middle of the last decade, and in more recent times its Zola Jesus and the likes of Sky Ferreira for those not inclined to pop princesses And a lot of people have told me Aretha Franklin is the most amazing performer and voice, unfortunately Ive never had the privelege to see her live
Edited by condemned666: 2/6/2014 10:02:34 PM
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
Condemned666 wrote:The only one downside with radiohead was they spanned an era from britpop to the indie / hipster / diy era with Bon Iver, and nowadays James Blake and now James Vincent Mcmorrow
the only downside is Radiohead might have run their course as a band in their most recent record though, they've become very set in their ways and sound, it happens to the best of them though :(
What about the ladies? A lot of music is also built by women too, its not all masculine robust music! It goes from Nico working with Velvet Underground in the 60s, Deborah harry and Blondie in the 70s, Annie Lennox and Madonna in the 80s, Courtney Love and others in the 90s, Amy Winehouse and Florence and the Machine in the middle of the last decade, and in more recent times its Zola Jesus and the likes of Sky Ferreira for those not inclined to pop princesses And a lot of people have told me Aretha Franklin is the most amazing performer and voice, unfortunately Ive never had the privelege to see her live
Edited by condemned666: 2/6/2014 10:02:34 PM Agree on the King of Limbs. Felt like a very lazy effort, kind of stale. 2000s was a great decade for Female artists. Cat Power, PJ harvey and (a bit later on) Fiest are some that spring to mind.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
An interesting thought
The Rolling Stones music has dated far better than U2's music
Case in Point: U2's 360 DVD, U2 looked old and tired, the band themselves looked like the dads of "Bono and the boys" trying to sing karaoke versions of their old songs, which is proof U2's music has always leaned towards a younger more energetic audience, whereas the Stones have always had a timeless quality about their music?
|
|
|
pv4
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
Like EG said heaps earlier, Australian music (disregarding Aussie hiphop, which for the most part I can't stand) has gotten WAY better over the last 10 years so I'm inclined to say that.
90s onwards for me. The majority of my favourite stuff is from then.
Cannot believe this thread has made it three pages without mention of BNL though :lol:
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
sydneyfc1987 wrote:afromanGT wrote:sydneyfc1987 wrote:rocknerd wrote:sydneyfc1987 wrote:afromanGT wrote:Kid A onwards was when Thom Yorke turned into a massive fucking wanker and ruined the band. Kid A is arguably Radiohead's best album. Its perfect, one of the best records of all time. I feel sorry for you that you can't appreciate it or Radiohead's albums that followed it. radiohead suck they're as lousy as coldplay. This is not the first time I've stated this fact Well if you say it, it must be true. Silly me. Seriously, you're an idiot. Anyone who speaks so effusively in their praise of Radiohead should be regarded as a fanboy and their opinions subsequently disregarded. So in other words anybody who considers Radiohead great musicians can't tell others that comparing them to Coldplay is ridiculous? I'm sure I dislike a lot of the music you or Rocknerd may be into but you don't see me proclaiming "facts" regarding their shittyness. I never said they're not talented musicians, but every band has their shortcomings. Even as a massive NIN fan I can admit their foibles. There are few albums which could be described as 'perfect' and Radiohead's are not among them. marconi wrote:You're absolutely right. Millions of Radiohead fans are deluded and stuck in a nonsensical vacuum of appreciation and recognition, waiting for the voice of reason from a nocturnal Melburnian bartender with over 70,000 posts on a football forum I'd say that given your employment history you're not really in a position to wave that around as an insult.
|
|
|
Aljay
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Condemned666 wrote:An interesting thought
The Rolling Stones music has dated far better than U2's music
Case in Point: U2's 360 DVD, U2 looked old and tired, the band themselves looked like the dads of "Bono and the boys" trying to sing karaoke versions of their old songs, which is proof U2's music has always leaned towards a younger more energetic audience, whereas the Stones have always had a timeless quality about their music? 60's music requires less energy and less emotion, making it easier to play in your old age. Either that or the Stones have been geriatric for so long that everyone forgets what they were originally like. Noone listens to the Stones except those who got into them in the 60s & 70s. U2 have fans from 3 decades, not 2 and are migh still not be done yet. Edited by Aljay: 4/6/2014 09:19:10 PM
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
Aljay wrote: Noone listens to the Stones except those who got into them in the 60s & 70s. U2 have fans from 3 decades, not 2 and are migh still not be done yet.
Edited by Aljay: 4/6/2014 09:19:10 PM
Umm, no… Just no..
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Aljay wrote:
60's music requires less energy and less emotion, making it easier to play in your old age.
You serious?!
