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

IS ANY1 ONE OUT DER LOVING THE SUBWAYS? FRANZ FERDINAND OR STROKES (NOT BRITISH BUT OH WELL!)

Franz and The Strokes are by far a couple of the most boring bands ive ever heard. ever.

NO WAY MAN juiceBOX IS BANGIN!

Juicebox is the worst song ive heard by The Strokes.

THERE IS NO1 WHO SOUNDS LIKE THE STROKES! THEY R SO...NEW YORK, INDIE GRUNGE WICKED LOUD CRAZY! I LOVE UM. i LOVE SYSTEM OF A DOWN 2

WHY DO YOU CUM OVER HERE? WEVE GOT A CITY..

The Strokes do have an original sound, i'll give them that much. but it really isnt nothing spectacular. it gets boring very quick. hear one song, youve heard them all.

Strokes are okay.

Originally posted by Lana


Strokes are okay.

thats what i thought, then i listened to First Impressions Of Earth.

NO I DISAGREE, THEIR SOUND HAS CHANGED SINCE THE FIRST RECORD. THEY CAN DO NO WRONG! PLUS THEIR STUFF IS SO MAD! HOW BOUT SUBWAYS THEN?

Originally posted by Saraneth
NO I DISAGREE, THEIR SOUND HAS CHANGED SINCE THE FIRST RECORD. THEY CAN DO NO WRONG! PLUS THEIR STUFF IS SO MAD! HOW BOUT SUBWAYS THEN?

there sound has absolutely NO change between Is This It and Room On Fire. its still the same sound.

but for First Impressions, the sound changes drastically. not for the good.

yeh, okay thats ur opinion- movin on swiftly, what u in2 then?

too many bands.

bloc party? subways? system of a down? audioslave?

The Strokes are good.

Franz Ferdinand are dull.

The Subways are dire.

SOAD, Mars Volta, White Stripes, Prick, LCD Soundsystem, Radiohead, Autolux, Fantomas, and Modest Mouse. to name a few.

The Strokes don't even sound like Franz or Subways. These bands aren't indie either.

I'd take a good guess they are as there played on all the London indie radio stations and clubs...

I like Franz, although they are really poor live, Subways are good, there albums pretty neat, ok live, and Strokes still good, not into juicebox though, and also great live.

Bloc party are great though!

Don't like any of the bands mentioned as British Indie, only like one song by The Strokes.

i'm not even going to boether buying hte new strokes album. i don't need the exact same album 3 times

Franz isnt Indie.... its turbo pop.

As for the strokes, they're pretty nice. But still.. not indie.

i like the killers not english but they do sing like a english band, and i like the kaiser cheifs. not into franz i think there boring, and strokes and the artic monkeys, and i really do hate the ordinary boys they do my head in.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
i'm not even going to boether buying hte new strokes album. i don't need the exact same album 3 times

It's acually a lot more of a departure than the second album was, and coincidentally that is my least favourite.

Turbo Pop? that's a new one to me.

Franz Ferdinand.... at aged 35 you'd think they have some skill on their respective instruments.

they annoy me, the music is simplistic and awful yet they're heralded as a quality band

Originally posted by Ronny
Franz isnt Indie.... its turbo pop.

As for the strokes, they're pretty nice. But still.. not indie.

Of course you're aware "turbo pop" is a stupid label?

Britpop is pretty bad but that's what they are, if anything.

-AC

even a true "indie" king like Ian Brown belongs to a big label now - Real Indie died with Factory Records.

So you might aswell just call it Indie. Even the old Britpop bands have lost it and you might as well just call them Indie now.

That's why labels are shit. People like you going around labelling bands because you "might as well". They're not indie, so I'm not calling them indie.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's why labels are shit. People like you going around labelling bands because you "might as well". They're not indie, so I'm not calling them indie.

-AC

agreed

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's why labels are shit. People like you going around labelling bands because you "might as well". They're not indie, so I'm not calling them indie.

-AC

Sorry AC, but why the personal tone? It wasnt needed. I'm not going to give myself the sufference of having to argue with you so I'll give you a straight answer...

People like to label things, sometimes you need them yourself to explain
to others about any given subject...so please, for the sake of point, just acknowledge that labels can be something helpful for all people.

And btw I wasn't replying to any specific post after reading so god damn many.

There was no tone there.

Second, I don't need labels. Probably because I can explain myself without them (that is the reason).

Labels can be helpful to idiots, yes. Not to bands eg: "Might as well call them indie." type attitudes.

-AC

No tone eh?

People like you going around labelling bands because you "might as well".

Less of the tone, more of explicity implied pragmatics then.

I don't want another argument but I simply cannot reason with your opinion that bands are only labelled by idiots. i'm sorry but I don't see the point in wasting several hours of my day explaining to someone about a band, describing every musical feature when i can just say 'sounds like your typical indie, with the kind of voice and live performance of <insert band name here>'.

