Originally posted by Pernille
Needless to say, nor do you know. Still, I am one hundred percent sure that every band on this planet rather gets a good review than a bad review. That was where I was referring to.
Well you're changing what you originally said but you're still wrong. There are bands who don't care.
Originally posted by Pernille
Yeah, and where did I say there wasn't.
Nowhere, where did I say you did?
Originally posted by Pernille
No I didn't. I said I've seen many band care in that extent that it's not just "liking compliments" but pushing those reviews in people's faces. I did not say every band, I said many. Or it could be just some, but it does happen with bands who claim to be "independent".
You used the words "Every band...". Proof?
Example 1:
Originally posted by Pernille
Here I'm sure every band on this planet wants to have some sort of success.
And example 2:
Originally posted by Pernille
Every band cares what reviews they get.
Right there.
Originally posted by Pernille
Yet again we're in this situation which has nothing to do with the music, great. Is their decision a reason not to like them? Let me say it in this way. If I thought RR was a good album yesterday, they made the decision today, would it be a reason not to like the album tomorrow? Hell no. Their image may be different now in some people's eyes, but I don't pay much attention to it. I care only for the music.
Right, lets see if you can understand what I'm saying because I'll say it one more time. You only care for the music, as it should be, right? Well then when the band you like make the decision to let some idiot take their music and shove it into the throats and CD players of stupid MTV whore little teenagers, that does make the music suffer. Why? Because music is about honesty and if their not being honest now, who's to say they were then?
Originally posted by Pernille
Oh boy. I thought we were already clear on that. The facts is that you CAN have success and you CAN be famous and you CAN be about music, none of these things exclude one another. Insert here what I said about The Beatles. They had screaming teenage fans who probably knew NOTHING about music and they're still considered one of the best bands in the world.
Yeah and they're also one of the most overrated bands in history. Radiohead are famous, successful and most definately all about the music. Would they ever let someone shit on their music to get more fame? No. Would they ever let some fat nobody take their music and make kids buy it? No. They're musicians, not salesmen. Ville claimed he didn't want to be famous, didn't he? So can we see where he sold out now?
Originally posted by Pernille
Overall, I think you're being a major hypocrite. I doubt you hate all the "good" bands like Blur, Massive Attack, Pink Floyd, Oasis even if they had success, sold records and had advertisement campaigns. It's always been a part of the game, it's nothing new or shocking. It doesn't bother me unless they- sell their music by sex
- have other people writing music for them
- put down other bands/fans in a way it goes overboardNone of these apply to HIM.
I like Blur and Massive Attack. I don't mind Pink Floyd but Oasis are shit. I don't respect salesmen, I respect artists. If you're making a point to shove your music out there for the sole purpose of selling records, you're off the list. Like H.I.M do.
You're claiming H.I.M don't use any sexual nature to promote their music? Ville is (for some reason) liked by alot of female music fans. It's a main reason why alot of girls like the band.
Originally posted by Pernille
Shut it up already. Read above. There are bands that have sold shitloads of albums and they're still damn good bands. Grow up a little and see that it's not that black-and-white. It's very rare to have an artist or a band that don't care about sales at all if they're seriously in the business. It's not a sin to get kicks of seeing those masses loving your music and spreading good vibe through your art. Some long for it, some don't. Simple as that.
Try reading what I wrote and try getting what I'm saying. You can be successful and famous and still have credibility. I'm not doubting that you cretin. I'm telling you that when your PURPOSE is to become famous and when you will do ANYTHING to get famous and to get popular, THAT'S when it becomes selling out. Now what do you suppose H.I.M did? Ville didn't wanna be famous, but oh wait....that soon changed. He was "all about the music", but he got bored with being respected, so he sold his music away to MTV and let it get pushed out to the masses of girly girls. There's nothing wrong with being famous if it just happens to come along. Ville made a point to try and become famous by forcing his music out there, becoming known through Bam.
Real bands care about sales because it pays for touring and recording. People like Ville care about sales because it pays for their next mansion. That's what it's about for him now.
Originally posted by Pernille
HAHAHA.. Wtf. You can't expect a non-native English speaker to speak perfect English. Your stupidity is incredible. You already proved it with your comment about HIM not being from Scandinavia. (HAHAHAH!! I'm still laughing to that one....)
They introduce theirselves as H.I.M from Finland, regardless of what Finland is a part of. They don't introduce themselves as H.I.M from Scandinavia do they? No. Shut up then.
