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

Do you think it's better to burn out or fade away?

...and I hope these examples are adequate...

Burn out as in Nirvana, or Hendrix

Fade away as in Bon Jovi, or Prince

-I'd choose...fade away (as pathetic as it would be by the time I'm 50!)

Prince will still be able to go out with a band when he's 85, I'm not sure why you're implying that the man is fading away. If anything he's stronger now than he was at points in the 90s.

I think if you have such a lifespan that it's inevitable for you to do either of those, then I'd say burn out. Hendrix was the best guitarist of all time by his mid 20s and had people like Clapton and Townshend, life-long guitarists, in awe of him.

Bon Jovi has probably never had anyone in awe of him.

-AC

Those that fade away don't get a Super Bowl halftime. Prince recieved tons of praise for last weekend's show.

Originally posted by The Core
Those that fade away don't get a Super Bowl halftime. Right, like the Rolling Stones.

They haven't faded away, have they? They're still one of the biggest grossing live bands.

Burn out baby yeah!!!! Go BOOM and leave them all in smoke! yeah!!!

Wow. You three are just truly, truly pathetic. (Not you arctic)

I'm just helping the thread description by offering examples...Maybe (and I disgree) they're not ALL absolutely accurate...in the least they're debatable. But they're not the focus of this thread (until you made them).

It's dead obvious that because you just have sour grapes for not being able to convince me of your lame opinions in the other thread, you're bringing yourslves to say s%$* like "The Rolling Stones are not fading away!"

What an absolute joke you've turned yourselves into.

AC. Sure you gave your answer, but why do you feel you have to criticize my examples when they're not even really far off...what are you trying to prove?

To put it mildly dude...Prince is history! He is in the long, (and painful) process of fading away. His artistic prowess, contemporary popularity, and relevance that were once frequently chart-rockin' have long since dwindled and are on the downward slope. (Of course the same goes for Bon Jovi).

Now...go ahead...make yourselves fools in front of everybody by disagreeing with me about that.

(Or, you can just stop being pathetically critical and take part in what the thread is actually about!)

...and we're the ones with sour grapes?

-AC

People remember you better if you burn out.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
To put it mildly dude...Prince is history! He is in the long, (and painful) process of fading away. His artistic prowess, contemporary popularity, and relevance that were once frequently chart-rockin' have long since dwindled and are on the downward slope. (Of course the same goes for Bon Jovi).

His artistic prowess? He's still a factually better player of most instruments than anyone in modern music, especially guitar.

Contemporary popularity means nothing, because he's maintained a massive fanbase in his multi-decade career, but if modern popularity is your concern, 3121 got rave reviews across the board. Oppositely, the only people who didn't seem to really like it were the people who are stuck in the past.

Prince's "downward slope" is hardly that, is it? Considering the man has more hits for himself and other people than anybody will ever have. By hits I don't mean three or four famous songs and the rest that people might know. You could make many Best Of albums consisting of really famous songs that he has wrote himself, either for himself or others.

So to say he's on a downward slope because he's not doing that anymore is a bit silly. Popular recognition means nothing, but if that is how you judge, then he's still popular. He's still winning awards, even though they mean nothing, that are fan and critics voted. I think he just recently won ANOTHER Academy Award (Or Grammy) for Best Original Song on a Soundtrack, which was for Song of the Heart off the Happy Feet soundtrack.

How many Superbowl half-time shows have there been, great ones? Many. As soon as the cameras cut back to the commentators (At least here in the UK), all of them instantly said it (Prince's) was the best they've ever seen, unquestionably. Two of them were youngish guys, one was Don Johnson. So it's not as if he still appeals to oldies or exclusively new fans.

Infact, the only reason Prince's contemporary popularity may have dwindled in any shape or form is because everybody out there is doing cheap rip offs of him, which proves again that his "peers" (If you can even call them such) are more or less still at his feet.

