Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

TEST ICICLES

I'm wondering who likes Test Icicles. They are rather nifty. Bloc Party gone evil I say.

"<3Mon.The.Testes<3"

They're just another band being championed by the NME for no reason but if you don't like them, then of course you're stupid. Because NME like them, and NME are smart fellows.

Haha. Hahahaha.

-AC

Never heard them...but I think their name is hilarious.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They're just another band being championed by the NME for no reason but if you don't like them, then of course you're stupid. Because NME like them, and NME are smart fellows.

Haha. Hahahaha.

-AC

in other words another band that AC dislikes simply because a magazine does like them...hence he doesn't actually comment on the music...just the fact that NME like them

then of course when NME likes a band that he likes then they are just being sheep and jumping on the bandwagon or makes it seem like its unfortunate for the band that NME like them

Originally posted by jaden101
in other words another band that AC dislikes simply because a magazine does like them...hence he doesn't actually comment on the music...just the fact that NME like them

Yes, 100% accurate. Though I do wanna be sure. So I shall inspect this comment further.

*Inspects comment*

Oh wait, complete presumptuous BS. I heard them way before NME featured them and I even knew then that the NME would be up their arses before long. The music they generally like, I don't like. Not because they like it, but because they like mostly shit music. Franz, anything involving Pete Doherty, Test Icicles, The Bravery, Coldplay, any band that's the band to like. Kerrang feature shit bands, but that is purely for variety. They slag off most of them in actual reviews. Where as NME are genuinely of the opinion that The Libertines are not shit. Don't assume, it doesn't do well.

Originally posted by jaden101
then of course when NME likes a band that he likes then they are just being sheep and jumping on the bandwagon or makes it seem like its unfortunate for the band that NME like them

It is, because NME are 6th form sarcasm mugs who speak shit about bands to be "cool" and then wanna love the band when they get big. Radiohead, The Darkness, Muse.

We all know what happened when the editor of NME invited The Darkness to be interviewed on the condition they act like they're some joke. Then when everyone who had a worthwhile opinion realised that they were actually a great band, NME's editor himself was more or less offering oral service to get them back in the magazine.

Radiohead? "They'll never get out of Creep's shadow." By OK Computer they were fornicating with the CD.

The Dillinger Escape Plan? NME tried coming out of their shell and reviewing Miss Machine. I quote "We don't really get what they're doing, but we think they're the best band on Earth. Quite simply." Coincidentally at the peak of their popularity.

Lest we forget the Queens of the Stone Age debacle. "We were the first to feature them."

Ashley, Kerrang editor: "You didn't know they existed till their second album."

NME: "Yeah...well you're all stupid because you don't 'get' Maximo Park."

NME are the only magazine in the UK that call Pete Doherty anything other than a talentless waste of life.

They mean nothing. But we've done this before and I proved page after page that the NME are fashion-fellating mugs. I'll bump the thread save doing it again, if you'd like. It's up to you. Because last time you posted many things (a lot of them misquoted and false) that I refuted.

Not trying to kick off a war (not that it'd be one), just telling you not to assume things champ.

-AC

not to assume things eh?

yet according to you NME are "the only magazine in the UK that call Pete Doherty anything other than a talentless waste of life."

bit of a presumtion there i believe

yeah your right it wouldn't be a war cause i've schooled you like a ***** in so many debates already on this forum that we all know nothing would be different this time round and given that your using all the same arguments that i blew to pieces the last time...well...we could go through it all again but that would be a bit pointless

and once again you obviously completely missed my point

why didn't you just say that the band make music that you think is shit and leave it at that

Originally posted by jaden101
not to assume things eh?

yet according to you NME are "the only magazine in the UK that call Pete Doherty anything other than a talentless waste of life."

bit of a presumtion there i believe

The NME like him and his music, this would be my point.

Originally posted by jaden101
yeah your right it wouldn't be a war cause i've schooled you like a ***** in so many debates already on this forum that we all know nothing would be different this time round and given that your using all the same arguments that i blew to pieces the last time...well...we could go through it all again but that would be a bit pointless

I'm going to go bump The Strokes thread then. The thread where you so poorly quoted, misquoted and talked bullcrap till the end where you slyly tried to slide out of the thread after being red-handedly shown up. Saying the exact opposite of me doesn't make it right. I smashed every minute point you had to the point that you snapped at me for having a "bad night at work". Tsk.

Originally posted by jaden101
and once again you obviously completely missed my point

why didn't you just say that the band make music that you think is shit and leave it at that

Why didn't you just say what you just said instead of trying to save face by claiming the complete opposite (and false) of what I said?

-AC

saving face?...from what exactly?...given that it was the first post i made in the thread





so why the need for the completely unprovable and most likely completely inaccurate comment?




whatever floats your boat AC...although you do tend to see things in a different light than anyone else on the forum

although i have to say that taking an out of context quote from me and trying to put it across like it was part of the discussion as the little joke we were having...thats pretty low...even for you

or am i just the "dark poet" again tonight?

and that would also be the debate when you tried to say that kerrang online wasn't connected to kerrang magazine in an attempt to justify the crap bands they were giving awards to...despite the fact that the very next issue of kerrang magazine had exactly the same award nominations...

anyway...its all old news

theres a band from New Zealand called The Test Eagles, they've been around for ages, really cool, good stuff. never heard of test icicles though

Originally posted by jaden101
so why the need for the completely unprovable and most likely completely inaccurate comment?

It wasn't because it contained my point that was true.

Originally posted by jaden101
whatever floats your boat AC...although you do tend to see things in a different light than anyone else on the forum

although i have to say that taking an out of context quote from me and trying to put it across like it was part of the discussion as the little joke we were having...thats pretty low...even for you

or am i just the "dark poet" again tonight?

I'm not taking it out of context though. You took my MAIN post out of context here, if you didn't we wouldn't be here would we?.

Originally posted by jaden101
and that would also be the debate when you tried to say that kerrang online wasn't connected to kerrang magazine in an attempt to justify the crap bands they were giving awards to...despite the fact that the very next issue of kerrang magazine had exactly the same award nominations...

Clinging to this singular point again? It's a vehicle for the message board with the same name, nothing more. It's like a bulletin board. It's not run or own by the writers of Kerrang, just like the TV station. They share a name, they're not affiliated to one another. The awards were 100% fan voted and mean more or less nothing. No writers had any say on that, fact. The NME awards are split among fan and writer. The Libertines won best British band. Nothing you say is gonna be a realistic defence of the NME, at all. You cling to that one point that I have already refuted it.

-AC

I wonder if 'Test Icicles' realise that if you put the two words that form their name together you get a pair of bollocks?

They suck, so suck on mine.

well ignoring you 2 going at it...

i actually think NME have picked up something semi-decent for once, and ****ed if i care who agrees lol

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It wasn't because it contained my point that was true.



I'm not taking it out of context though. You took my MAIN post out of context here, if you didn't we wouldn't be here would we?.



Clinging to this singular point again? It's a vehicle for the message board with the same name, nothing more. It's like a bulletin board. It's not run or own by the writers of Kerrang, just like the TV station. They share a name, they're not affiliated to one another. The awards were 100% fan voted and mean more or less nothing. No writers had any say on that, fact. The NME awards are split among fan and writer. The Libertines won best British band. Nothing you say is gonna be a realistic defence of the NME, at all. You cling to that one point that I have already refuted it.