I don't expect him to speak perfect English, but I've heard him speak and he speaks excellently for a man who isn't from England. When he sings, it's a fake, cheesy voice that he puts on to suit the whole image of his band, that whole romance thing they have going on.
Originally posted by Pernille
You know what, you don't create those ranges with digital enhancements. His singing voice is better on albums than live, which is very common with everyone. On some songs like "Beyond Redemption" you can hear that it's not straightout his voice, but you don't create those basic vocals with computers.
Making excuses again. The man can't sing, end of story. He can't. Live? He sounds like a broken vacuum cleaner. Smoking has damaged him quite badly because he misses notes, his voice cracks. He's awful. He relies on enhancement.
Originally posted by Pernille
Oh, and believe it or not, they have also played some pretty good live gigs.
Ville doesn't.
Originally posted by Pernille
Among Scandinavian artists, yes, it is. Of course not globally, what are you talking about?
You brought it up, not me. Either way, we're clear. You meant regionally, fine.
Originally posted by Pernille
Now listen up, you don't read anything what I write. Or then you only read it only HALF.
No, no I do read it all. Because I reply to it all. You just don't like what you see.
Originally posted by Pernille
I said I BELIEVE IN MY OWN EARS. Yes, that's what I said, and I didn't forgot caps on.I also said that if I had to choose between you and the critics I rather choose the one who actually know something and don't have every other word being "shit" or "crap". You can only guess who that is. Hint: it's NOT you.
I'm not writing for a magazine though am I? I'm discussing a couple of bands. I used two words in lengthy and detailed descriptions of why the bands weren't good. You're so desperate for something to reply to that you're picking things out that aren't even relevant. You asked me to tell you why I thought those bands were horrible, I told you.
Originally posted by Pernille
I never said they were the best musicians to walk on this planet, but they are not "shit". Linde is definitely not a bad guitarist. Have you heard his side profect? And Mige's not bad either.
Yeah, he is a bad guitarist. None of the material he comes up with is anything special. Bland, boring, unmelodic.
If you think Evanescence are anything other than a lame band, you're just being silly now. Because they are. H.I.M at least, but Evanescence? They're worse.
Originally posted by Pernille
I'm still wondering what that has to do with anything.
The fact that you said it's subjective about them being fake and insincere might have something to do with it. Try to keep up.
Originally posted by Pernille
You have some serious reading problems or something because I said several times that I WASN't a fan of any of those bands. It's a different thing to see the positive in something rather than point out the negative all the time. You're obviously not capable of doing that.
Oh no I do see it. I see you trying endlessly to justify some kind of talent in those bands. There are none. Why should I see positivity in a band that I strongly dislike for good reason?
-AC
Nowhere, where did I say you did?
"There's a difference between liking compliments and being concerned about what a magazine or writer says about your band or the music they make". - you
What's the point saying this and use it as an argument if it is an obviousness.
You used the words "Every band...".
Yes, I did, and I meant what I said. Caring is relative and you know that yourself, so DON'T twist my words.
By caring I mean that if you ARE a recording artist and if you ARE going to sell you music and not giving it for free (duh), of course you're checking out what kind of reception your art & work gets. That's what I mean by caring.
You say not all bands care. Wrong. But I think this was a misunderstanding not a disagreement. Or? Still going at it?
Right, lets see if you can understand what I'm saying because I'll say it one more time. You only care for the music, as it should be, right? Well then when the band you like make the decision to let some idiot take their music and shove it into the throats and CD players of stupid MTV whore little teenagers, that does make the music suffer. Why? Because music is about honesty and if their not being honest now, who's to say they were then?
I still think you're being a major hypocrite. I've explained this gazillion times.
Yeah and they're [The Beatles] also one of the most overrated bands in history.
Who other band in the 60s had backward loop technology?
Who other band had so many various techniques that have become trademarks amongst many other bands?
Name another band that used song transitions as a part of their art in the era of "pop song"?
How do you duplicate what the Beatles & Martin did with Sgt. Peppers?
Name another twosome in music history as powerful, talented & productive as Lennon and McCartney?
Who other band has influenced such greats as The Who, Pink Floyd etc. and a whole generation of musicians?
Were there many if any bands doing music videos before/during The Beatles?
And think of a band like The Rolling Stones... Where would THEY be without the Beatles?
