Will you be replying to everything everyone has said? Or will you be selecting specific quotes and yet again ignoring evidence?
Just a question, seeing as you love to accuse us of blocking things out and not getting it just because you're wrong.
Also, I'll hound you until you start conducting your debates in a way that doesn't involve cowardice. The way to shut me up is to reply to everything posted to you, or at the very least, stop skipping chunks.
BTW...This is sooo weird. I was just thinking of making a joke about you being a "mentalist" for the post I'm writing for the other thread (of course, because I'm an anglophile)
Eerie.
I'm guessing you know what I'm referring to.
Anyway, I'm almost done...and I'll then reply accordingly
Nirvana didn't make particularly good music... your just conditioned to believe that. They had crappy production value and weren't particularly tuneful. If they were never around and came out today they would 100% get no attention. Britney spears songwriter is the most successful songwriter the world has ever seen. I don't like the music but cannot deny how well written and produced it is. Production value is often all someone needs... for me... I need both good production and good composition. In 1 sense it is objective... because no one is gonna enjoy a crappy recording unless they are pre conditioned to do so. In another sense it's subjective because given a huge catalog of incredibly well made music.. many people think pop music is shite.
Ahem seconded. But it should also understood why chaxmerry made the comment. In terms of a business perspective, chax is absolutely correct. Britney is light years ahead of Kurt in terms of financial wealth. However, Nirvana's head man Kurt Cobain wasn't in it for fame or riches, and yet still had more money than he ever asked for. Kurt hated having to play to any crowd outside of the underground scene. My point should be evident as he drove a Pinto.
Nirvana outscores Britney in terms of artistic expression, and any comparison of them would be partially if not mostly superficial. Nirvana is a group that you would compare to the Beatles, while Britney is a part of the Lady Madonna army. It's basically as Billy Corgan said; There are two types of music listeners, the Robot People who produce computerized melodies, and the Technical ones that follow more traditional means of making melodies.
Nirvana would do just as well today, don't get your panties in a bunch chax.
Nobody "knows that." Do I like Nirvana more than Fallout Boy? Yes. But there are people who would think that is just as ridiculous as the other way around.
Let's be real here, the arguement can be made that Nirvana sucks too. Music all sounds the same, the lyrics doen't even make much sense, Kurt wasn't even an insanely good vocalist. I just happen to like them anyways. Same with STP. Name me an STP song that doesn't sound the same?
Everybody is guilty of calling some form of music crap, but at the end of the day, it is purely subjective. On person's Britney is another's Mozart.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 21st, 2007 04:06 PM
(of course, because I'm an anglophile)