I suggest you start researching things before making dumb claims. Artists like Prince don't have a "time". They make their own time. There will always be a place for Prince, because he's earned it.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Now...go ahead...make yourselves fools in front of everybody by disagreeing with me about that. I can't believe you actually did. Oh my.

And oh...right...writing songs for movies like HAPPY FEET are a sure sign that you haven't faded away!!

And of course people like Paul McCartney and Sting who have done the same recently SURELY haven't faded away either!

Good One!!!!

Superbowl Halftime show is utterly pointless and lame. Case in point and relevant to Fade Away.....New Kids on the Block.

We're not talking about if we like them or not, are we? We're talking about not having faded away.

Not whether or not we feel they've got better or worse; Whether or not they are still prominent or around. Prince is, he's still in demand, he's still loved, he still sells out stadiums and arenas everywhere he goes while maintaining a high level of fan based and critical praise for both his music (subjective) and musicianship (objective).

Whether or not he has been around too long to "burn out", compared to the relatively short careers of Hendrix etc, is up for debate, but he clearly hasn't faded away.

When are you going to just accept that you're an fool who knows next to nothing, and even less about how to prove it?

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Wow. You three are just truly, truly pathetic. (Not you arctic)

I'm just helping the thread description by offering examples...Maybe (and I disgree) they're not ALL absolutely accurate...in the least they're debatable. But they're not the focus of this thread (until you made them).

It's dead obvious that because you just have sour grapes for not being able to convince me of your lame opinions in the other thread, you're bringing yourslves to say s%$* like "The Rolling Stones are not fading away!"

No, it's because they haven't faded away, you incredible spastic.



See how idiotic your points are? Not only are they still in the public consciousness, but they just completed the biggest tour ever. Not a big one, not a decently well-received one that wasn't up to former glories. The biggest tour that has ever been performed.

That is 'fading away', to you. See why you're dumb now? (I know you don't, but just take it from me (everyone)).

No one 'has sour grapes'; you just make laughable posts that beg to be rebutted.

Also, the fact that you will now reply doesn't mean you are still in the debate- you were just factually proven wrong. You are just an annoying fool who doesn't know when to stop embarrassing everybody.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Prince is, he's still in demand, he's still loved, he still sells out stadiums and arenas everywhere he goes I don't have to explain this one...I think everyone knows how ridiculous that just sounded.

Sure...Prince hasn't faded. I'm sure his records are just flying off the shelves, topping the charts, listened to at parties, bars and in cars, and making a killing at awards shows!



Stop...while you still can.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I don't have to explain this one...I think everyone knows how ridiculous that just sounded.

Sure...Prince hasn't faded. I'm sure his records are just flying off the shelves, topping the charts, listened to at parties, bars and in cars, and making a killing at awards shows!



Stop...while you still can.

There's two whole posts you ignored, and that's just by me. Not sure if you knew this.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Not only are they still in the public consciousness, but they just completed the biggest tour ever.
Oh my...does anyone out there acutally believe what they've just read???

Incredible!!! You guys are becoming a laughing stock. Not only are you teaming up becasue all you think you have at this point is yourselves, but you're left to make outrageous claims just for the sake of sticking it to me.

Classic!

Seriously boys, you're playing with the men right now, so don't bother. The fact that you've gone on record to say what you have about Prince and The Rolling Stones has just forever proven your inadequecy with all things music.

Nicely done!

We're not claiming it you retard, it's a fact.

What's wrong with you? Genuinely. Something must be faulty somewhere.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES

Sure...Prince hasn't faded. I'm sure his records are just flying off the shelves, topping the charts, listened to at parties, bars and in cars..



Yes. They are.



Yes. They are.

Could you be any more ignorant, guy? Seriously? You're making this very, very easy for us. I'm not carrying over any "sour grapes" to this thread. You're using incredibly uneducated, poor examples to prove a point.


But, to reply to the question at hand, I'd rather "burn out". It's less embarassing than to have people just stop caring about you.

The man likes Lily Allen and The Backstreet Boys, let's not forget that.