Before they hit it big in the US, they didn't have a record deal. Well they had one song kind of there but that wasn't enough. What they needed was JUST one more song and guess where did they get it? From Lennon/McCartney. So they wrote them 'I Wanna Be Your Man' and gave it to them and it was a HIT for the Stones everywhere. They NEEDED that to get the deal. So in a way they if anyone OWE something to the Beatles. The Beatles put their hands and effort to their ART - as friends - and helped them.
Then compare this situation to HIM who writes & composes & plays nearly everything and don't have Bam WRITING music for them nor having ANYTHING to do with their music whatsoever... Do you see how ridiculous that whole comparison is? Do you like the Stones? Do you hate them now? Well?
etc etc. I could go on and on and on, too bad this topic wasn't about the Beatles.
Radiohead are famous, successful and most definately all about the music. Would they ever let someone shit on their music to get more fame? No. Would they ever let some fat nobody take their music and make kids buy it? No. They're musicians, not salesmen. Ville claimed he didn't want to be famous, didn't he? So can we see where he sold out now?
He said it (= being a rock star) wasn't his ambition until he realised that he had potential for being one. So, PLEASE, try to read what I say. It's not that hard.
HIM didn't reject their old fan base. Ville wanted more and the band wanted more, that's fine, they started to play gigs in America, they got visibility through a big network, ok, that's what happened, I can live with it, but the fact is that THEY do their music & art and nobody else. You can't go saying they owe it for someone or that somebody ELSE did it for them. No.
Radiohead are an excellent band, for that matter. They push boundaries and have my respect. I am not even going to compare the two because they are totally different genre and have different styles - one band's strength is the other band's weakness etc. I love HIM's vocals, their dark sounds & guitar riffs and enjoy Radiohead's psychedelic soundscapes. They are both mood music for me. If it touches me, it's good. Basically.
I like Blur and Massive Attack. I don't mind Pink Floyd but Oasis are shit. I don't respect salesmen, I respect artists. If you're making a point to shove your music out there for the sole purpose of selling records, you're off the list. Like H.I.M do.
Yaaaah. They were used as an example. Don't think I didn't know what the other Gallagher did to promote their album n' ish but I didn't go and throw my copy of WTSMG to wastebasket just because one of them behaves like a jerk. That's just rabid. Sick. Over-reacting.
You're claiming H.I.M don't use any sexual nature to promote their music? Ville is (for some reason) liked by alot of female music fans. It's a main reason why alot of girls like the band.
Lol wtf. What if we just drop this whole thing right now, ok?
Selling music by sex means MATERIALIZING people, 99.9% of these people are women, black women bumbing their asses and showing their titties to the camera to music that is 99.9% hip hop crap. Well make that 100%.
Try reading what I wrote and try getting what I'm saying. You can be successful and famous and still have credibility. I'm not doubting that you cretin. I'm telling you that when your PURPOSE is to become famous and when you will do ANYTHING
By all means, they did not do anything. I gave you a list with three things I consider "anything" and you don't see HIM there.
Ville didn't wanna be famous, but oh wait....that soon changed.
Let's say, If I said I didn't want to become a writer when I was ten, have I done something irreversibly and terribly wrong, if I ten years later disprove that statement?
Opinions change, views change, goals change.
He was "all about the music", but he got bored with being respected
He is still about the music. It's not like you have to be so damn serious all the time.. He's said that composing an album is like vacation to him. He enjoys what he does. To me that's being about music.
so he sold his music away to MTV and let it get pushed out to the masses of girly girls.
Elvis had girly girls, the Beatles had, the Stones had...
There's nothing wrong with being famous if it just happens to come along.
They already had a huge fan base in Europe. And you're going to say "no but usa", but really, think of it yourself. The Beatles sort of helped the Stones to get there, and I'm SURE it's not the only example in the history of music. You just don't know the histories of all bands. You "only" know HIM because they're your generation. (Well that's what one could assume by reading your posts.)
Ville made a point to try and become famous by forcing his music out there, becoming known through Bam.
You are so frigging wrong its not funny anymore. Did HE force it to bam? Or did Bam ASK to use it? Hmmm.
Real bands care about sales because it pays for touring and recording. People like Ville care about sales because it pays for their next mansion. That's what it's about for him now.
Wake up! There are 100000000 bands out there with big cash and mansions yet you're acting like it's OMGG because it's HIM. It's you who are making excuses. LAME ones.
They introduce theirselves as H.I.M from Finland, regardless of what Finland is a part of. They don't introduce themselves as H.I.M from Scandinavia do they? No. Shut up then.