Anyways, what bands are going stong at the moment...I havnt been able to get to London over the Christmas break so no gigging what so ever and I havnt listened to any radio stations either.

There's no excuse for laziness in music. Labelling included.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There's no excuse for laziness in music. Labelling included.

-AC

Def Leppard had an excuse they'd shag 1 or 2 groupies whilst the show was going on, allegedly

Franz Ferdinand do my fooking head in.

I like The Strokes, but I can't help but get bored of their material after a while.

The likes of Hard-Fi, Subways, Coldplay, Keane, Franz Ferdinand, Bloc Party, Razorshite and all these other mediocre "next big thing" bands are really, really dire. Really boring "trendy rock" music that just doesn't do anything new.

It's the same old shit over and over again.

Compare these to the likes of The White Stripes, Arcade Fire, Mars Volta, System Of A Down and it's clear which bands are pushing things forward, and which bands are purely formulaic shit.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There's no excuse for laziness in music. Labelling included.

-AC

Well I have to say your sounding a bit like Big Brother there, but I would rather make matters easier when explaining to someone about a band by labelling them to simplify others. of course i would likke to explain what they actually sound like musically, but in generic conversation, people really arent too interested.

And I agree with you a bit there Red Superfly, thouse bands arent doing anything new, but i disagree that they are dire. Sure, they are regurtitating alot of what has been done before but that doesnt mean their terrible, they can stilll pull out a tune once in a while.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Well I have to say your sounding a bit like Big Brother there, but I would rather make matters easier when explaining to someone about a band by labelling them to simplify others. of course i would likke to explain what they actually sound like musically, but in generic conversation, people really arent too interested.

If they're not interested then they deserve an explanation, why? You're labelling bands, often wrongly, for idiots who couldn't care less.

-AC

geez...there always seems to be soo much arguing going on in the music forum...its ridiculous


as for the question....i like the strokes new album..and their old....i like the way they have gone...franz ferdinand...i love...been to see them...they're not as bad live as people are making them out to be...then the subways...i like and im gona borrow my friends cd...i've only heard their singles...but the album cant be that bad....

so yeah...

indie is kind of an hugely encompassing label...many people would class keane, embrace and coldplay as indie at the same time as labelling the futureheads, bloc party and the artic monkeys as indie...there is a pretty large variation in sound...so i think "indie" is about as useful a label as "rock" or "metal" in that you can only use it for a very vague description

i class myself as an indie fan although am a bit bemused by the apparent lack of anything decent bands appearing

The difference is that rock and metal are umbrellas that do genuinely have a sound and many different sounds within that sound.

"Indie" is just a different type of rock, if it even truly still exists. I wouldn't class Keane, Embrace or Coldplay as rock. I'd class them as closer to pop than anything. They don't have any elements of rock. With The Futureheads et al, whilst I don't like them, they clearly have elements of rock there, even if they're not totally so.

-AC

Urgh don't get me started on that awful band! Can't stand the music.

Originally posted by MildPossession
Urgh don't get me started on that awful band! Can't stand the music.

There album was pretty awful, although there not bad live.

AC please stop being like that on purpose, please? Thankyee kindly.

Originally posted by Flying High
geez...there always seems to be soo much arguing going on in the music forum...its ridiculous


as for the question....i like the strokes new album..and their old....i like the way they have gone...franz ferdinand...i love...been to see them...they're not as bad live as people are making them out to be...then the subways...i like and im gona borrow my friends cd...i've only heard their singles...but the album cant be that bad....

so yeah...

Blame AC for the arguing.

Stop being such a sensitive kid or leave the forum, simple. If you can't handle the heat, leave the kitchen.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Stop being such a sensitive kid or leave the forum, simple. If you can't handle the heat, leave the kitchen.

-AC

Ha!

i was only commenting...i only come into the forum when im really bored...

And then you find that AC has come to spoil the party?

Same here.

Feel free to get over whatever trauma I've caused you.

-AC

So charming

its just so welcoming here

Oh sorry...

Well do you want a hug? A handshake even? Oh wait, your here for the free pen....

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The difference is that rock and metal are umbrellas that do genuinely have a sound and many different sounds within that sound.

"Indie" is just a different type of rock, if it even truly still exists. I wouldn't class Keane, Embrace or Coldplay as rock. I'd class them as closer to pop than anything. They don't have any elements of rock. With The Futureheads et al, whilst I don't like them, they clearly have elements of rock there, even if they're not totally so.

-AC

true...but they still all get the indie label...and whilst rock and metal do have many different sub genres...many of them do sound similar to one another and/or are just ridiculous labels in the first place

the same happens in most of the main classifications of music...i mean hip hop/ r n b fans...could you please tell me...really...what the **** is crunk?

There aren't massive differences between rock and metal that are apparant unless you are heavily into music, to be honest. It'd be a bit too general to label everything as rock, otherwise I'd do it.

I just stick to rock, metal, hip hop, pop etc when it comes to genres. At a stretch, I use the more establishes sub-genres. That's only in rare cases.