-AC

of course AC if you bothered to check our previous debate then you would see that i never tried to defend NME...only disprove your claim that kerrang is somehow a bastion of journalistic integrity rather than the corporate sales driven bandwagon jumping rag that it actually is.

which is apparent from both my points...and oddly enough yours as well

as for your point that was supposedly true...please prove that EVERY magazine (i'll make it easy and keep it restricted to the UK) doesn't like the libertines

once you've done that then perhaps we can take your bizzare opinion a bit more seriously

now off you pop sonny...you've got worked to do

Originally posted by jaden101
of course AC if you bothered to check our previous debate then you would see that i never tried to defend NME...only disprove your claim that kerrang is somehow a bastion of journalistic integrity rather than the corporate sales driven bandwagon jumping rag that it actually is.

It's not though is it? You're trying to use my point against me which doesn't work too well considering mine is true, backed up by fact, and yours is false, backed up by assumption.

Kerrang don't "bandwagon jump". NME are the magazine that do that the most and I have gave multiple examples as to who with and why they've done it. Kerrang know and support bands before most people even heard of them. NME have just had a few exclusives. The bands were already known when NME got their exclusives. Not to mention the fact that they lie in their publication. As I feel I'm just beating a dead horse because I've proven beyond doubt that I am right and you are just presumptuous and wrong here, I'll say it again:

Kerrang have genuinely good writers. They have shit writers too. They also feature some shit bands. In Kerrang, this is solely for sales variety only. They openly slag off bands unless it's the odd writer who likes them. NME actually cited Franz, The Liberties, The Kaiser Chiefs and Babyshambles as the cream of Britain's crop. End of story. No magazine is free of influence but Kerrang still have very good, honest writers. NME don't. I've proven many instances. You have failed to accept that you connected the name with the wrong mediums and made the leap while missing the big X on the floor.

Originally posted by jaden101
as for your point that was supposedly true...please prove that EVERY magazine (i'll make it easy and keep it restricted to the UK) doesn't like the libertines

once you've done that then perhaps we can take your bizzare opinion a bit more seriously

now off you pop sonny...you've got worked to do

Funny how you take my claim, which was quite clearly an exaggeration (as I will openly and honestly admit. Obviously not every UK magazine hates The Libertines), so seriously and literally when we both quite clearly knew what I meant. I sense that you've come back with "Ahh, weaseling out" despite me openly admitting that it was an exaggeration.

Further more, they are the only magazine out of all the major music magazines (NME, Kerrang, Q, Rock Sound, Total Rock etc) who CHAMPION The Libertines. Q have a few writers who like them, but NME are the only major magazine left that still cite them, Coldplay and Franz Ferdinand (who aren't even rock) as the greatest British bands.

It also amuses me how you've come from getting obliterated to the point of insulting and slyly leaving the debate in The Strokes thread, and having the gaul to ask me to prove things to you. Especially when you knew what I meant.

Though if you wanna use that one bit of ammo against me, please do. It doesn't erase from the fact that if it comes down to the Kerrang Vs NME, I know I have and am, smashed/smashing you. It will always be that way because I have relied on fact to compare and contrast the two.

You've relied upon assumption.

Pop off with you sonny, you're aht.

-AC

except of course that you didn't prove anything did you...you made a totally unprovable statement with nothing to back it up and you invariably do

as for kerrang not jumping on the band wagon...disproved in the strokes thread with the muse issue wasn't it?...yes




except of course that the very next printed issue of kerrang proved my point to be fact...didn't it?...yes (feel free to conveniently skip over this cold hard fact once more)

still...as your granny no doubt told you...if at first you dont suceed...try ,try and try again

Originally posted by jaden101
except of course that you didn't prove anything did you...you made a totally unprovable statement with nothing to back it up and you invariably do

as for kerrang not jumping on the band wagon...disproved in the strokes thread with the muse issue wasn't it?...yes

Yes infact it was, go read it. Or shall I quote it here? You missed my reply it seems. Because you DODGED topic to bring that up and I still smashed your point. The biggest year in Muse's career, 2004, is when they got the LEAST coverage by Kerrang. Coincidentally NME were up their arses. Try keeping up.

You said:

"kerrang...we'll go back to your hypocritical point

4. Muse - Absolution

the same kerrang who refered to them as "boring and uninventive"

I said:

"That was in 03 when the album was released, not in 04 when they smashed America.

Muse, by a large percentage, are and have always been supported by Kerrang. That was one reviewer.

NME had a general agreement of being anti-Radiohead, of course until it suited them"

To which you dodged and tried:

"support them when they're big...i like it"

Only to be smashed with:

"They didn't though did they, infact, they hardly gave them any coverage during 04."

To which you continually replied with camp, NME style humour to cover the fact that you had been royally obliter-smashed. Ultimately ending with a sly insult.

Secondly, I proved everything I claimed except that Libertines thing which I have admitted (sorry for assuming you were non-literal enough to get it) was an exaggeration. My original point being that they hail the band as a great band. This hasn't changed.

Originally posted by jaden101
except of course that the very next printed issue of kerrang proved my point to be fact...didn't it?...yes (feel free to conveniently skip over this cold hard fact once more)

still...as your granny no doubt told you...if at first you dont suceed...try ,try and try again

What point? That Kerrang feature shit bands? I never denied this. They're actually just coming out of a shit period of having lame bands on the cover because as we discussed, ALL magazines DO have that to some degree. The difference is that when everything is in full swing, Kerrang have honesty and good writers who love great bands and diss shit bands. NME champion shit bands, bandwagon whoever is the popular band, lie openly, then have the gaul to diss bands and beg them to come back when they're popular again.

You've clung to the same point, the same irrelevant and unprovable point, this whole time. I'm tired of stepping on it and on you, really.

You claim you're not defending the NME and that only trying to prove Kerrang aren't immune to influence. I never said they were, I'm trying to say that I've read my fair share of both, so I have the more relevant view on this than you do. Which MIGHT be connected to how I can compare both factually and all you can do is say "What about this then?" and go off topic.

-AC

i've no problem with you making exagerations AC...just with your own insistance that its somehow a fact when its not....as you do with just about every other point you make

i also love that when i prove that the magazine is responsible for the same tripe nominations as the website...you immediately blame in on the readers...love it

so what we actually discovered was that kerrang feature bands to get sales...apparently rip the shit out them in articles...then give them all the awards....niiiccceee

can we go back the muse thing again...absolution being their what?...8th release...kerrang...always on the cutting edge

Originally posted by jaden101
i've no problem with you making exagerations AC...just with your own insistance that its somehow a fact when its not....as you do with just about every other point you make

I know that an exaggeration isn't a fact, what is your point?

Originally posted by jaden101
i also love that when i prove that the magazine is responsible for the same tripe nominations as the website...you immediately blame in on the readers...love it

It's factually a complete fan voted awards ceremony though. It is, by fact. Hence why they have the voting slips in the actual magazine and state that all awards are voted for by the fans.

Originally posted by jaden101
so what we actually discovered was that kerrang feature bands to get sales...apparently rip the shit out them in articles...then give them all the awards....niiiccceee

No, stop being stupid. We discovered that you choose to continually believe that Kerrang give them the awards. They present them, yes. They don't vote. It's fan voted. This, whether you like it or not, is a stone cold fact.

Every magazine does have to feature lots of bands, even shit ones. It's part of journalism. They aren't obligated to like them, just feature them. They'd never feature Coldplay, Franz or shit like that. Not saying that their shit is any better, but at least they don't feel obligated to like them as a collective set of writers, as the NME do. Which is also a fact.