What the heck, man... It's BASIC KNOWLEDGE to know what Scandinavia is, especially when it's EUROPE, you live there too, hello?? I'm not even talking about HIM anymore, I'm talking about your lack of intellect. Damn...
I don't expect him to speak perfect English, but I've heard him speak and he speaks excellently for a man who isn't from England. When he sings, it's a fake, cheesy voice that he puts on to suit the whole image of his band, that whole romance thing they have going on.
If his lyrics and compositions comprise themes of love and relationships, you don't expect him to screech like Brian Johnson.
And trust me, it's not easy to speak and sing with the same accent if you're not a native speaker.
Making excuses again. The man can't sing, end of story. He can't. Live? He sounds like a broken vacuum cleaner. Smoking has damaged him quite badly because he misses notes, his voice cracks. He's awful. He relies on enhancement.
Nope, I am not making excuses. LOL Take someone like.... Well you can only GUESS how much "enhancement" they've done to Britney's vocals and she still sounds like she's the crappiest & forced-to-be-trendy & most unoriginal thing ever.
Ville sounds incredible on albums. Beautiful, deep, husky, charming, frisky... Even deaf can hear it's not relying on enhancement.
in lengthy and detailed descriptions of why the bands weren't good
HA! If that's your definition of detailed & lengthy I'm Santa. Your every other word was "shit", "crap", "horrible". Quite subjective, if I may say so.
Yeah, he is a bad guitarist. None of the material he comes up with is anything special. Bland, boring, unmelodic.
Oh boy. Do you know what this band is being known for? They're known for their MELODIES. You're quite a fool if you say with a straight face that they don't have any melodies in their songs or their guitars. Have you heard Razorblade Kiss? Probably not.
Originally posted by Pernille
What's the point saying this and use it as an argument if it is an obviousness.
I never claimed you said any of that though, I was just stating it.
Originally posted by Pernille
Yes, I did, and I meant what I said. Caring is relative and you know that yourself, so DON'T twist my words. By caring I mean that if you ARE a recording artist and if you ARE going to sell you music and not giving it for free (duh), of course you're checking out what kind of reception your art & work gets. That's what I mean by caring.
Well you're weaseling out of the fact that you claimed every band CARES what reviews say about them, not that they possibly check them out. Anyway, you've retracted the comment and changed it.
Originally posted by Pernille
You say not all bands care. Wrong. But I think this was a misunderstanding not a disagreement. Or? Still going at it?
No I'm not wrong am I? Because not ALL band ever and today, care about their reviews.
Originally posted by Pernille
I still think you're being a major hypocrite. I've explained this gazillion times.
Yeah and I've proved you wrong a gazillion times. So let's move on.
Originally posted by Pernille
Then compare this situation to HIM who writes & composes & plays nearly everything and don't have Bam WRITING music for them nor having ANYTHING to do with their music whatsoever... Do you see how ridiculous that whole comparison is? Do you like the Stones? Do you hate them now? Well?
Hooray! We're back. Stones don't have people writing all their music for them, first of all. Second of all, H.I.M could write all their own music and play all their own instruments. It doesn't erase the point that they're making really bad music on their own and playing their instruments poorly. Avril Lavigne could write all her own songs, it doesn't mean they're not shit.
Originally posted by Pernille
"etc etc. I could go on and on and on, too bad this topic wasn't about the Beatles.
You did go on and on. Don't say "too bad" because I've already dealt with someone saying exactly the same things as you in another thread.
Originally posted by Pernille
He said it (= being a rock star) wasn't his ambition until he realised that he had potential for being one. So, PLEASE, try to read what I say. It's not that hard.
Exactly. He had the potential to be famous. He may very well have been about the music for a while but when he got bored of being respected, he didn't try to gain worldwide success through continual trying, he took the short and easy road of selling his music to a scumbag.
Originally posted by Pernille
HIM didn't reject their old fan base. Ville wanted more and the band wanted more, that's fine, they started to play gigs in America, they got visibility through a big network, ok, that's what happened, I can live with it, but the fact is that THEY do their music & art and nobody else. You can't go saying they owe it for someone or that somebody ELSE did it for them. No.
They wanted more, you're proving me right. They're a bunch of greedy, fame-hungry, celebrities. They didn't try to get more by being themselves and working hard, did they? No, they didn't. They sold theirselves to MTV and let Bam push the music. It's a fact that this happened.
Originally posted by Pernille
Selling music by sex means MATERIALIZING people, 99.9% of these people are women, black women bumbing their asses and showing their titties to the camera to music that is 99.9% hip hop crap. Well make that 100%.