-AC

i still find it funny that indie has somehow become a genre.

just read DIW magazine, you'll see all the different types of indie bands.

Official statment given by the AC Mintistry of Bigotry

Second, I don't need labels. Probably because I can explain myself without them (that is the reason).

Labels can be helpful to idiots, yes.

The comes...

There aren't massive differences between rock and metal that are apparant unless you are heavily into music, to be honest. It'd be a bit too general to label everything as rock, otherwise I'd do it.

I just stick to rock, metal, hip hop, pop etc when it comes to genres. At a stretch, I use the more establishes sub-genres. That's only in rare cases.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Official statment given by the AC Mintistry of Bigotry

Second, I don't need labels. Probably because I can explain myself without them (that is the reason).

Labels can be helpful to idiots, yes.

The comes...

There aren't massive differences between rock and metal that are apparant unless you are heavily into music, to be honest. It'd be a bit too general to label everything as rock, otherwise I'd do it.

I just stick to rock, metal, hip hop, pop etc when it comes to genres. At a stretch, I use the more establishes sub-genres. That's only in rare cases.

A) You don't mean bigotry.

B) You mean MINISTRY, not MINTISTRY.

C) What's the point? We were discussing labels in the sense of subgenres and sub-sub genres, labelling for the sake of it and labelling to cater to others who don't understand. Not the use of labels that already exist and are established. EG: Rock, metal, hip hop, pop. Which I use. Then if I ever, in the rare case, happen to be discussing a specific band and end up discussing what specific genre they would be if not a broad one, then I use ESTABLISHED sub-genres eg: Black metal, death metal etc.

I don't quite know what compells you to endlessly reply to my posts in some desperate hope that you'll achieve a goal, but until you stop doing so I shall continually make you look like an utter cretin. Now if you're quite done following me around like a starved puppy, I suggest you clear off.

-AC

I'm so sorry AC! Did I tap a nerve there? of course I will forever be indebted to you for you are taking this in the most hilarious fashion
I almost feel sorry for you.

A) You don't mean bigotry.

I mean bigotry, do you want a definition kid?

B) You mean MINISTRY, not MINTISTRY.

One should know a typo when he see's one

C) What's the point? We were discussing labels in the sense of subgenres and sub-sub genres, labelling for the sake of it and labelling to cater to others who don't understand. Not the use of labels that already exist and are established. EG: Rock, metal, hip hop, pop. Which I use. Then if I ever, in the rare case, happen to be discussing a specific band and end up discussing what specific genre they would be if not a broad one, then I use ESTABLISHED sub-genres eg: Black metal, death metal etc.

That's the very point you've contradicted yourself on.

I don't quite know what compells you to endlessly reply to my posts in some desperate hope that you'll achieve a goal, but until you stop doing so I shall continually make you look like an utter cretin. Now if you're quite done following me around like a starved puppy, I suggest you clear off.

Ahhh, entertainment, enertainment mister gremlin sir. The fact that you bore most of the people away from the music forum is testimony indeed to my reasons.

Now, any good bands been mentioned?

I have to say The Editors are being played on my stereo quite a lot these days. Very good album, I recommend it. Blood is one of the highlights.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There aren't massive differences between rock and metal that are apparant unless you are heavily into music, to be honest. It'd be a bit too general to label everything as rock, otherwise I'd do it.

I just stick to rock, metal, hip hop, pop etc when it comes to genres. At a stretch, I use the more establishes sub-genres. That's only in rare cases.

-AC

So AC it's funny isn't it "You really got me" by "The Kinks" is arguably the font from which Heavy Metal flowed Yet most people give them more credit for influencing New Wave and Britpop. So why not label everything as Rock.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
So AC it's funny isn't it "You really got me" by "The Kinks" is arguably the font from which Heavy Metal flowed Yet most people give them more credit for influencing New Wave and Britpop. So why not label everything as Rock.

Well, not everything with a guitar in it is rock. The only problem with being THAT generalising is that there would, again, be wrong labelling. There ARE differences between rock and metal though. Not massively so, but they are there if you are into music enough to notice. Which I am. They are noticeable. Britpop is another kind of pop. So if anything it'd go under pop.

So I just uses the standard genres. I've said all this. It's the shitty subs and sub-subs that annoy me. Genres do exist, but there's no need for many of them.

-AC

La-de-dah, etc etc etc.

Anyone else dislike Brendan Flowers? Johnny Borell? Pete Doherty?

And anybody heard Carl Barat's new band? (sounds like early Libs, tres good...)

-AC you Gremlin!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why do you bail out and retrieve some transcript when you're in a jam? Oh well.

As for that being the first metal song, it's arguable. Secondly, what is your point with all that? What exactly is the point you are trying to make? I never said there were many differences between rock and metal, just that they were noticeable if you were into music enough.

I wish you'd read my posts. It's like debating with someone with my grandfather.