Originally posted by jaden101
can we go back the muse thing again...absolution being their what?...8th release...kerrang...always on the cutting edge

3rd full length album. Jaden...always on the cutting edge. Yeah, if the cudding edge is a round ball that you keep falling off.

Kerrang had been supporting them since they were playing the 100 Club off the back of the Showbiz tour in 99. They had writers there reviewing the gig. Might wanna brush up on your music knowledge. NME also knocked them as a wannabe Radiohead at this time by the way...

It's so funny. You keep raising new points and I just keep smashing them. Why? Because you just have no clue what you are talking about.

-AC

look at that...it took you less than a page to contradict yourself...amazing

please explain where the integrity is when you feature shit bands purely for corporate gain...cause thats effectively what you are saying kerrang does...and you'd be right




proof for any of that...i posted enough links to blow your holier than though kerrang belief clean out the water...

perhaps its time for you to do the same

Originally posted by jaden101
look at that...it took you less than a page to contradict yourself...amazing

My point within the exaggeration was how the NME rating of The Libertines was ridiculous. It is true.

You've misunderstood my point purposefully. Sad.

Originally posted by jaden101
please explain where the integrity is when you feature shit bands purely for corporate gain...cause thats effectively what you are saying kerrang does...and you'd be right

They don't do it solely for corporate gain. A few of Kerrang's reviewers like some of these bands. They do have shit contributors who aren't part of the core writing team. You'd know that if you read Kerrang, which you do not. Therefore you have no relevent say.

Originally posted by jaden101
proof for any of that...i posted enough links to blow your holier than though kerrang belief clean out the water...

perhaps its time for you to do the same

Pick up the Kerrang issue (or look it up online, I don't know where there are any online transcripts) of the best gigs ever, it's actually called "Top 100 gigs ever". Muse at the 100 club is there. From 1999. Look at the NME review of said album also. You can do this on NME.Com.

If you can find me a site that has magazine transcripts, I'll look for the quotes.

You're once again swerving off topic. You've not provided any links. The links you posted in The Strokes thread were misquoted and lied about, so I went to the same site and exposed you. You're NOW claiming that Kerrang jumped on the Muse bandwagon because I went and quoted our Muse conversation. I've since disproved this too. So how much more BS are you pull out. Because I am continually referring to things that exist while you go from fake assumption to wrongful information in the blink of an eye.

There are only so many topics you can change to.

-AC

oh...you mean the stuff i copied and posted straight from the kerrang site...as well as linked to...i can see how that results in lies and misquotes...




thats it son...keep trying to convince yourself of that






isn't that what i just asked you to do?...back up your own opinion?

Originally posted by jaden101
oh...you mean the stuff i copied and posted straight from the kerrang site...as well as linked to...i can see how that results in lies and misquotes...

I thought you meant the other bs links that I disproved. The ones you are now referring to are ones where you tried to prove that Kerrang vote for the awards, not the readers. Despite this not being true and it being a fact that it's fan voted. You can dislike this, but it's still a fact.

Originally posted by jaden101
thats it son...keep trying to convince yourself of that

After the amount of times you've tried to say "Nah, Kerrang give them the awards" despite it being factually false, I'm curious as to who YOU are to say that.

Originally posted by jaden101
isn't that what i just asked you to do?...back up your own opinion?

This is how desperate you are. Asking me to prove that a gig actually happened, and that a review said what I said it did.

I'm not trying to avoid proving it, I just don't know how I can turn a magazine into binary code and show you it here. Actually, see bottom of post. Muse played the 100 Club in July of 1999 and Kerrang were there. So out goes your claim that they are bandwagon jumpers. They were dismissed by NME as "similar to Radiohead" which suggests that they not only understand Radiohead but bandwagonned the hell out of Muse years later.

As for that review, NME.Com.

And just because I can, pictures do speak louder than words. I think you'll notice in the pic below, it says "Muse, July 9th 1999. 100 Club."

Beginning with the line "Initially dismissed as a wannabe Radiohead..."

...And stay down.

-AC

sorry...where am i quoted as saying that...or is that you doing what you accuse me of...misquoting



now are you going to show me the NME quote or not...thought not

although the thought of you spending the last 20 minutes frantically searching through your old copies of kerrang is rather funny

Originally posted by jaden101
sorry...where am i quoted as saying that...or is that you doing what you accuse me of...misquoting

It's called a paraphrase, it's your belief that Kerrang give them the awards. It's fact that they do not. End of that part and end of that stupid "Arguing for no reason" belief.

Originally posted by jaden101
now are you going to show me the NME quote or not...thought not

although the thought of you spending the last 20 minutes frantically searching through your old copies of kerrang is rather funny

I said NME dismissed them as a wannabe Radiohead, which they essentially did.

I'm linking you to the reviews. http://www.nme.com. Click reviews, search "Showbiz." Your only argument there is that I am not doing the duty of pasting it here. If I was avoiding you seeing it, I could understand. You asked where the review was, I willingly gave you the source. You choosing not to check it just proves that you are now even more ashamed of the utter whoopings I continually deal you.

Even funnier than me providing the proof (which isn't funny) is you asking for said proof then because I did actually shut you up, try to make fun of the fact that I could provide it. Weak and childish.

-AC

you provided proof than NM " knocked them as a wannabe Radiohead"?

did you?...no you didn't

http://www.nme.com/news/3987.htm

thats the review of showbiz...guess you think that it isn't there is deliberate?

Originally posted by jaden101
you provided proof than NM " knocked them as a wannabe Radiohead"?

did you?...no you didn't

http://www.nme.com/news/3987.htm

thats the review of showbiz...guess you think that it isn't there is deliberate?

I provided the source of the review. NME reviewed it, they have a reviews section. It's not stupidity to assume that an album they reviewed, will be there is it? No.

I googled the NME review for Showbiz and I am yet to find it. When I do, I shall post it. Or you can use the hands I'm assuming you have, and do so also. Because it's not like I'm intentionally dodging you. I know I'm not, you know I'm not.

Scrap that:

nme - Showbiz review (October 1999)

In Devon, no-one can hear you scream. Muse's story is the familiar tale of late-teen provincial hell and, hailing from the dead-end resort of Teignmouth, it's no wonder they've fashioned themselves as champions of black-clad outsider chic. Apathy is not an option, hanging around the common room looking a bit mysterious is.

Their debut LP is a deadly serious affair then, and inevitably draws comparisons to Radiohead. John Leckie ('The Bends') produces, serrated guitars rule and happiness is discarded as a premise only suitable for emotional retards.

The problem though, after setting up such an academic concept, is that 'Showbiz' is not as clever as they think it is. True, it never mopes as morosely as Thom Yorke's lot, but then it doesn't always have the ability to lift the soul either. So 'Unintended' and the title track are overwrought, prone to excruciatingly bad pseudo poetry, and barely escape the tag of being a gothier Strangelove.

But if they sometimes go too far, Muse's high sense of drama makes perfect sense elsewhere. Mixing Radiohead with the odd flounce of early Suede, or the wailing algebraic lunacy of Mansun, they can produce mini epics. 'Uno' is an Addams Family flamenco, jaggedly wallowing in unrequited love, just one small step away from an injunction for stalking, while 'Cave' and 'Fillip' are superior takes on the well-worn path of brooding guitar pop.

