Opinions on Old Music

First off:

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
They dont make shit man, when will you hear it? they have a SINGER you know what that is? thats not shouting GET THIS OR DIE, GET THIS OR DIE, GET THIS OR DIIIIIEEEE!!! 😂

Yes, they do make shit.

Second, what bands do that? No band I listen to shouts "Get this or die!!!".

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
yeah sure thats a singer clearly says for itself that you know nuthing about the matter, and Slipknot along with the rest of those ''metal'' bands Slayer are just makin noice with the insttruments

Just making noise with the instruments....that's probably the best one yet. Actually suffered throatal chokage on my tea.

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
bet they all grw up in a stonemine workin with the machines and now they think everything has to sound like that, some bnads think makin metal is just makin heavy sounds and shouting louder then then the band down the road and thats it, but it takes something to make it music you know, say early Metallica, they kew what they where doing,a nd Manowar who are btw kings of metal, those are guys playing music metal

I'm not gonna disagree that there are alot of shit Metal bands, but then maybe you shouldn't talk about what a shit band is. You like Bon Jovi.

Bon Jovi.

Maybe you should change your name to Lord_Andrex, because you just toilet papered up your music opinion pretty much. With andrex.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
Radiohead, to me, misses the one thing that I like in music: fun to listen to factor. I can only stand so much of Thom Yorke's annoying voice. I truly believe they get way too much credit.

I would go on about you claiming that Thom Yorke has an annoying voice, but I think the main part of the above quote is this:

"I truly believe they get way too much credit".

Funny for a person who claims that The Beatles have produced better music than anybody else, ever, over all of time.

Can't get more overrated if you tried.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
To say that Pablo Honey is as good as any of the albums I listed of the beatles' is silly. Even teh most hardcore Radiohead fans will agree that it isn't their best effort.

A) Good thing I didn't then, isn't it?

B) It's not. I was showing their evolution from album to album. Would be a bit stupid of me to leave out their debut wouldn't it?

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
And Hail to the Thief? That was not a good album. Nothign stood out, it seemed almost rushed even though they had plenty of time to make it. To me, Radiohead is just a boring band.

It doesn't change the fact that you claim The Beatles did more in 6 albums than anyone ever. Which is false, because love or hate, Radiohead have done more. That much is obvious from listening to their albums.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
And trying to say that Mike Patton influenced more people than the beatles is hilarious. Don't try to play 'beat the influence' with teh ebatles. I mean, one band that has influenced hardcore bands (The Replacements), hip hop (Beastie Boys, De La Soul), electronica (Chemical Brothers), indie rock (Flaming Lips), classic rock (Elivs Costello, Jimi Hendrix). And see if you can't find the punk sound of "Helter Skelter"

And i didnt' even mention Brit Pop acts like Oasis or Blur.

Yes, yes you did mention them. Just then.

Well Damon Albarn of Blur has actually been on an album with Mike Patton and according to an article I read in an old issue of Mojo (I was bored, I didn't pay for it), cites him as a big influence.

Mike Patton actually has influenced more people. Either him or his bands, to one degree or another.

Most people claim that they are influenced by The Beatles purely because they think they have to. Just like any band worth their salt, trying to look good, name check Zeppelin. Nobody is gonna name check Patton's bands by chance. Because he has hardly any "for the sake of it" fans. The Beatles perhaps have the most, ever.

Mike Patton is probably the most uncredited inspiration in music. Bands and genres exist because of him.

As Victor pointed out, they also created the boyband. So if we compare who has influenced who down the line, Mike Patton's list would be more impressive.

-AC

What bands do that? the crappiest bands like Slipknot, shout ''get this or die'' or maybe this one will do it for you ''**** this world, **** everything you stand for, **** my cat and mom, and I'l give you some lovin'' yeah thats what slipknot gose around shouting and people yet like them, I mean WTF? and yeah they just make noice, the singer shouts waaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh **** THIS WORLD!!!! and guitar gose like those machines two handed that they use to dig into the roads, and then another WAAHAHAHHH **** IT ALL!!! 😂 rofl 😂 but still we have Manowar 😄 they are good, nuthing like playing World Of Warcraft and listening to Warriors of The World, or maybe Brothers Of Metal, thjats class!

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
What bands do that? the crappiest bands like Slipknot, shout ''get this or die'' or maybe this one will do it for you ''**** this world, **** everything you stand for, **** my cat and mom, and I'l give you some lovin'' yeah thats what slipknot gose around shouting and people yet like them, I mean WTF? and yeah they just make noice, the singer shouts waaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh **** THIS WORLD!!!! and guitar gose like those machines two handed that they use to dig into the roads, and then another WAAHAHAHHH **** IT ALL!!! 😂 rofl 😂

*Attempts to decipher post*

Ri-right I think I've got it. Now, first off, Slipknot aren't one of the "crappiest bands". They get lumped in with them because they have alot of young fans, which to me, matters none. As for calling into question the guitar, Mick Thompson is one of the greatest metal guitarists in the world.