-AC

Originally posted by The Core
Ignoramus. Yeah...didn't Pearl Jam top Billboard well after they had frizzled up with some of their lame releases?

If Pink Floyd released an album tomorrow it'd hit the top of the Billboard charts too silly! What are you serious? "Billboard" is the basis of your argument?

Nice point! You got me there!

Even of there are fading bands that do that on occasion (which there are) the point is it's not on as regular a basis, and the music's not near as rocking as it was when they were in their heyday...hence they've faded.

Stop trying to prove the impossible just because you happen to like Prince.

Really sad.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Yeah...didn't Pearl Jam top Billboard well after they had frizzled up with some of their lame releases?

For once just be a bit of a man and say "Ok, I got it wrong.". Just once, even if never again, just admit you've been proven wrong.

"Prince isn't relevant, he's faded away.", both The Core and myself prove you wrong.

"The Rolling Stones have faded.", VVD proves you wrong.

Please just once say "Ok, I got it wrong.". Because I feel sorry for you.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Yeah...didn't Pearl Jam top Billboard well after they had frizzled up with some of their lame releases?

So, we proved your Rolling Stones and Prince theories as totally inaccurate, we're going after seemingly nominal jam bands now?

Seriously. You already chose bands to make a point with, and failed miserably. Leave it at that. You used bad examples, and apparently SOMEONE is buying these artists albums to get them where they still are, decades into their careers.

You guys are weak, weak, weak. There's no argument around this. I guarntee most people who have read or will read this will absoluelty scoff at your claims.

Gimme a break!

So transparent what this is all about too. 2 dudes who are so insecure in their abilities to judge music that they are too blind to admit someone's pointed out how they've goofed.

The Rolling Stones...haven't faded...

How about you leave then? You clearly don't like us smashing you to pieces, and we don't like you being here.

Otherwise, this is all that will happen.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Yeah...didn't Pearl Jam top Billboard well after they had frizzled up with some of their lame releases?

If Pink Floyd released an album tomorrow it'd hit the top of the Billboard charts too silly! What are you serious? "Billboard" is the basis of your argument?

Nice point! You got me there!

Even of there are fading bands that do that on occasion (which there are) the point is it's not on as regular a basis, and the music's not near as rocking as it was when they were in their heyday...hence they've faded.

Stop trying to prove the impossible just because you happen to like Prince.

Really sad.

You have heard of the album sales tracking service called SOUNDSCAN, by which BILLBOARD measures their chart placement, yes? Wait a second! You're the one that used Billboard and Grammy awards as the basis of your arguement for Prince's supposed lack of sales!

Not every band puts out platinum records everytime. They MUST have a fanbase buying these albums considering they've had a slump, and STILL manage to top the most important chart in the music industry.

Weither or not the newer albums are up to snuff with the old is strictly opinion. The fact of the matter is that they still sell.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You guys are weak, weak, weak. There's no argument about it. I guarntee most people who have read or will read this will absoluelty scoff at your claims.

Gimme a break!

Prove the links I provided for Prince's album sales wrong. Prove the links I provided for Prince's grammy nominations wrong. Prove Doom's links for the Rolling Stones concert grosses wrong.

Please. We're so weak that we probably fabricated them with our magical record sales supercomputer that makes a genie appear and sells albums and tickets for bands on a whim so that we can be right in arguement.

You're in denial. You should consider "burning out" while you're still not ahead.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Even of there are fading bands that do that on occasion (which there are) the point is it's not on as regular a basis, and the music's not near as rocking as it was when they were in their heyday...hence they've faded.

So you've gone from trying to prove that Prince and The Stones have faded AWAY, and are now trying to just say they are no longer in their heyday?

Make up your mind.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES


So transparent what this is all about too. 2 dudes who are so insecure in their abilities to judge music that they are too blind to admit someone's pointed out how they've goofed.

Since when has this ever been about "judging music"? You cited two examples, you got shown up with cold hard facts that proved you both wrong, and totally uneducated, and now you're on the defensive without a leg to stand on.