-AC

So tell me what are these differences, How would early Thin Lizzy be distinguised from most AOR bands. What do you class Foreigner and Journey as?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en& amp;q=%22you+really+got+me%22+The+Kinks+heavy+meta
l&btnG=Search

59 000 + web pages think it was the first heavy metal song, many quite reputable!

"(8)AC's getting owned and has to resort to childish remarks, resort to childish remarks, resort to childish remarks(8)"

Nicely, if awkwardly fitting the rhythmn of The Wheels On the Bus....coming under the label of a 'nursery rhyme', for the benefit of AC.

Exanda, continue to shadow me and I'll report you. I've dealt with you enough.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
So tell me what are these differences, How would early Thin Lizzy be distinguised from most AOR bands. What do you class Foreigner and Journey as?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en& amp;q=%22you+really+got+me%22+The+Kinks+heavy+meta
l&btnG=Search

59 000 + web pages think it was the first heavy metal song, many quite reputable!

I class Foreigner and Journey as terrible. Out of my care.

Metal vocals are different, as is the speed and technique of guitar playing, drumming etc.

Many millions of people think Britney Spears is great, doesn't make them right. Shame on you for conforming to mass opinion. Moreover, it's arguable. Second, it's not even relevant. We're not discussing what was the first metal song. You asked what the differences were between metal and rock, I told you.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Exanda, continue to shadow me and I'll report you. I've dealt with you enough.



I class Foreigner and Journey as terrible. Out of my care.

Metal vocals are different, as is the speed and technique of guitar playing, drumming etc.

Many millions of people think Britney Spears is great, doesn't make them right. Shame on you for conforming to mass opinion. Moreover, it's arguable. Second, it's not even relevant. We're not discussing what was the first metal song. You asked what the differences were between metal and rock, I told you.

-AC

I never stated an opinion on them, I asked you what they were.

The Kinks are not Britney Spears are you saying the Kinks were untalented in any way?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I never stated an opinion on them, I asked you what they were.

The Kinks are not Britney Spears are you saying the Kinks were untalented in any way?

I swear you have the attention span of a hen. I was referencing you making the claim that 50,000 google sites believe something. Them believing such doesn't make it true.

This is my point, read it because you seem to be missing pretty much everything: I'm not trying to discuss what the first metal song is, just saying that there are differences between metal and rock. I showed you what these were upon request.

Are we done?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I swear you have the attention span of a hen. I was referencing you making the claim that 50,000 google sites believe something. Them believing such doesn't make it true.

This is my point, read it because you seem to be missing pretty much everything: I'm not trying to discuss what the first metal song is, just saying that there are differences between metal and rock. I showed you what these were upon request.

Are we done?

-AC

I beg to differ actually you didn't show me, you made a statement. You said singing style made something Heavy metal as did dumming style. hmmm I ask you Thin Lizzy never sounded much like Motorhead to me in there early days. They did try to become heavier. Steve Lukather of Toto certainly plays many "Heavy Metal" solos. I think you can label a song better than you can label a group as part of a genre. It's not my attention span it's that the argument I was getting at was different to your understanding of it again. You want to label groups, I think you can only really label songs.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I beg to differ actually you didn't show me, you made a statement. You said singing style made something Heavy metal as did dumming style. hmmm I ask you Thin Lizzy never sounded much like Motorhead to me in there early days. They did try to become heavier. Steve Lukather of Toto certainly plays many "Heavy Metal" solos. I think you can label a song better than you can label a group as part of a genre. It's not my attention span it's that the argument I was getting at was different to your understanding of it again. You want to label groups, I think you can only really label songs.

This is where your attention span fails you. You asked what the differences were between metal and rock. I showed you. You didn't ask for examples, you asked what the differences were.

Examples: Audioslave are a rock band, Metallica are a metal band. Led Zeppelin are a rock band, Pantera are a metal band.

You THINKING that you can only label songs doesn't mean that you are right. Metal is different ENOUGH to have a genre. The music is different, played differently and classed differently. I'm not saying that elements of each don't filter through, I'm saying that there are two separate genres.

Please try figuring out what it is you want to say before you say it please.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
This is where your attention span fails you. You asked what the differences were between metal and rock. I showed you. You didn't ask for examples, you asked what the differences were.

Examples: Audioslave are a rock band, Metallica are a metal band. Led Zeppelin are a rock band, Pantera are a metal band.

You THINKING that you can only label songs doesn't mean that you are right. Metal is different ENOUGH to have a genre. The music is different, played differently and classed differently. I'm not saying that elements of each don't filter through, I'm saying that there are two separate genres.

Please try figuring out what it is you want to say before you say it please.

-AC

Kindly explain the similarities between Don't fear the Reaper BOC and Motorhead by Hawkwind. Two heavy Metal standards and tell me why they are both Heavy Metal.

Please tell me why "Rocking all over the World" Status Quo is Heavymetal and what it has in common with Paranoid by Black Sabbath - Why all these bands are classed as Heavy Metal. Labels fail As has your argument imo.