Second, that's nothing at all like Slipknot music. Maybe vaguely so in the past, but they have matured alot more now, as musicians. Factually.

So you posting lots of fangirlish, uninformed nonsense, doesn't make you look cool, or right. Just silly and uneducated.

You actually call Slipknot out, when once again, you like Bon Jovi.

I cannot take anything you say seriously, with regard to musical quality or talent.

-AC

t.... t.............. talent? now all of a sudden slipknot has any talent? where? when did this happen? I've heard their new vol.3 cd, its all the same crap, the singer sounds dead, the guitar is nuthing I repeat nuthing close to 'one of the greatest metal guitarists in the world' all he dose is make souds that makes one want to just break the damn stereo, its so bad, hey take a listen to Bon Jovi's Wanted Dead Or Alive guitar play, now thats something, thats worthy of rememberance!

I cant help but notice this thread topic has nothing to do with Slipknot.

oh yeah, well anyway I like old music like Bach or Vivaldi, I think they are great for relacxing, or when playing WoW, also when just before I want to sleep, and I respect their music very much

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
t.... t.............. talent? now all of a sudden slipknot has any talent? where? when did this happen? I've heard their new vol.3 cd, its all the same crap, the singer sounds dead, the guitar is nuthing I repeat nuthing close to 'one of the greatest metal guitarists in the world' all he dose is make souds that makes one want to just break the damn stereo, its so bad, hey take a listen to Bon Jovi's Wanted Dead Or Alive guitar play, now thats something, thats worthy of rememberance!

No, you're wrong.

You're aware that people like Zakk Wylde and Dimebag Darrell (R.I.P), two of the best technical guitarists in the world, both cited Mick Thompson as a great metal player, as do others today, right?

Why do you assume that because you can't appreciate it, there's no talent? Why?

Infact, wait. The biggest question should be why am I even here discussing musical talent with a Bon Jovi fan? A man and band with distinct LACK of any talent.

-AC

It doesn't change the fact that you claim The Beatles did more in 6 albums than anyone ever. Which is false, because love or hate, Radiohead have done more. That much is obvious from listening to their albums.

I never said they did more in those six albums than anyone did ever, i said:

No one else has had six albums of this caliber (The Beach Boys had Pet Sound, Talking Heads had Remain In Light, Rolling Stones had a couple, the Replacements had Let It Be, etc) let alone six albums released in five years of this caliber.

And sying that Radiohead has done more than the Beatles? That's just dumb. The Beatles completely changed the culture of music - Radiohead has just transferred alleged music snob's favorite band from Pavement or The Smiths to Radiohead; why is it that when Thom Yorke makes a banal song about crushing insects, fans slurp it up?

Well Damon Albarn of Blur has actually been on an album with Mike Patton and according to an article I read in an old issue of Mojo (I was bored, I didn't pay for it), cites him as a big influence.
Most people claim that they are influenced by The Beatles purely because they think they have to.

i'm sure it's only one way, right? So if Albarn had said that he was influenced by The Beatles would you discount it?

But if you cannot hear the influence the Beatles had on Blur, I'm not sure you are listening to the same music that I am.

Probably find another George Martin to do what they wanted as opposed to doing it themselves.

Or doing it themselves and not being anywhere near as good. There's alot of options besides them using today's tech and still being great.

So you are attacking The Beatles for not being great producers? They dreamed up the music, and George Martin would tell them that it was impossible, it had never been done before...then he'd find a way to do it. His genius does not detract from the fact that they were the creative impetus behind the changes. Einstein had theories that could not be proven for years after his death - does the fact that they were not yet tangible at his death make the theories any less worthy?

First of Zakk Wylde and Dimebag Darrell aint the 2 best technicaly guitar palyeres, they are far from that I might say, Steve Vai, Joe Satriany, michael Angelo, mattias IA, and tons of others are better

though if you play bad music technically perfect it's still bad music.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
though if you play bad music technically perfect it's still bad music.

dillinger escape plan...

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
And sying that Radiohead has done more than the Beatles? That's just dumb. The Beatles completely changed the culture of music - Radiohead has just transferred alleged music snob's favorite band from Pavement or The Smiths to Radiohead; why is it that when Thom Yorke makes a banal song about crushing insects, fans slurp it up?

Seemingly you've slurped up the old stereotype that Radiohead are for musical snobs, sadly.

As for fans slurping it up, you were clearly not around when the Kid A mass exodus occured. You make it sound as if Radiohead try to earn fans, that's the last thing they do and I admire that.

To say all Radiohead have done is made people like them as their favourite band, THAT is ridiculous. Thom Yorke and the other members of Radiohead are very very clever men in what they do with their music and what it's about.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
i'm sure it's only one way, right? So if Albarn had said that he was influenced by The Beatles would you discount it?