Just leave already. I'm having fun, but it's slightly embarassing at the same time.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So you've gone from trying to prove that Prince and The Stones have faded AWAY, and are now trying to just say they are no longer in their heyday?

Make up your mind.

-AC
Yeah...they're fading away from what they once were!!! They'e faded away from their prime! They've faded away from relevancy! They'eve faded away from everything that's good about music that grabs the world's attention for a little while!!!

Obviously they're still alive (or some of them are still around)...and as long as Aerosmith, Depeche Mode, Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, Pearl Jam, Prince, Bon Jovi, The New York Dolls, The Sex Pistols, and Michael Jackson are still alive they're gonna keep making stuff that pales in comparison to what they did in their prime (or the music they would have finished off with if they had burnt out), and they're gonna still sell records, have clueless fans, get the odd award, and sell millions of overly-priced tickets to arena shows.

You're wrong!!!!! They've FADED away!

Pathetic! This is the dumbest argument you could possibly ever stand behind! You're fools, and anyone with half a mind who reads this will say you're fools!

You do realize that Prince, the guy that debuted at No. 1 in 2006, has been making music for 30 years, yes? You also realize that the Rolling Stones, the highest grossing live act of all time, have been in the industry since 1964? Of course they're "fading". It's still irrelevant, considering they still sell.

No artist that has been in the industry as long as they have stand as much a chance considering every generation brings change. Like I said, the fact of the matter is that they still sell. Not because of their novelty, because people like their music.

The state of the artists degredation is subjective. Depeche Mode's "Playing the Angel", in my opinion, is as good as, if not better than "Exciter".

..and don't talk to me about being foolish.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Yeah...they're fading away from what they once were!!! They'e faded away from their prime! They've faded away from relevancy! They'eve faded away from everything that's good about music that grabs the world's attention for a little while!!!

Hahahaha, so stressed.

So seeing as we're judging based on popularity, how can you say The Rolling Stones have faded from the world's attention? They just grossed the most successful tour ever, people made that happen.

Prince's most recent album debuted at number 1 and it's his first album to do so.

You're clutching at straws.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Obviously they're still alive (or some of them are still around)...and as long as Aerosmith, Depeche Mode, Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, Pearl Jam, Prince, Bon Jovi, The New York Dolls, The Sex Pistols, and Michael Jackson are still alive they're gonna keep making stuff that pales in comparison to what they did in their prime (or the music they would have finished off with if they had burnt out), and they're gonna still sell records, have clueless fans, get the odd award, and sell millions of overly-priced tickets to arena shows.

So how does this prove Prince or The Rolling Stones have faded away? They haven't. Fading away and not being in your prime are two different things. You said they were the former, they're not.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You're wrong!!!!! They've FADED away!

Haha, they haven't. Just calm down, child.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Pathetic! This is the dumbest argument you could possibly ever stand behind! You're fools, and anyone with half a mind who reads this will say you're fools!

Hahaha, here:

http://nwlink.com/graphics/pacifier.gif

-AC

Originally posted by The Core
The state of the artists degredation is subjective. Depeche Mode's "Playing the Angel", in my opinion, is as good as, if not better than "Exciter".


Oh man...are you for real.??? Your examples are just getting worse and worse.

Exciter...the album that defines Depeche Mode!! A brilliant work by a band at their artistic peak!! That's probably the most ridiculous excuse for an argument I've ever heard

You're being called foolish because you're fooling yourself into believing absolute B.S. I'm sure you're decently intelligent, but that's what happens when you start making ridiculous claims and agreeing with another fool just to gang up on someone.

Weak!

Notice how nothing he says is actually refuting our points anymore.

-AC

You guys...too funny.

I'll make it simple so you can MAYBE understand...

At the end of Prince's life, and long into the future, people will look back and say "Prince was once big and then he gradually faded away". That's what they'll say. Even though he had a couple hits in the 90s or whatever...he "faded away" (from the point he will be remembered for and from the level of excellence he had once achieved). Slowly but surely...faded.

That's what I'm putting forward as criteria for "FADE away".