In view of all this, that title is the closest they get to a joke - because it seems certain Muse would rather peel back emotional scabs than actually go whoring down the Met Bar. It's not for the frivolous, but with a little fine tuning, escape from an oblivious West Country seems increasingly likely. 6/10

Jim Alexander

http://www.rocketbabydolls.com/nmeoct99.html <----Link.

Then in 2001, they started fellating Muse when Origin of Symmetry came out.

Sleep doggy.

-AC

so in your mind thats a negative review?...seems like quite a balanced view to me...picking both good and bad points about the album...neither hating it or fellating it...hard to see why you had such a problem with the review

http://www.rocketbabydolls.com/nmefebr1999.html


although perhaps you should have linked to that one

granted the radiohead comparison is wrong

but i've said before...muse albums are generally weak...especially in relation to their live stuff...i personally dont like their albums but i saw them live a couple of years ago and they were superb

Hahahaha, how ironic. This will be quick:

A) I never said it was a negative review. I said they continually compared them to Radiohead. Which they did, in their review of Showbiz. Which is what you asked me to link, which I did.

B) No, I shouldn't have linked that. Because that's not the one you asked for.

Secondly, I read that before I linked you to it. It's proving my point. I never said NME didn't like Muse, I said they cited them with Radiohead, because they did. You denied this.

They do it again in the link you mentioned:

"But you do sound like Radiohead though. Matthew: 'We don't want to get pigeonholed so easily.' Oh come on. If there was a National Sounding Like Radiohead Championship you'd be on the expert judging panel alongside Radiohead and another band who sound exactly like Radiohead.

'We take our influences from a lot of American bands like Nirvana,' Matthew asserts. 'And yeah, Radiohead at the time of 'The Bends' were doing new things with guitar music that it's not hard to be influenced by. If that's your opinion, fair enough. I just don't care.'
Muse, then. Sound like Radiohead. Only better."

Where, oh where do I even begin with these mugs:

Firstly they are throughout the interview, trying to force Matt to admit they are right about HIS music, trying to pigeonhole the band into a sixth form description that their pitiful minds can understand. Idiotic morons. THEN, if that didn't prove my point about how they knocked Muse as a wannabe Radiohead (which it does), it proves my point that they felch Radiohead when they got popular.

They wrote that reviewing and had the nuts to say Muse were like Radiohead (point one proven) only better. Hahahaha, better than Radiohead. THEN, down the line when OK Computer came out, they started having sex with the CD hole and claiming OK Computer was one of the greatest albums ever and that they were more or less peerless.

Jaden, aren't you tired of this? Or are you going to continue the facade of saying I don't back my points up or know what I'm talking about? To quote Michael Caine in Austin Powers: Goldmember...."Go on....lay down son."

-AC

Erm. Well as you two seem to have a history of quabbling meh........

They are a great band however. I first heard them on Myspace and that is where - i believe - their popularity grew. They wont survive a second album which is a shame, but that's Indie for you. But you should enjoy it while you can!

Especially if you havnt heard (of)
them. They are WELL random.

no...you said they hated them..then when they got big they fellated them...which the review quite clearly shows isn't the case...is it?...no

as for the continuing not back up your points...finally you've got the message and for the first time you are least tried to post something other than your own narrow opinion...good to see something is finally getting through...well done...its only took you the 10 months that i've been on this forum to do it...

taken from the kerrang review of the same album



ping

Originally posted by jaden101
no...you said they hated them..then when they got big they fellated them...which the review quite clearly shows isn't the case...is it?...no

Rating their album 6/10 and labelling it as nothing more than a wannabe Radiohead, which we've (you've) now realised they factually did. Then moving onto rating their next album 9/10 after Kerrang rated it well, yes. Fellating them. They fellate popular bands. This is fact, as I proved in my latter post.

Originally posted by jaden101
taken from the kerrang review of the same album



ping

Yes? Point? They never knocked them as a wannabe Radiohead. They used the comparison. Which is inevitable and I don't blame NME for comparing the two, although I disagree. It's the fact that NME say this:

"But you do sound like Radiohead though. Oh come on. If there was a National Sounding Like Radiohead Championship you'd be on the expert judging panel alongside Radiohead and another band who sound exactly like Radiohead."

Kerrang have never addressed them in such a pathetic, patronising way. It stopped at slight comparative mention. Try again, dood.

Originally posted by jaden101
as for the continuing not back up your points...finally you've got the message and for the first time you are least tried to post something other than your own narrow opinion...good to see something is finally getting through...well done...its only took you the 10 months that i've been on this forum to do it...

I've been doing it this whole time, you just refused to see it, like you refuse to see anything that proves you wrong. Like you refuse to admit when you were wrong about Kerrang's awards despite being factually wrong. Despite being of the limited musical knowledge that you had to have all this explained to you. It just so happens that it took pictures and quotes to make you reluctantly admit it. It was like teaching a class of kids. It didn't take me 10 months, it took me a day. Because we haven't always been discussing this particular point.

I've been right in this debate from the start, you haven't. It's taken this long for you to admit it.

Once again you reply with some kind of excuse. Just leave it Jaden, really.

-AC

yet you've posted something other than your own ramblings for the first time today



as is obvious from the band that this thread is about...those giants of the musical world...the internationally renowned...test icicles...oh wait...that actually disproves your point doesn't it?....yes

where as you admitted your self that kerrang have been promoting crap and popular bands for a good while now....thus proving my point that you are infact talking out of a proverbial hole

Originally posted by jaden101
yet you've posted something other than your own ramblings for the first time today

Just because I'm not always posting links to back myself up (because A) It's not always needed and B) I know that I'm not talking BS. Some people are never convinced) doesn't mean I'm rambling. You should be thankful it is actually me you're debating with, not someone like debbiejo.

Originally posted by jaden101
as is obvious from the band that this thread is about...those giants of the musical world...the internationally renowned...test icicles...oh wait...that actually disproves your point doesn't it?....yes

No, because they're actually known as an upcoming band in certain circles in America right now. They're being treated like Bloc Party did before everyone jumped on them, over here. So no. Once again I suggest you know, brushing up on the ol' knowledge.

Originally posted by jaden101
where as you admitted your self that kerrang have been promoting crap and popular bands for a good while now....thus proving my point that you are infact talking out of a proverbial hole

Hmm, funny if it were true. They haven't been "promoting crap". They've had a few shit covers in a row, and a few (which entertaining) passable articles because there isn't much going on right now, as Vic and I discussed.

That's all it is though. A month or two patch. Not a multiple year patch a la NME.

You're running out of things to say and it's really funny, hahahaha.

-AC

meaning?...or is that the famous AC ego?




what's to know?...you say that NME only fellate the big and popular bands...and test icicles are currently neither...thus disproving your claims on yet another subject

it would seem that for one magazine its a cardinal sin to compare radiohead and muse...yet for another its perfectly acceptable...in your mind it is anyway seeing as you seem unable to grasp that fairly simple contradiction




cant say that i am...just getting bored showing you up over and over

Originally posted by jaden101
what's to know?...you say that NME only fellate the big and popular bands...and test icicles are currently neither...thus disproving your claims on yet another subject

There is a specific kind of music that they like. I never said they only, exclusively, never fellate anything else. I said they fellate popular bands. They do, undeniable.

Secondly, they felate bands that are supposed to be good. You know the kind, the kind that you'd be branded stupid to not like. Maximo Park, The Kaiser Chiefs, The Streets, The Arctic Monkeys, The Libertines (best band in Britain according to them). Now, Test Icicles. So no, not disproven. They're known here, they're known in America. Maybe you just don't know that much.