- end

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Kindly explain the similarities between Don't fear the Reaper BOC and Motorhead by Hawkwind. Two heavy Metal standards and tell me why they are both Heavy Metal.

Explain why they are SIMILAR? Who's talking about similar? They both have a very TRADITIONAL metal guitar and vocal sound. Metal isn't so much like those bands now, just like rock isn't so much like Zeppelin. They've both evolved respectively and while they're both similar genres, they both differ. Not enormously so, but they do.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Please tell me why "Rocking all over the World" Status Quo is Heavymetal and what it has in common with Paranoid by Black Sabbath - Why all these bands are classed as Heavy Metal. Labels fail As has your argument imo.

- end



...You're a valued debater in the CB forum...why? Anyway:

Status Quo aren't metal, they're a rock band. Hence why yes, labels fail. Especially when people like you completely miss points, examples and any shred of sense or knowledge. Black Sabbath are arguably the inventors of heavy metal. The very deep, heavy, loud guitar sound (due to Iommi's slacked strings) was imitated for years. It had never been heard before.

My whole point was that labels fail, for goodness sake. What do you do on this forum? Post, half read my reply, go do something else and then come back and reply with whatever's in your mind? You're being so irrelevant in some kind of an attempt to keep this debate going.

Established genres are fine. Subgenres (in many cases) and sub-subgenres are not. End of debate.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Explain why they are SIMILAR? Who's talking about similar? They both have a very TRADITIONAL metal guitar and vocal sound. Metal isn't so much like those bands now, just like rock isn't so much like Zeppelin. They've both evolved respectively and while they're both similar genres, they both differ. Not enormously so, but they do.



...You're a valued debater in the CB forum...why? Anyway:

Status Quo aren't metal, they're a rock band. Hence why yes, labels fail. Especially when people like you completely miss points, examples and any shred of sense or knowledge. Black Sabbath are arguably the inventors of heavy metal. The very deep, heavy, loud guitar sound (due to Iommi's slacked strings) was imitated for years. It had never been heard before.

My whole point was that labels fail, for goodness sake. What do you do on this forum? Post, half read my reply, go do something else and then come back and reply with whatever's in your mind? You're being so irrelevant in some kind of an attempt to keep this debate going.

Established genres are fine. Subgenres (in many cases) and sub-subgenres are not. End of debate.

-AC

Actually Quo were considered Metal in the eigthies, Psychedelic in the 60's and a 12 bar blues band for most of there life by anyone with a brain or understanding of music.

Sorry! Thin Lizzy, if you listen to Jonny the Fox meets Jimmy the Weed, Bad rep or any of there Pre Jailbreak stuff did not sound like Led Zepplin in any sense, yet they were called Heavy Metal.

BOC are nowhere near as Blues based as Zepplin drawing far more from Blue Grass - Check out Survivor of the Psi Wars for proof.

Black Sabbath did some innovation, However they are, and thats the point considerably different to all the other bands mentioned.

I am not going to retort to your comment about the comic book forum - suffice to say noone there or on any board claims to own me

AC you may be pseudo knowledgable about some aspects of Music but your age denies you breadth. You simply haven't been exposed to enough yet.
I guess the same went for comics.

-end

I'm sure you'd know more about the present crop of bands than me though.

labels don't work.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Actually Quo were considered Metal in the eigthies, Psychedelic in the 60's and a 12 bar blues band for most of there life by anyone with a brain or understanding of music.

Note the fact that they were considered metal to you. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about what they actually are. That being a rock band. You can see this clearly from any of their albums. Psychedelic is short for psychedelic rock, so that would make them a rock band also. Then again this is only apparant to "anyone with a brain or understanding of music." I suggest you try getting one of those.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Sorry Thin Lizzy if you listen to Jonny the Fox meets Jimmy the Weed, Bad rep or any of there Pre Jailbreak stuff did not sound like Led Zepplin in any sense, yet they were called Heavy Metal.

Thin Lizzy were never a heavy metal band. Second, I know they didn't sound like Zeppelin. What the hell is wrong with you? Can you comprehend any point? I said there are similarities that show they are both rock bands, not that they made similar sounding music overall. Jesus.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
BOC are nowhere near as Blues based as Zepplin drawing far more from Blue Grass Check out Survivor of the Psi Wars for proof.

I know they're not, what are you talking about? The fact that they are a rock band remains though.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Black Sabbath did some innovation, However they are, and thats the point considerably different to all the other bands mentioned.

Form a coherent comment and we'll come back to this.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I am not going to retort to your comment about the comic book forum suffice to say noone there or on any board claims to own me

Claims and factuality are two different things as we saw in the GDF most recently. Either way, you're not too hard to "own". It's not an accomplishment. Moving on:

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
AC you maybe pseudo knowledgable about some aspects of Music but your age denies you breadth. You simply haven't been exposed to enough yet.
I guess the same went for comics.

Hahahaha, oh this is perfect. Way to completely chicken out and invalidate anything you say. You certainly counter the belief that with age comes wisdom and intelligence.