It doesn't matter how long a band is around...and even if they have the rare radio hit or get nominated/win an oscar for "best song in a movie" (like HAPPY FEET...oh my) over the span of decades...they gradually fade away from your excellence (instead of burning out when at a point you were on fire).

That's it...don't complicate things just so you can win an argument.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Notice how nothing he says is actually refuting our points anymore.

-AC
?

...Did you even understand the post? Doesn't seem like it. It was tongue in cheek. "Exciter" is one of their worst, latter, shouldn't-have-been-made albums.

I was addressing his ridiculous point of comparing their more recent stuff to that...whereas, they've been fading for a long time now.

Good one!

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Even though he had a couple hits in the 90s or whatever...he "faded away" (from the point he will be remembered for and from the level of excellence he had once achieved). Slowly but surely...faded.

Yeah, haha. Oh, Prince, that scoundrel with his "couple" of hits. You've clearly done your homework.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
That's what I'm putting forward as criteria for "FADE away".

As in, not maintain his best form forever? Well yes, what's your point? Nobody does. He's not fading away in the way you first suggested and now change.

You have no right to say what people WILL look back on him and say, you don't know.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
It doesn't matter how long a band is around...and even if they have the rare radio hit or get nominated/win an oscar for "best song in a movie" (like HAPPY FEET...oh my) over the span of decades...they gradually fade away from your excellence (instead of burning out when at a point you were on fire).

You're assuming that the song he made for Happy Feet is some kind of excellence marker? I'm simply saying he got an award for it, because you refuse to believe he's still popular and relevant.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
That's it...don't complicate things just so you can win an argument.

I don't need to. You're chasing your tail and confusing yourself.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
"Exciter" is one of their worst, latter, shouldn't-have-been-made albums.

No it's not.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He's not fading away in the way you first suggested and now change.
UUUUUUGH!

...from my second "actual" post...
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
To put it mildly dude...Prince is history! He is in the long, (and painful) process of fading away. His artistic prowess, contemporary popularity, and relevance that were once frequently chart-rockin' have long since dwindled and are on the downward slope. (Of course the same goes for Bon Jovi).

He's gradually faaaaaading out!

And OBVIOUSLY you're not getting how it relates to "burning out" either. As I just said..."they gradually fade away from their excellence (instead of burning out when at a point they were on fire).

That's what burning out is. You rock 'till you drop.

...my fault I guess for not realizing I'm arguing with someone who doesn't even have the gist of the argument! It's ok...we all make mistakes. As long as we admit them...

Originally posted by The Core
I'm having fun, but it's slightly embarassing at the same time.
I think we agree on this point, yes.

Oh yeah...Burn Out or Fade Away?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
UUUUUUGH!

...from my second "actual" post...


He's gradually faaaaaading out!

And OBVIOUSLY you're not getting how it relates to "burning out" either. As I just said..."they gradually fade away from their excellence (instead of burning out when at a point they were on fire).

That's what burning out is. You rock 'till you drop.

...my fault I guess for not realizing I'm arguing with someone who doesn't even have the gist of the argument! It's ok...we all make mistakes. As long as we admit them...

So admit you're wrong, as you have been proven so.

-AC

I'd rather burn-out! Live the dream! Rock N Roll! Reggae and r-r-rrr!

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I guarntee most people who have read or will read this will absoluelty scoff at your claims.

I did a bit of an ask-around, and it actually seems that everyone is cringing at you. Again. I'm sure you're a nice boy, but please stop making me go all spastic on the floor. It's not nice.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You're fools, and anyone with half a mind who reads this will say you're fools!

You're a fool!

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
it actually seems that everyone is cringing at you.
Oh I don't doubt that...I'm just saying anyone with half a mind isn't scoffing at MY claim that the Rolling Stones are in fact fading away.

So congratulations! You've just gone on record for standing by a couple of clueless folks who claim The Rolling Stones and Prince are just as relevant and potent a pair of artists as they ever were and that they're not fizzling out. Good one!