Originally posted by jaden101
it would seem that for one magazine its a cardinal sin to compare radiohead and muse...yet for another its perfectly acceptable...in your mind it is anyway seeing as you seem unable to grasp that fairly simple contradiction

I said I don't blame NME for comparing the two. Why did you ignore that? I'll post it again for you:

"They (Kerrang) never knocked them as a wannabe Radiohead. They used the comparison. Which is inevitable and I don't blame NME for comparing the two, although I disagree. It's the fact that NME say this:

'But you do sound like Radiohead though. Oh come on. If there was a National Sounding Like Radiohead Championship you'd be on the expert judging panel alongside Radiohead and another band who sound exactly like Radiohead.'

Kerrang have never addressed them in such a pathetic, patronising way. It stopped at slight comparative mention. Try again, dood."

Read that before you reply.

Originally posted by jaden101
cant say that i am...just getting bored showing you up over and over

You're only showing yourself up by continually getting smacked in the face by proof, running off, grabbing another point, bringing it back eagerly like a kid giving their teacher an apple, only to find out that your apple was green, and sorry, but I only eat red ones. Go back to your seat and let me continue educating you.

-AC

until you actually prove your allegation that NME only feature popular bands then you might as well stop posting nonsense

even when you did finally post something other than your opinion it actually refuted your allegation because it was actually reasonably positve about a band who weren't big at the time

not to mention that you are the king of conveniently skipping over things that blow your argument to pieces...remember the bands i mentioned that were featured in NME when we were last having this debate?...not a word from you about that was there?...why...cause it showed you to be wrong again

then of course is the flip side of the argument in which you argued for kerrang as somehow not conforming to the corporate media suit wearing types...despite the fact that you admitted yourself that they've featuring crap...although you cant seem to admit that this is purely for corporate gain...when its quite clear to everyone else that it is

Originally posted by jaden101
until you actually prove your allegation that NME only feature popular bands then you might as well stop posting nonsense

When you quote me for saying "They only FEATURE popular bands", I'll admit to saying it. Because I didn't. If you go look at The Strokes thread I even said that they feature some "unknown" bands. I said they FELLATE (begins with an F, but it's not the same word kid) popular bands. Which they do. The Bravery, Franz, Coldplay, The Libertines, Radiohead, The Darkness, Muse. The difference between them and Kerrang is that Kerrang know shit bands and feature them for the obligation they have, being a publication. However, they will openly diss them if they are shit. NME have proven time and time again that they feel obligated to like these bands.

So stop lying your face off and twisting my words.

Originally posted by jaden101
even when you did finally post something other than your opinion it actually refuted your allegation because it was actually reasonably positve about a band who weren't big at the time

It wasn't. Because my claim was that they knocked them as a wannabe Radiohead and more or less tried to force Matt Bellamy to admit it about HIS OWN music. Both the link you and I posted have proved this. You even tried saying "You should have shown this link", as a desperation act. Even your own attempt to go off-topic blew up in your face.

I never said it was a negative review, I made the point about Radiohead. See if you can catch me out without lying and claiming that I made points that I never claimed to make. See if you can do that. Because it's so, so sad that you've resorted to convincing yourself what my points were just so you can counter them, despite being not what I said.

Originally posted by jaden101
not to mention that you are the king of conveniently skipping over things that blow your argument to pieces...remember the bands i mentioned that were featured in NME when we were last having this debate?...not a word from you about that was there?...why...cause it showed you to be wrong again

It didn't, because I never said NME never feature other bands. You obviously confused the word "feature" with "fellate". They do begin with an F, so points for you there, but tsk tsk. Not the same word. I actually said that obviously they will feature other bands, they're a publication, it is their job. My point then and now was that they have shit writers and supporters, and that they fellate (not feature, fellate) popular bands and then genuinely support those bands (The Libertines, best british band, again I say it because it's stupid). You cannot deny that because it is an actual fact, so admit this and stop trying to force words into my mouth just because you are getting shown up. Hahaha, so silly.

Originally posted by jaden101
then of course is the flip side of the argument in which you argued for kerrang as somehow not conforming to the corporate media suit wearing types...despite the fact that you admitted yourself that they've featuring crap...although you cant seem to admit that this is purely for corporate gain...when its quite clear to everyone else that it is

Every magazine does something for corporate gain. I said, multiple times in multiple posts (and you accuse ME of skipping?!) that no magazine is free of influence. The FACT that Kerrang do have more non-influenced writers than any other music journalistic magazine, is not the point either. The point is that whilst Kerrang do FEATURE (confusing the term again you silly, silly boy) shit bands, they do not FELLATE them. They feature them because it is their job as journalists. NME feature The Bravery and The Arctic Monkeys, then give them mad ratings. Multiple reviewers. Give those kinds of bands awards too. Because NME awards are split between critical acclaim and fan reaction, Kerrang's are not (despite you not admitting this).

Shh. Stop being so drastic. You have been so unquestionably disgraced here that you are now telling me what my points are despite me not saying such things. Unless you are replying with something that counters (ha) or relates to my actual points, then don't reply at all.

Because the next time you reply with accusations that I've said things we both know I clearly have not, you're not gonna get a reply.

-AC

so what its boiled down to is this

NME features both popular and unknown bands

Kerrang features both popular and unknown bands

NME actually likes the bands it features

Kerrang doesn't like some of the bands it features and puts them on the cover simply to get people to buy it

NME gave a reasonable review of a muse album and wrongly compared them to radiohead

Kerrang gave them a decent review...compared them to Radiohead and called them "boring and univentive"

NME have some decent writers as per your quote



and some shit writers

kerrang have some good writers and shit writers

the only thing is you try and make up some strange excuse when a kerrang writer likes a band that you dont....or better yet you just call them the shit kerrang writers and not part of the "core" of kerrang

you can make up all the bullshit you want about kerrang to try and make it seem like you're reading some highbrow highly resectable publication...when in fact your reading a magazine thats the same as any other music mag...it just happens to cater to your albeit bad taste more than any other.

in other words you've beat yourself about the head by making statements...contradicting yourself...and then disproving your own arguments...

you really are one of a kind AC...it has to be said...

Originally posted by jaden101
so what its boiled down to is this

NME features both popular and unknown bands

Kerrang features both popular and unknown bands

NME actually likes the bands it features

Kerrang doesn't like some of the bands it features and puts them on the cover simply to get people to buy it

No, not to get people to buy it. For variety, as per their job. Lots of people have shit music taste when it comes to rock, so if they're making a living of journalism, objective journalism, they have to do it.

NME believe The Libertines and Franz Ferdinand, along with Coldplay, are the best bands to come out of Great Britain. They have, in the high 90%, shit opinions on music. Save for the odd, and I do say rare, writer.

Originally posted by jaden101
NME gave a reasonable review of a muse album and wrongly compared them to radiohead

Which you denied, and I suggested. Then proved. They didn't only compare, they more or less tried to force.

Originally posted by jaden101
Kerrang gave them a decent review...compared them to Radiohead and called them "boring and univentive"

No, a writer called them that. Not Kerrang. NME have had about 10-15 writers label Muse as that. The site I linked you to proves as much. Kerrang for the most part have always supported Muse. NME have not. They continued to hound Muse as a wannabe Radiohead until they dived on OK Computer. Which also began felching, because they previously said they'd never outlive Creep.