Pulling the age card because you're getting schooled by someone younger than you? I know more than you do, I know how to make sense of what I am thinking more than you do. You lack the ability to read and comprehend a simple post.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I'm sure you'd know more about the present crop of bands than me though.

I know more about music than you do in general, Mr. Status Quo are heavy metal.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
labels don't work.

Needless labels don't work, established ones do. Unless you're an idi....oh. Welcome to the finish line. Knew you'd cross sooner or later.

-AC

On Quo 572 000 google hits say heavy metal - I still have all my Kerrangs from the early eighties which labelled them as such I never said they were.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Status+Quo+Heavy+Metal&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

It's not even worth arguing with your other comments for the same reason - you simply don't know enough about what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
On Quo 592 google hits say heavy metal - I still have all my Kerrangs from the early eighties which labelled them as such

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Status+Quo+Heavy+Metal&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

It's not even worth arguing with your other comments for the same reason - you simply don't know enough about what you're talking about.



Google again, Whirly? When are you going to sustain a debate without resorting to the net? Google also has about a million sites saying that they have a Britney Spears sex tape in their possession, but we all know that's not true either. Wikipedia calls them a UK rock band. Wikipedia is more credible than google but I'm not needing it because I know enough to not go scrounging on the net and posting links here. You do. More to the point, most of those links don't cite Status Quo as heavy metal. They just have the words "heavy" and "metal" in the search. Cheap Whirly, very cheap.

You are leaning on google and you claim I know nothing about what I'm talking about? Laughable. Status Quo are a rock band.

No other replies I see, thought not .

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Google also has about a million sites saying that they have a Britney Spears sex tape, but we all know that's not true either. Wikipedia calls them a UK rock and roll band. Wikipedia is more credible than google but I'm not citing it or needing it because I know enough to not go scrounging on the net and posting links here. You do.

You are leaning on google and you claim I know nothing about what I'm talking about? Laughable. Status Quo are a rock band.

No other replies I see, thought not .

-AC

No need to reply to the others that one is symptomatic of it. 572 000 hits : AC, I could do the same to the others.

It's no problem that people like you try and label groups in a genre and say things like its the drumming or guitar - it's not it's a label.

When you're older you'll get this.



and noone accused me of getting owned ealier in this thread

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
No need to reply to the others that one is symptomatic of it. 572 000 hits : AC, I could do the same to the others.

It's no problem that people like you try and label groups in a genre and say things like its the drumming or guitar - it's not it's a label.

When you're older you'll get this.



and noone accused me of getting owned ealier in this thread

There is need to reply to the others, you can't though. That's cool, just aids my point.

I'm not labelling, I'm ANTI-labelling except for established, distinguishable genres. You are the one not having a clue about the bs you are spitting out.

Kinda funny. What's funnier is that you edited an irrelevant bit onto the bottom whilst still refusing to reply to my relevant replies. People can accuse me of whatever they want, I proved differently. If you're not gonna reply to my posts, I'll consider you the same. I won't claim I've owned you because you're not exactly an accomplishment. I just expected better.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There is need to reply to the others, you can't though. That's cool, just aids my point.

I'm not labelling, I'm ANTI-labelling except for established, distinguishable genres. You are the one not having a clue about the bs you are spitting out.

Kinda funny.

-AC

Can't be bothered is more like - bs hmmm seems to be the general consensus in the music forum on your opinions as far as I can see from the last two nights.

Good! you don't believe in labels then why tell people Heavy Metal is a label with charicteristics you can define. I've given you a lot of heavy metal bands - most have little in common except they all have "some" overlong guitar solos on "some" tracks. label records if you must, avoid attaching bands to genres, Blurs Song 2 is punk - Blur are not (yes they are still a band).

it's not kinda funny - it's the ignorance of youth Where's Perry Kevin? I won't claim I've owned you because another board member did earlier for me.

Schools out - you can go now

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Can't be bothered is more like - bs hmmm seems to be the general consensus in the music forum on your opinions as far as I can see from the last two nights.

Hahaha, you and Scooter. There was me hoping to get sleep tonight.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Good! you don't believe in labels then why tell people Heavy Metal is a label with charicteristics you can define. I've given you a lot of heavy metal bands - most have little in common except they all have "some" overlong guitar solos on "some" tracks. label records if you must, avoid genres Blurs Song 2 is punk - Blur are not (yes they are still a band).

Because heavy metal has distinguishable features, this is a fact. It has nothing to do with what you believe. I said to you that it's not uncommon for the two genres to share elements, but they are different genres. The differences aren't major, but they are specific enough to BE a different genre. It's not just harder rock, it's technically different. You not having the perceptive ability to register this isn't something I will continue to help you with.

You've gave me bands that you continually claim are heavy metal such as Thin Lizzy and Status Quo. Bands that are quite clearly rock bands. You're out of your depth and it's your denial that isn't saving you.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I won't claim I've owned you because another board member did earlier.