They didn't burn out (ex. Cream), they faded away...as most artists do (and pretty much go on to release album after album of often uninspired, and increassingly irrelevant music).

There's tons of bands I like that have done the same, but I'm not as pathetic as to not admit they aren't fizzling out right before everyone's (the relevant music world's) eyes, regardless if I still have a soft spot for them. I like good music...I don't like bands because they're serving as comforting security blanket for me due to being a fan in the past.

Yeah...I'm sure you don't get what I mean.


BTW. Check out my name...It's like Star Wars fans who maintain Star Wars is still good. Jeez!

Ex.) Oasis - could have very well gone on record for being a band that burnt out if they actually did break up when Noel briefly left following their third album.

...The pathetic attempts since then that they have touted as each being "Our best fookin' album ever!"...fading away.


Pink Floyd...same thing. Shoulda died after Final Cut (they're first really irrelevant album) was a clear sign it was the death nail. And I've been the biggest Floyd fan in the world.

But I can see and accept what "fade away" means because I'm not pathetic enough to cling on to something that's sooo dear to me.

Yep

Oh and look what I found...

- "Waters announced in December 1985 (that's following Final Cut BTW) that he was departing Pink Floyd, describing the band as "a spent force creatively"".

Should I keep schooling you are have you had enough?

Seriously...Men vs. boys. Just accept that, and we're cool.

I think I'm done with this thread too...although others can answer if they wish. But just curious...

...What's it like for you guys to get that feeling of "crap, he's right" each time you realize deep down inside that I've just schooled any of your weak, desperate attempts to prove my (over-your-head) arguments wrong?

...just curious.



I'm bad...I know...sorry.

Peace out...see you on the next battleground.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Oh I don't doubt that...I'm just saying anyone with half a mind isn't scoffing at MY claim that the Rolling Stones are in fact fading away.

So congratulations! You've just gone on record for standing by a couple of clueless folks who claim The Rolling Stones and Prince are just as relevant and potent a pair of artists as they ever were and that they're not fizzling out. Good one!

They didn't burn out (ex. Cream), they faded away...as most artists do (and pretty much go on to release album after album of often uninspired, and increassingly irrelevant music).

There's tons of bands I like that have done the same, but I'm not as pathetic as to not admit they aren't fizzling out right before everyone's (the relevant music world's) eyes, regardless if I still have a soft spot for them. I like good music...I don't like bands because they're serving as comforting security blanket for me due to being a fan in the past.

Yeah...I'm sure you don't get what I mean.


BTW. Check out my name...It's like Star Wars fans who maintain Star Wars is still good. Jeez!

The Rolling Stones have been making music, commercially for over 40 years. Of course they're fading. Nobodies denying that. The point is that they're still relevant in today's music scene. Their albums still sell, their concerts sell out, and it speaks volumes that they're all still alive and kicking.

NOBODY..nobody here has said ANYTHING about them being AS relevant now as they ever were. Relevancy is as simple as selling albums and making charts. In 2006, Prince and the Rolling Stones did both. That's all it takes, regardless if the music is still good, which is still subjective, compared to the old work.

..as for your Star Wars themed username, it doesn't make much sense to me. It's your favorite of the series, but you maintain it's the worst? Are you just trying to buck the system and prove you're a Star Wars fan that isn't in denial when it comes to the franchise? What does that do for you, anyway?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES


...What's it like for you guys to get that feeling of "crap, he's right" each time you realize deep down inside that I've just schooled any of your weak, desperate attempts to prove my (over-your-head) arguments wrong?



You tell us.

I like the posts where he thinks he isn't an idiot.

Amazing how 'everyone pointing out the spastic utterances of a moron' has been woven into 'ganging-up'.

Funny, but only like a sad clown is funny.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Yeah...didn't Pearl Jam top Billboard well after they had frizzled up with some of their lame releases?


Not that I recall.



Syd Barrett is dead. The..



would have known that.