Originally posted by jaden101
NME have some decent writers as per your quote

and some shit writers

kerrang have some good writers and shit writers

No, don't misquote me. I said they have "a few". This was when they were good. Now they have literally about two or three. Kerrang have lots of really good writers who aren't afraid to say certain things to the artists they review, interview or write about. NME are, fact. Proof? The editor of NME begging Justin Hawkins to do the magazine. Kerrang don't have to beg. NME thought they were the men, trying to say (paraphrased) "If you wanna do our magazine, you gotta be the joke band that you are." "What? F*ck off, mugs." "NO NO NO NO! Joking man, JOKING!"

Originally posted by jaden101
the only thing is you try and make up some strange excuse when a kerrang writer likes a band that you dont....or better yet you just call them the shit kerrang writers and not part of the "core" of kerrang

Well...that's not just me is it? One writer is one writer. If only one writer had said that from NME, then I wouldn't be saying what I am. Considering they continued their Muse/Radiohead hounding and bashing until Origin of Symmetry came out (which Kerrang didn't), that's why it's not an excuse. I've read both magazines quite a lot for reference. You haven't had any real experience with Kerrang so you are both:

A) Uneducated on the matter.

B) Immediately not objective.

Originally posted by jaden101
you can make up all the bullshit you want about kerrang to try and make it seem like you're reading some highbrow highly resectable publication...when in fact your reading a magazine thats the same as any other music mag...it just happens to cater to your albeit bad taste more than any other.

How funny. The same as any other mag. Yes. Because citing System of a Down, Tool, Opeth and The Mars Volta as the world's greatest bands is as bad as citing The Libertines, The Kaiser Chiefs, The Arctic Monkeys and Goldie Lookin Chain as great bands isn't it? No, it's not.

That sort of covers your bad taste part doesn't it? Yes. Let's not get into who has the better collective music taste out of Kerrang and NME, because it's a large enough massacre as it is.

Originally posted by jaden101
in other words you've beat yourself about the head by making statements...contradicting yourself...and then disproving your own arguments...

you really are one of a kind AC...it has to be said...



This debate in a nutshell:

It'd be more effective if you said something true. You more or less begged me for proof, thought you were cocky cos I "didn't have it". I prove my point as I always do, with pictures this time (cos you are a bit slow on the uptake), and instead of conceding the point, you took the route of making fun of the fact that I had provided the proof. Childish and pathetic.

Then you ask me for links. I give you links. You ignore it and post another link and say "Should have sent this one", which you would have used as an excuse but since it was you, it was ok. So I check the link and it further proves my point.

Shit out of luck, you run and grab every point you can, get them rubbished into the ground and finally resort to telling me that I made points I never made. Now you're resorting to your old, "Psh, bad taste" argument because you genuinely have nothing else.

-AC

i never denied it...i merely asked you to prove it...and you did...well done you...a big juicy bone from the butchers for you...




kerrang being an inanimate bit of paper wont be calling anybody anything anytime soon...neither will NME...no matter how many writers agree of disagree with a point



now is that they as in NME or simply a writer for NME?...which is exactly the same thing you're trying to defend kerrang for...you really do have some strange double standards AC



misquote you?...perhaps you should go check for yourself because they are your EXACT words...making a fool of yourself again AC...shock and surprise




that would be the ONE interviewer...from the interview you mentioned....mmm...point well made again...or not





i read kerrang religiously for years until they started harping on about shite like korn and all other new metal....so please dont make idiotic assumptions that you cant back up




i would say yes given that SOAD and opeth are pish and tool are the absolute defintion of overrated





wow...you used a photo of a review of a gig from a magazine to prove a point that was wildly of topic from the main point that it beggers belief

then you contradict yourself at every turn which i prove with quotes from your own post...then you deny that you posted those words and accuse me of misquoting you....yeah...you're really proving your point...execpt of course that you're not are you?




that would be the link that you posted to try and prove that NME hate bands when they're small then fellate them when they're big...except for the fact that the link proved the complete opposite of that and made you look even more of a fool

i do wonder when you'll get over your delusion of kerrangs credibility...which they shoot massive chunks out of every time they feature shit bands on the cover and then say they're good....except of course that you try and get around that by blaming on the writers...is that your get out jail free card...

blame it on the new (new guy, retard, bloke with no taste and no credibility) of course the fact that the kerrang editors respect the opinion and writer enough to feature the stuff is completely lost on you isn't it

Originally posted by jaden101
i never denied it...i merely asked you to prove it...and you did...well done you...a big juicy bone from the butchers for you...

Yes, exactly. Asking for proof usually suggests you don't believe what I am saying, hence denial. If you knew I was correct, why request proof? Says a lot.

Originally posted by jaden101
kerrang being an inanimate bit of paper wont be calling anybody anything anytime soon...neither will NME...no matter how many writers agree of disagree with a point

I'd never plaster NME off the back of one writer, no matter how much I dislike their publication. You should afford the same to Kerrang in this case.

Originally posted by jaden101
now is that they as in NME or simply a writer for NME?...which is exactly the same thing you're trying to defend kerrang for...you really do have some strange double standards AC

Let's go over what I said in my last post. If it were the one writer, fine. It wasn't. I have seen many writers do it.

Originally posted by jaden101
misquote you?...perhaps you should go check for yourself because they are your EXACT words...making a fool of yourself again AC...shock and surprise

I said a few. It's evident that a few to you means more than it does to me. By a few, I do mean, a few. They're not plentiful. They weren't my exact words, once again being silly.

Originally posted by jaden101
that would be the ONE interviewer...from the interview you mentioned....mmm...point well made again...or not

Nah it wouldn't. It was consistant as you should know if you had researched your NME history. I don't buy NME, but I have read lots and lots of issues, lots of transcripts sent to me. Lots of reviews, lots off their site. It's consistant, not just one interviewer.

Originally posted by jaden101
i read kerrang religiously for years until they started harping on about shite like korn and all other new metal....so please dont make idiotic assumptions that you cant back up

Oh well isn't this something. You'd drop Kerrang for harping on Korn yet you won't say a bad word about NME for all the bands I've listed, that they champion. Talk about being overly one sided. Way to invalidate your words.

Originally posted by jaden101
i would say yes given that SOAD and opeth are pish and tool are the absolute defintion of overrated

Not only does this completely invalidate anything you specifically have to say (considering you like Ryan Adams and Maximo Park), but The Libertines as best british band, Franz Ferdinand as best newcomer isn't just defining overrated, it's something altogether worse.

You should write for NME. You diss music that you're too stupid to understand, like they do.

Originally posted by jaden101
wow...you used a photo of a review of a gig from a magazine to prove a point that was wildly of topic from the main point that it beggers belief

You claimed that Kerrang jumped on the Muse bandwagon, not me. I proved you wrong after you cockily suggested I do so, then when I did, you made fun of the fact that I provided proof. There's no escaping the idiocy there.

Originally posted by jaden101
then you contradict yourself at every turn which i prove with quotes from your own post...then you deny that you posted those words and accuse me of misquoting you....yeah...you're really proving your point...execpt of course that you're not are you?

You have barely even quoted me, let alone proven anything with quotes. The one time you quoted me recently, was fine. Only you went on to say it meant something that it didn't. So I corrected you. You pull shit out of your southern cavity, post it, then say I said it and use quotes like this to side track the debate. So from now on, I'm not gonna do you the courtesy of replying to them.