You continue to add bits onto the end of your posts and then call me childish. Sad and hypocritical. Either way, I have knowledge backing me up. You have the "I'm older, so I know more but don't have to show it." We'll see who gets further.

-AC

Whirly- type Robbie Williams heavy metal into Google.

847,000 hits.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Hahaha, you and Scooter. There was me hoping to get sleep tonight.



Because heavy metal has distinguishable features, this is a fact. It has nothing to do with what you believe. I said to you that it's not uncommon for the two genres to share elements, but they are different genres. The differences aren't major, but they are specific enough to BE a different genre. It's not just harder rock, it's technically different. You not having the perceptive ability to register this isn't something I will continue to help you with.

You've gave me bands that you continually claim are heavy metal such as Thin Lizzy and Status Quo. Bands that are quite clearly rock bands. You're out of your depth and it's your denial that isn't saving you.



You continue to add bits onto the end of your posts and then call me childish. Sad and hypocritical. Either way, I have knowledge backing me up. You have the "I'm older, so I know more but don't have to show it." We'll see who gets further.

-AC

I like the edit function it's not sad. Both Thin Lizzy and Quo are clearly rock bands, both though have clearly been labelled Heavy Metal at some point in there careers by the media and the general public. proving my point about labels.
We'll see who gets further ask me what I do for a living sometime on PM, I do what I always wanted to... I wonder if you will be able to say that. I hope you can.

Impasse reached I don't think you understand, you wich to make long posts for pride.

Bored now.

Goodnight.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I like the edit function it's not sad. Both Thin Lizzy and Quo are clearly rock bands, both though have clearly been labelled Heavy Metal at some point in there careers by the media and the general public. proving my point about labels.

Oh my, actually have zero sense. Deny what I'm saying then after me trying to get the point across to you, agree with me. Yes, people who know nothing shouldn't label, but accurate and established labels exist. Hence you calling them rock bands. You make me laugh, not in a good way.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
We'll see who gets further ask me what I do for a living sometime on PM, I do what I always wanted to... I wonder if you will be able to say that. I hope you can.

Doesn't matter what you do. You don't know that much, sorry. No point replying with "I do, because I do this." You've proven that you not only have nothing strong to say, but that when faced with many counters, you run a mile.

Bye.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Whirly- type Robbie Williams heavy metal into Google.

847,000 hits.

His never been on the cover of the Kerrang

http://www.denis.co.uk/acatalog/metal.html here's one guy labelling Quo as heavy metal No one labels Robbie as that on those sites VVD.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
His never been on the cover of the Kerrang

http://www.denis.co.uk/acatalog/metal.html here's one guy labelling Quo as heavy metal No one labels Robbie as that on those sites VVD.

True, but not all of them are doing so for Quo, which was the point I was making.

Anyway, do continue.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Oh my, actually have zero sense. Deny what I'm saying then after me trying to get the point across to you, agree with me. Yes, people who know nothing shouldn't label, but accurate and established labels exist. Hence you calling them rock bands. You make me laugh, not in a good way.



Doesn't matter what you do. You don't know that much, sorry. No point replying with "I do, because I do this." You've proven that you not only have nothing strong to say, but that when faced with many counters, you run a mile.

Bye.

-AC

AC the only arguments of mine you've countered are in your mind - I haven't run you just haven't provided any arguments beyond a circular debate.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
True, but not all of them are doing so for Quo, which was the point I was making.

Anyway, do continue.

Agreed and I don't think Quo are Heavy Metal although they were labelled as such in the 80's by many.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
AC the only arguments of mine you've countered are in your mind - I haven't run you just haven't provided any arguments beyond a circular debate.

You've chose to ignore them, it's all there. Anyway, a request for you:

Search "Status Quo rock" in Google.

The first link is Status Quo's actual home page. Opening line?:

"Status Quo: the number one rock 'n' roll band in the world."

'Nuff said. Another one of those links is, ironically enough, Wikipedia. Citing them as a UK rock band. It also returned 3,500,000 hits.

I don't go by this, but playing by your own rules I still smack your arguments. Idiots shouldn't label, but established accurate genres do exist. Be off with thee.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You've chose to ignore them, it's all there. Anyway, a request for you:

Search "Status Quo rock" in Google.

The first link is Status Quo's actual home page. Opening line?:

"Status Quo: the number one rock 'n' roll band in the world."

'Nuff said. Another one of those links is, ironically enough, Wikipedia. Citing them as a UK rock band. It also returned 3,500,000 hits.

I don't go by this, but playing by your own rules I still smack your arguments.

-AC

Sure they are a rock band it doesn't stop them being labelled at one opint in there career as Heavy Metal. Type in Psychadelic and Pictures of Matchstick Men, you'll get Status Quo. Bands catorgaries change with time another one of my anti labelling points you missed. Bands grow and evolve and sometimes return to their roots. You missed my point and proved it with your own search.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Status+Quo+psychedelic&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

472 000 hits less than heavy metal but not as many as Rock, Quo were Psychedelic for a few years.