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
Aljay wrote:Condemned666 wrote:An interesting thought
The Rolling Stones music has dated far better than U2's music
Case in Point: U2's 360 DVD, U2 looked old and tired, the band themselves looked like the dads of "Bono and the boys" trying to sing karaoke versions of their old songs, which is proof U2's music has always leaned towards a younger more energetic audience, whereas the Stones have always had a timeless quality about their music? 60's music requires less energy and less emotion, making it easier to play in your old age. Either that or the Stones have been geriatric for so long that everyone forgets what they were originally like. Noone listens to the Stones except those who got into them in the 60s & 70s. U2 have fans from 3 decades, not 2 and are migh still not be done yet. Edited by Aljay: 4/6/2014 09:19:10 PM I'm a Rolling Stones fan. I was born in the 80's. Beggars Banquet is one of my favourite albums. And given that the Stones have released an album in every decade since the 60's I think you're well off the mark there. And even if you were close to being right (which you aren't) Bono is a massive fucking cockhead so you're still wrong. :lol:
|
|
|
rocknerd
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.6K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:Aljay wrote:Condemned666 wrote:An interesting thought
The Rolling Stones music has dated far better than U2's music
Case in Point: U2's 360 DVD, U2 looked old and tired, the band themselves looked like the dads of "Bono and the boys" trying to sing karaoke versions of their old songs, which is proof U2's music has always leaned towards a younger more energetic audience, whereas the Stones have always had a timeless quality about their music? 60's music requires less energy and less emotion, making it easier to play in your old age. Either that or the Stones have been geriatric for so long that everyone forgets what they were originally like. Noone listens to the Stones except those who got into them in the 60s & 70s. U2 have fans from 3 decades, not 2 and are migh still not be done yet. Edited by Aljay: 4/6/2014 09:19:10 PM I'm a Rolling Stones fan. I was born in the 80's. Beggars Banquet is one of my favourite albums. And given that the Stones have released an album in every decade since the 60's I think you're well off the mark there. And even if you were close to being right (which you aren't) Bono is a massive fucking cockhead so you're still wrong. :lol: This, Though I wouldn't bother with a Stones record after 1974. they had a few god songs but overall nothing Compares to the Stones with Brian Jones.
|
|
|
Glenn - A-league Mad
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.2K,
Visits: 0
|
rocknerd wrote:afromanGT wrote:Aljay wrote:Condemned666 wrote:An interesting thought
The Rolling Stones music has dated far better than U2's music
Case in Point: U2's 360 DVD, U2 looked old and tired, the band themselves looked like the dads of "Bono and the boys" trying to sing karaoke versions of their old songs, which is proof U2's music has always leaned towards a younger more energetic audience, whereas the Stones have always had a timeless quality about their music? 60's music requires less energy and less emotion, making it easier to play in your old age. Either that or the Stones have been geriatric for so long that everyone forgets what they were originally like. Noone listens to the Stones except those who got into them in the 60s & 70s. U2 have fans from 3 decades, not 2 and are migh still not be done yet. Edited by Aljay: 4/6/2014 09:19:10 PM I'm a Rolling Stones fan. I was born in the 80's. Beggars Banquet is one of my favourite albums. And given that the Stones have released an album in every decade since the 60's I think you're well off the mark there. And even if you were close to being right (which you aren't) Bono is a massive fucking cockhead so you're still wrong. :lol: This, Though I wouldn't bother with a Stones record after 1974. they had a few god songs but overall nothing Compares to the Stones with Brian Jones. +1 Bono being a massive cock head +10000000000000000000000000000000
|
|
|
SocaWho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
sydneyfc1987 wrote:Aljay wrote: Noone listens to the Stones except those who got into them in the 60s & 70s. U2 have fans from 3 decades, not 2 and are migh still not be done yet.
Edited by Aljay: 4/6/2014 09:19:10 PM
Umm, no… Just no.. I listen to the Stones and Im an 80s born.
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
U2's music is the equivalent of Mcdonalds and Coca Cola, which is easily appealing to a lot of people who are clueless about music
However, unlike that Mcdonalds' Quarter Pounder with Cheese that was left in a jacket pocket for years and that had not decomposed, U2 themselves are not immune from age and degradation, U2 relied too much on Bono's powerful voice to back up Edge's Guitar, and Bono cant hit a note anymore!
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
This is still U2's best and has held up well in my opinion.
[youtube]LHcP4MWABGY[/youtube]
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
The last great song written and released by the rolling stones from 1981
[youtube]MKLVmBOOqVU[/youtube]
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Joffa wrote:This is still U2's best and has held up well in my opinion. [youtube]hTnLsmNiugY[/youtube] [youtube]9dz4UYZIQps[/youtube] [youtube]i-T_nDCTr9I[/youtube] [youtube]fXhY4kMor2A[/youtube] [youtube]irHbORP3or0[/youtube] And for the more rock oriented U2 I always preferred this-> [youtube]0S8FEp-DDv8[/youtube]
|
|
|
SocaWho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Why do most people think Bono is a douchebag?
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Bono is my third or fourth cousin. True story.
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:Bono is my third or fourth cousin. True story. ahh so that's why you're a twat...!!! ;) ;) ;) ;)
|
|
|