Originally posted by jaden101
that would be the link that you posted to try and prove that NME hate bands when they're small then fellate them when they're big...except for the fact that the link proved the complete opposite of that and made you look even more of a fool

Why are you continually saying that my point was that the NME collectively hate small bands and fellate them when they are big? I never said that (if you believe I did, quote me). The point I made and proved, is that they HAVE done that and that they DO fellate popular bands.

I have factually, undeniably proven this. You cannot deny that what I just said, happens. Because I have proved it in multiple posts, in multiple threads.

Originally posted by jaden101
i do wonder when you'll get over your delusion of kerrangs credibility...which they shoot massive chunks out of every time they feature shit bands on the cover and then say they're good....except of course that you try and get around that by blaming on the writers...is that your get out jail free card...

Here is what you are continually (and maybe purposefully) missing. If NME featured shit bands out of their obligation as a publication, but still dissed them, I would have no problem. Because that, which doing their job, is honesty. NME feature The Libertines, Kerrang feature Nickelback. NME label The Libertines best British band in year, Kerrang advise you to stay as far away from Nickelback as possible. Nickelback were featured, the job is then done. That doesn't mean you have to be dishonest and rate them well. NME genuinely perceive those bands to be good bands, good enough to be labelled the best British bands.

I label NME as shit because they like shit. They don't just feature it out of obligation, they like it. There are a few writers for Kerrang who love My Chemical Romance. They feature them on the cover. Shit? Yes, absolutely. But when M.C.R had a reviewer, two infact, that didn't like them, they ripped the piss out of them. NME don't do this. They not only suck off popular bands, but they genuinely do like shit.

Originally posted by jaden101
blame it on the new (new guy, retard, bloke with no taste and no credibility) of course the fact that the kerrang editors respect the opinion and writer enough to feature the stuff is completely lost on you isn't it

The fact that Kerrang now do have quite a shit editor (in my opinion) isn't something I'll deny. The magazine still has all the same writers who still write in the same way. Because as much of a mug as Paul Brannigan is, I'd choose him over the people who write for NME. Jo Whiley and The Queens of Noise.

-AC

yes...they were...infact here's the link to the page that you said it...now pick that chin up off the ground...there's a good boy

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10519&perpage=20&highlight=&pagenumber=2



except that i've told you on many occasions of my dislike of coldplay, franz ferdinand, the artic monkeys and the darkness...you obviously failed to pay attention again...




ryan adams has infinitely more depth and variation to his music than any band or artist you have ever named...the proof is in his discography...and quite simply is just another point that proves you wrong





there's that great argument again...the old "you dont like it cause you dont understand it"...as for calling me stupid...stupid because what?'''because im the only person on this forum (with the exception of deano) who regularly pulverises your shallow and idiotic argumets to a pulp...your verbal bullying doesn't work on me AC...as proved on every debate we've had for the last 10 months...on a side note...what exactly is it you do that proves your intelligence?



you said that about 2 posts ago so either you cant help making a fool of yourself or you know my posts are valid and on topic...which is it?





you mean apart from when you said it regarding muse and radiohead...forgetting your arguments again...hardly surprising given that you cant even read your own quotes without denying that you posted it in the first place




...brilliant...so now its someone elses fault that kerrang write good reviews of shit bands...



at least we can agree on something...i'd choose almost anyone over jo whiley...which i've stated before and well you know

lets go back abit to another great point that shows how you contradict yourself...remember you slated NME for doing a feature on trent reznor in the run up to the release of NIN last album...and remember when you defended kerrang by saying that they feature stuff thats relevant as in when bands are releasing new material

i remember that...i also know how daft it makes you look when you contradict yourself and tie yourself in knots like that...hey...i'm trying to help you out...you should be thankful someone like me is here to point out your mistakes

now if you're not going to reply this time then thanks for the debate...as always, its been fun

take it easy AC...

one last thing...remember your point about NME being the only mag that likes the libertines

ahem

http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/libertines/libertines/#critics

Originally posted by jaden101
one last thing...remember your point about NME being the only mag that likes the libertines

ahem

http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/libertines/libertines/#critics

How many of those are British sole music publications Vs how many are internet/non-UK sources? More over, half of those are sarcastic swipes at them. Even when they are rated good, it's overrating (as any rating is with them):

"Some songs are sloppily stretched out and others simply half-finished, but the ample charms of Doherty and Barat are just enough to rescue any of these lows."

AKA these men are complete talentless mugs but they're loveable (false) so we like them.

I swear I explained to you about 5 times that when I said "only" it was an exaggeration. Talk about clutching at straws.

Originally posted by jaden101
yes...they were...infact here's the link to the page that you said it...now pick that chin up off the ground...there's a good boy

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10519&perpage=20&highlight=&pagenumber=2

You mean where I said "They have a few"? Yes, I said that. Not "NME have some good writers." Which you claimed were my exact words.

Originally posted by jaden101
except that i've told you on many occasions of my dislike of coldplay, franz ferdinand, the artic monkeys and the darkness...you obviously failed to pay attention again...

You're not paying attention. What you dislike isn't the issue, what NME LIKE is. They like Coldplay etc.

Originally posted by jaden101
ryan adams has infinitely more depth and variation to his music than any band or artist you have ever named...the proof is in his discography...and quite simply is just another point that proves you wrong

Gut laughed. Actually just gut laughed. It's not actually proof is it? It's you having a sheerly stupid, dumb, retarded view.

Ryan Adams more deep and having more variety than Rush, Tool, Opeth, Dredg, Led Zep, System, Queen...etc etc. Hahaha, such a dumb idiot. Yes, I'm having a laugh at you. Because with a quote like that, you actually deserve it. You deserve to be Tango'd for that.

Ryan Adams better than Mike Patton, hahaha. I'm gonna just go and assume you're joking.

Originally posted by jaden101
there's that great argument again...the old "you dont like it cause you dont understand it"...as for calling me stupid...stupid because what?'''because im the only person on this forum (with the exception of deano) who regularly pulverises your shallow and idiotic argumets to a pulp...your verbal bullying doesn't work on me AC...as proved on every debate we've had for the last 10 months...on a side note...what exactly is it you do that proves your intelligence?

Overlooking that obviously sarcastic Deano remark (it must have been, because you aren't that dumb. That or you just don't enter any threads), I'm not trying to verbally bully you champ. Calm down, just relax. You keep insisting that you pulverise my arguments, by that's all you're doing dude. Insisting it. You're not actually doing it because THIS is how you are debating. By not debating. I'm doing you too much credit by even indulging you.

My musical intellect is quite clearly above yours, considering you just told me Ryan Adams is better than any artist I've mentioned on here. That is all I need say on the issue. It really is.

Originally posted by jaden101
said that about 2 posts ago so either you cant help making a fool of yourself or you know my posts are valid and on topic...which is it?

See above. Where you never addressed anything on topic and served only to throw a jab with the power equal to that of a twig in a storm. That's how you debate though. You throw out a couple of points, which I inevitably crush, then spend the rest of it telling me how I'm doing stuff.

Originally posted by jaden101
you mean apart from when you said it regarding muse and radiohead...forgetting your arguments again...hardly surprising given that you cant even read your own quotes without denying that you posted it in the first place

Actually beyond dumb, the lack of understanding. I said they dissed Muse as a wannabe Radiohead consistantly, which they did. As proven. I said that they insisted Radiohead would never get out of the shadow of Creep until they got OK Computer. This is also true. That's all I ever claimed, I've proven right both of them.