Now that's funny

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Sure they are a rock band it doesn't stop them being labelled at one opint in there career as Heavy Metal. Type in Psychadelic and Pictures of Matchstick Men, you'll get Status Quo. Bands catorgaries change with time another one of my anti labelling points you missed. Bands grow and evolve and sometimes return to their roots. You missed my point and proved it with your own search.

Now that's funny

I didn't miss your point. You can't make a point, allow me to break it then say "Wasn't my point." Bands don't miraculously change genre.

Closing: People who don't know anything shouldn't label. That said, genres do exist and in the case or rock and metal, are distinguishable. Even if it's not by much, it's very specific.

End of debate.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Bands don't miraculously change genre.


I think this happens more with solo artists like Bowie it doesn't stop it happening with bands if they are around long enough. I don't like Quo but they even dabbled with Electronica with "in the Army now", albeit with a straightforward Rock Progression.

I think so much variation exists within "metal" it is often just a label.

- real end

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I think this happens more with solo artists like Bowie it doesn't stop it happening with bands if they are around long enough. I don't like Quo but they even dabbled with Electronica with "in the Army now", albeit with a straightforward Rock Progression.

What point are you making here? Completely irrelevant. Bands can't change genre as much as a solo artist because it's a group thing, not a singular creative force.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I think so much variation exists within "metal" it is often just a label.

- real end

It's not, there's a reason for it. A reason I've explained to you, a reason you denied because you didn't get it.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

It's not, there's a reason for it. A reason I've explained to you, a reason you denied because you didn't get it.

-AC

You really didn't you made a statement without justification, chord progressions and scales used are the same, as are riffs, really it usually comes down to the simplistic lyrical content or themes of metal which distiguish it from other rock genres. That and the image which usually appeals to angst filled teenagers and those in their early twenties.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You really didn't you made a statement without justification, chord progressions and scales used are the same, as are riffs, really it usually comes down to the simplistic lyrical content or themes of metal which distiguish it from other rock genres. That and the image which usually appeals to angst filled teenagers and those in their early twenties.

You are claiming that the riffs in metal are the same as in rock? Let me just clarify this, because you previously told me I have no idea what I'm talking about.

I'll ask again: You believe the riffs in rock and metal are the same?

Second: That's not all there is. The technique, sound, tone and rhythm of metal musicians is different to that of rock musicians.

I suggest you go LISTEN to some.

Continue raising age all you want. You're just coming across as an old codger who has no sense of time or evolution. The difference between us is that I'm countering your arguments.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You are claiming that the riffs in metal are the same as in rock? Let me just clarify this, because you previously told me I have no idea what I'm talking about.

I'll ask again: You believe the riffs in rock and metal are the same?
-AC

I certainly do believe that they are often the same and whats more they use the same scales and root notes. The only difference often is a fuzz box, and speed masquarading for skill.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Second: That's not all there is. The technique, sound, tone and rhythm of metal musicians is different to that of rock musicians.

-AC

Yes thats the fuzz box or distortion

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Continue raising age all you want. You're just coming across as an old codger who has no sense of time or evolution. The difference between us is that I'm countering your arguments.

-AC

Personal outburst again about 3 nil me

Kinda funny

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I certainly do believe that they are often the same and whats more they use the same scales and root notes. The only difference often is a fuzz box, and speed masquarading for skill.

You just became the music forum's biggest hypocrite whilst hitting the double-whammy of revealing how little you know. Congrats. Way to confirm the fact that you do infact have no sense of difference or evolution on music.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Yes thats the fuzz box or distortion

Hahaha, it's nothing to do with that. Too hilarious how much you're revealing that you know nothing.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Personal outburst again about 3 nil me

Kinda funny

3 nil you? You realised you can't win the debate so you try to win on insults? Sad, sad man. You really are gunning for this hypocricy award.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You just became the music forums biggest unknowledgeable hypocrite. Congrats. Way to confirm the fact that you do infact have no sense of difference or evolution on music.
-AC

so actually counter my comment then

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Hahaha, it's nothing to do with that. Too hilarious how much you're revealing that you know nothing.
-AC

So actually counter my comment then

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


3 nil you? You realised you can't win the debate so you try to win on insults? Sad, sad man. You really are gunning for this hypocricy award.

-AC

4 nil me its still Kinda funny

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
so actually counter my comment then

Go read any number of my explanations. I've done it enough and you've ignored it so I'll waste no more time.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
So actually counter my comment then

Read my posts. Don't ignore my counters and then request that I counter, that's silly.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
4 nil me its still Kinda funny

Ok ok, you win on ageism. Congrats. Hope you sleep well.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Ok ok, you win on ageism. Congrats. Hope you sleep well.

-AC

The sleep of the just as usual for me

goodnight.

I agree with Sir Whirleysplat on common principle.

Oh for Christ's sake.

You don't like me and you're bitter, we get it. Are you going to quite whining about it now?

-AC

Blasphemy, Heathen!