Besides, your "proof" that it would (although probably wouldn't) hit the top of the charts, is because the band hasn't made music in 20 years. The artists in question, Prince and Rolling Stones have NEVER had a lengthy hiatus and STILL sell on music. Pink Floyd would sell on novelty.


Originally posted by EPIIIBITES


Exciter...the album that defines Depeche Mode!! A brilliant work by a band at their artistic peak!! That's probably the most ridiculous excuse for an argument I've ever heard


Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
?

...Did you even understand the post? Doesn't seem like it. It was tongue in cheek. "Exciter" is one of their worst, latter, shouldn't-have-been-made albums.

I was addressing his ridiculous point of comparing their more recent stuff to that...whereas, they've been fading for a long time now.


I used "Exciter" as an example of their weaker releases in the past years, to suggest the new work is better. Depeche Mode have never had a commercially unsuccessful album, and "Playing the Angel" is their best in a very long time, if you ask me.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Oh and look what I found...

- "Waters announced in December 1985 (that's following Final Cut BTW) that he was departing Pink Floyd, describing the band as "a spent force creatively"".

Should I keep schooling you are have you had enough?

Seriously...Men vs. boys. Just accept that, and we're cool.

You do realize that you're the ONLY person mentioning Pink Floyd in this thread, in regards to fading away. NOBODY else has made mention of them, so you're "schooling" no one.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I think I'm done with this thread too...although others can answer if they wish. But just curious...

...What's it like for you guys to get that feeling of "crap, he's right" each time you realize deep down inside that I've just schooled any of your weak, desperate attempts to prove my (over-your-head) arguments wrong?

...just curious.



I'm bad...I know...sorry.

Peace out...see you on the next battleground.

It's also funny how you panic and post four entries in a row, spamming because you've been utterly embarassed to the point that you are undeniably punching yourself in your own head.

-AC

"Always remember, if your life seems dull and dreary... it is".

In artistic terms its always better to Burn Out, decline is inevitable, not one artist has managed to maintain credibilty over a sustained period.

I think there's quite a handful of bands that have maintained credibility throughout a sustained period...but I also agree that decline is inevitable.

I think is pretty clear though that some bands fade away worse than others.

U2 have maintained credibility. I think the Rolling Stones did...until the 80s where they lost it (and fast). Both bands are declining and fading away, and it's pretty clear (well, to anyone who knows anything about good music and song writing), that one has been doing it more gracefully than the other.

U2 have managed to maintain credibility for almost 30 years now...making solid albums, gaining new fans, and releasing hit singles up until this day.

The Rolling Stones held credibility for 20 glorious years, but it's been pretty sad after that...and I'd say it's pretty obvious they're incapable now of ever getting back to making a decent record again.

Another artist who's maintained credibility is Bob Dylan...we're talking almost half a century now!

Bob Dylan has a niche audience, IMO. U2, unfortunately, seem to be on crutches, depending on their live show, and not so much their new music.

The stones started to fade in 1972 and lost it completely around '75 and ive never really liked U2.

The only artist I can think of that has maintained some semblance of credibility and quality in their work is Neil Young, but that quality has certainly diminished.

Prince is more popular now than in most of the nineties so whatever. and 'The rainbow Children' proved he can still write great music.

I'm not gonna defend his late 90's stuff but his early 00' is just awesome.

He released more albums in this century than in the 80's

Originally posted by papabeard
The stones started to fade in 1972 and lost it completely around '75 and ive never really liked U2.

The only artist I can think of that has maintained some semblance of credibility and quality in their work is Neil Young, but that quality has certainly diminished.

That last album was annoying. Though it has some great songs on it.

Originally posted by Funkadelic
He released more albums in this century than in the 80's

People are stuck in the past.

They don't realise nostalgia adds a bit of rose-tinted credibility.

Though of course, if we are talking about artistically fading away, IE a decline in quality, then we are again in the subjective realm.

I can't think of a band that have supposedly lost that, yet are more popular than ever, which is of course a tangible measure of being in the public consciousness.


(The Rolling Stones).