Originally posted by jaden101
...brilliant...so now its someone elses fault that kerrang write good reviews of shit bands...

It is? Who said that? Cos it sure wasn't me. I just said they now have a shit editor. Not shit writers. And to say that you don't twist or assume, haha.

Originally posted by jaden101
at least we can agree on something...i'd choose almost anyone over jo whiley...which i've stated before and well you know

Exactly. So that's what I'm saying. NME like shit music and shit people.

Originally posted by jaden101
lets go back abit to another great point that shows how you contradict yourself...remember you slated NME for doing a feature on trent reznor in the run up to the release of NIN last album...and remember when you defended kerrang by saying that they feature stuff thats relevant as in when bands are releasing new material

i remember that...i also know how daft it makes you look when you contradict yourself and tie yourself in knots like that...hey...i'm trying to help you out...you should be thankful someone like me is here to point out your mistakes

Wanna tell me how often and consistantly the NME, as a collective publication, supported Nine Inch Nails, before With Teeth? Because Kerrang have. Point proven. NIN was the biggest hyped comeback, possibly ever. NME were right there.

Well, some of them. The others were off getting their stories from a drunk guy in a field at Glastonbury that they subsequently printed, without even checking if it were true or not.

-AC

yes...you said it was an exaggeration...then claimed it all over again saying that except for NME...Q liked them a little bit...and hence you were wrong again




you cant even get the quotes from today right so what hope have you got of recalling the others...go back one page and you'll see that i claimed your quote was "I'm not denying NME of any good writers, they have a couple"...and not "NME have some good writers

you'll also see that they WERE YOUR EXACT WORDS...




rock and metal....huge diversity there...ryan adams has covered more genres on his own than those 6 bands have combined...and as david brent would say "FACT"



perfectly relaxed as always mate...dont see me frantically searching for a 5 year old magazine to try and prove an off topic point...unlike some




hahaha...laughable...nothing else needs said







wow...yet another contradiction courtesy of AC...again i'll say...wow




you're right...they like the darkness...both shit music...and shit people...in a single...band...oh...you like them dont you...point made



they sure were...especially when they said that the darkness and radiohead were shit...pity they changed their minds

i guess they just made the mistake of telling them in the interview as opposed to doing the interview...then slagging the bands...as per kerrang...the journalistic equivalent of talking to someone behind their back

are you going to be replying again?...let me use my mystic meg powers...a man with no taste in music and who is unable to string a coherent argument will make a post very soon...the letters A and C will be involved it toooOOOoooo

Originally posted by jaden101
yes...you said it was an exaggeration...then claimed it all over again saying that except for NME...Q liked them a little bit...and hence you were wrong again

I mentioned Q, yes. I didn't say it was solely them two. That's a leap you made, and failed. Just because I mentioned them together doesn't mean that's it.

Moreover, I was referring exclusively to UK publications. Not internet and non-uk. Read the links before you post them.

Originally posted by jaden101
you cant even get the quotes from today right so what hope have you got of recalling the others...go back one page and you'll see that i claimed your quote was "I'm not denying NME of any good writers, they have a couple"...and not "NME have some good writers

You still misquote me then. You said they were my exact words when you said that I said the NME have some good writers. Not exact words.

Originally posted by jaden101
you'll also see that they WERE YOUR EXACT WORDS...

I saw the quote, yes. I'm not denying I said what I said. You got technical when you said "my exact words" then quoted me and it was different. This is all a bit irrelevant since I'm not denying what I said.

Originally posted by jaden101
rock and metal....huge diversity there...ryan adams has covered more genres on his own than those 6 bands have combined...and as david brent would say "FACT"

So you're claiming Ryan Adams better than the following bands and artists: Faith No More (or anything to do with Mike Patton), Tool, Opeth, Dredg, Rush, Queen and Led Zeppelin?

A simple yes or no will do. I'm guessing it's yes, seeing as you already told me Ryan Adams was better than any band or artist I've ever mentioned, right? Just answer this so it can be known that you're musical opinion is worth zero.

Originally posted by jaden101
perfectly relaxed as always mate...dont see me frantically searching for a 5 year old magazine to try and prove an off topic point...unlike some

It's a couple of weeks old. Maybe a month or two at max. And it's more or less in the cupboard next to me. So you didn't see me frantically searching for a 5 year old magazine. Either way, it proved the point that you are yet to admit you were wrong on. So why don't you start with that?

Originally posted by jaden101
hahaha...laughable...nothing else needs said

"ryan adams has covered more genres on his own than those 6 bands have combined"

Indeed, nothing else be said.

Originally posted by jaden101
...yet another contradiction courtesy of AC...again i'll say...wow

You're twisting my words by taking my quotes out of context. Having a shit editor doesn't mean they have shit writers, is what I said. Such a pathetic thing to do. Take things out of context. I said they have shit writers because they do have some. This has nothing to do with the editor as you suggested, you completely oblivious fool.

Originally posted by jaden101
you're right...they like the darkness...both shit music...and shit people...in a single...band...oh...you like them dont you...point made

Hahaha, besides The Darkness being excellent. You pick them out because I like them, as if it's gonna upset me or something. I was gonna leave it at this, but you've made a great point:

They like The Darkness.............now. They do, they love The Darkness now. They are so far up their arses now. Long time different story than when they first got on the scene though. Infact, they went from making fun of them, to begging them to grace their mag, to getting snubbed and dissed by Justin (deservedly so). Now they're interviewing Frankie Poullain (ex-bassist) and acting as if his side of the story is fact purely because they couldn't get the other members of The Darkness. Hahaha, idiots.

Originally posted by jaden101
they sure were...especially when they said that the darkness and radiohead were shit...pity they changed their minds

When I said NME were right there, I meant in terms of location. With everyone else who decided to now become NIN fans. But the other half of NME offices were interviewing a drunk man at Glastonbury who said "PJ Harvey said she's quitting!". Not too long after, it was all over NME.Com, the mag and the newsletter (according to someone I speak to).

Now you are admitting the NME changed their minds, but won't admit that me saying they do, is right. They're mugs.

Oh, and you didn't need to invalidate your opinion more by saying Radiohead are shit. I do hope you realise that anything you say now, about any band, is worth nothing.

Originally posted by jaden101
i guess they just made the mistake of telling them in the interview as opposed to doing the interview...then slagging the bands...as per kerrang...the journalistic equivalent of talking to someone behind their back

Like when NME got in Frankie Poullain to diss The Darkness while praising them through the other side of their mouths?

Morat, Kerrang reviewer, did an interview with Zakk Wylde and started more or less dissing the man. Not trying to be purposefully offensive, but because he held a certain opinion. NME get heckled by Maximo Park.

Originally posted by jaden101
you going to be replying again?...let me use my mystic meg powers...a man with no taste in music and who is unable to string a coherent argument will make a post very soon...the letters A and C will be involved it toooOOOoooo

Jaden, I say this with no bias etc. But for someone who just spent a post talking bullshit, including telling me how Ryan Adams is more talented than Mike Patton, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Tool and Rush, I'd seriously suggest you don't call my taste, bad.

-AC

Oh...Shutit!

Infact, out of respect for your thread, I'll PM him the reply to his next post.

Or if he reads this first. He can reply to my above post, in PM.

-AC

Thankyou very much lol. But to be honest your debate/war is the only thing keeping the thread going.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Thankyou very much lol. But to be honest your debate/war is the only thing keeping the thread going.

its been fun though...beats the ass out of reading most of the drivel in other threads