But if you cannot hear the influence the Beatles had on Blur, I'm not sure you are listening to the same music that I am.

No I wouldn't discount it, but you're claiming that you don't compete with who is more inspirational than The Beatles. I was merely proving that you can with Mike Patton, and win. Just because you can hear one type of influence and not the other, doesn't mean it's any less of an influence. The debate was who has influenced more, not who has been ripped off more. Which could also be Patton.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
So you are attacking The Beatles for not being great producers? They dreamed up the music, and George Martin would tell them that it was impossible, it had never been done before...then he'd find a way to do it. His genius does not detract from the fact that they were the creative impetus behind the changes. Einstein had theories that could not be proven for years after his death - does the fact that they were not yet tangible at his death make the theories any less worthy?

I'm not attacking The Beatles. I'm pointing out that without George, they couldn't have done the things they did. Since he had to find a way to do it.

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
First of Zakk Wylde and Dimebag Darrell aint the 2 best technicaly guitar palyeres, they are far from that I might say, Steve Vai, Joe Satriany, michael Angelo, mattias IA, and tons of others are better

Note the fact that I said they are two of, not THE two. Then leave, coz you're stupid for even claiming that they are far from the best. Because they're not. Well, one isn't. Dimebag is dead now, sadly.

You seem to complain about bad music when:

A) You listen to Bon Jovi

and

B) You felch the most technical terrys in music, who have records of putting out really shit music.

Dimebag Darrell wasn't as technically sound as Satch or Vai but he and the band he was known for put out better music than any of the people you listed ever will.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
dillinger escape plan...

They're not just a technically great band though. I really fail to see why you think they're so shit but I can't prove to you how great they are in terms of the opinion on what their music sounds like. I can't hear it for you.

However, I could sit here and talk all day about how mundane Chimaira and Hatebreed are. Two bands you really like who couldn't touch The Dillinger Escape Plan if they wanted to.

I also fear we've strayed drastically off topic.

-AC

''You seem to complain about bad music when:

A) You listen to Bon Jovi''

What do you mean by that? I'm not really understanding what you are saying, please be more clear

You complain about ''bad'' music, when in fact the music you like is bad. E.g. Bon Jovi. Quite simple really.

No thats what AC and Slipknot are always doing, I mean comon, lets face listen to Bon Jovi, you can hear a fantastic voice on vocals, you can hear amazing guitar, and superb meloies that are unforgetable, and GREAT lyrics, and the rest of hte bnad just follows, it all comes down so great, I mean they have everything you could want froma aband, singing, playing, lyrics, and those great meloies, lets take Tin Lizzy for example, they are bad, I mean they have such bad melodies that its just pain to listen too, you dont want to go on hearing it, now Slipknot, is as bad as it gets almust, they ahve everything bad, singer, lyrics, seems like each of the 9 guys are playing their own song in their own world, and what we have is a no melodier, and a freakin T-rex shouting like its no tomorrow, only rivaled by Morbit Angels singer, donmt you hear? ITS BAD thats bad! Bon Jovi on the other hand has something going you know 😄

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
No thats what AC and Slipknot are always doing, I mean comon, lets face listen to Bon Jovi, you can hear a fantastic voice on vocals, you can hear amazing guitar, and superb meloies that are unforgetable, and GREAT lyrics, and the rest of hte bnad just follows, it all comes down so great, I mean they have everything you could want froma aband, singing, playing, lyrics, and those great meloies, lets take Tin Lizzy for example, they are bad, I mean they have such bad melodies that its just pain to listen too, you dont want to go on hearing it, now Slipknot, is as bad as it gets almust, they ahve everything bad, singer, lyrics, seems like each of the 9 guys are playing their own song in their own world, and what we have is a no melodier, and a freakin T-rex shouting like its no tomorrow, only rivaled by Morbit Angels singer, donmt you hear? ITS BAD thats bad! Bon Jovi on the other hand has something going you know 😄

All that typing and you seem to actually believe you can convince a sane and credible music fan that Bon Jovi is anything but shit.

He's not, he's shit. Very very shit.

-AC

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
They dreamed up the music, and George Martin would tell them that it was impossible, it had never been done before...then he'd find a way to do it.

Sounds like the man was out for a bit of PR.

John Lennon: I have an idea.

George: You can't do it, it can't be done! Unless....

John: You always say that.

On another note, Did Lord Andres just state that Thin Lizzy are inferior to Bon Jovi? I thought it might have said that, but I'm sure I must have been mistaken.

I did sy that, they are bad, many of the times they dont even sing they like talk, bad melodies, and average playing

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Another note of influence of course, The Beatles were the original boy band.

Argh...that is just not a nice thing t say...even if its true....

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
All that typing and you seem to actually believe you can convince a sane and credible music fan that Bon Jovi is anything but shit.

He's not, he's shit. Very very shit.

-AC

That's not true....he made a great cover of "Knocking on Heavens Door" ..... but this is a good song to begin with so I guess that's not much.....