I'm not claiming that they sell it in that way, but Ville doesn't exactly do anything to dissuade the women obsessed with his looks, to not pay attention to that.
Originally posted by Pernille
"By all means, they did not do anything. I gave you a list with three things I consider "anything" and you don't see HIM there.
You just basically admitted above that they gave themselves to network television and badly wanted more exposure. They sold out, in the ONE OF the truest definitions of the term.
Originally posted by Pernille
Let's say, If I said I didn't want to become a writer when I was ten, have I done something irreversibly and terribly wrong, if I ten years later disprove that statement?
If you started writing for your own self and nobody else, and didn't push your work for the sheer purpose of sales, exposure or money (like H.I.M did), then you would still be considered an artist with integrity.
Originally posted by Pernille
"Opinions change, views change, goals change.
Yeah, H.I.M decided that their goal wasn't to be respected and admired, it was to get as many fans as possible, as quick and easily as they could even if it meant giving themselves to MTV. Their goal became to be famous at any cost.
Originally posted by Pernille
He is still about the music. It's not like you have to be so damn serious all the time.. He's said that composing an album is like vacation to him. He enjoys what he does. To me that's being about music.
See the past 5 or so quotes.
-AC
Originally posted by Pernille
They already had a huge fan base in Europe. And you're going to say "no but usa", but really, think of it yourself. The Beatles sort of helped the Stones to get there, and I'm SURE it's not the only example in the history of music. You just don't know the histories of all bands. You "only" know HIM because they're your generation. (Well that's what one could assume by reading your posts.)
I have extensive knowledge across all eras and generations of music, I make it my business to know because I'm not some passive music fan.
Secondly, H.I.M had a following in Europe, I know that, I live here. That wasn't enough for H.I.M, they wanted more. And that, in many ways, is fine. If they had gone to the US and worked their asses of, I wouldn't have had a problem. They didn't though, they sold themselves to network TV, plastered their logo all over Bam and let him tell kids to buy their music.
Originally posted by Pernille
You are so frigging wrong its not funny anymore. Did HE force it to bam? Or did Bam ASK to use it? Hmmm.
Did Bam force THEM? No. They obviously thought it was ok.
Originally posted by Pernille
Wake up! There are 100000000 bands out there with big cash and mansions yet you're acting like it's OMGG because it's HIM. It's you who are making excuses. LAME ones.
You're missing the point I made. Yeah there are loads of bands who are millionaires with mansions etc, but that doesn't fuel the greatest bands to make more music. You think Thom Yorke makes music with Radiohead because he wants a ferrari? No. H.I.M and Ville in general have proven that it's about the fame for them and that they don't care how they get it. I'm not disputing that they might love making music, I'm saying that it's obviously not more important than becoming really famous.
Originally posted by Pernille
What the heck, man... It's BASIC KNOWLEDGE to know what Scandinavia is, especially when it's EUROPE, you live there too, hello?? I'm not even talking about HIM anymore, I'm talking about your lack of intellect. Damn...
Lack of intellect? It's taken me multiple posts to show you why H.I.M factually sold out. So let's not dip into that sugar bowl.
I'm talking about where they class themselves as hailing from. Which is Finland, correct? Yes.
Originally posted by Pernille
If his lyrics and compositions comprise themes of love and relationships, you don't expect him to screech like Brian Johnson. And trust me, it's not easy to speak and sing with the same accent if you're not a native speaker.
Maybe because he's faking the voice, as I said.
Originally posted by Pernille
Nope, I am not making excuses. LOL Take someone like.... Well you can only GUESS how much "enhancement" they've done to Britney's vocals and she still sounds like she's the crappiest & forced-to-be-trendy & most unoriginal thing ever.Ville sounds incredible on albums. Beautiful, deep, husky, charming, frisky... Even deaf can hear it's not relying on enhancement.
Why are you continually using the "He's incredible on albums" remark as some kind of back up? To me he doesn't sound good on albums but the POINT here, is that if you compare his live voice (aka his real, unchanged voice) to his studio voice, they're completely different. He is a horrible, horrible live singer. In the studio, where they make everything sound clean and crisp, he sounds "incredible". Do you not see what's going on?
Originally posted by Pernille
"HA! If that's your definition of detailed & lengthy I'm Santa. Your every other word was "shit", "crap", "horrible". Quite subjective, if I may say so.
I can't hear the music for you and make you agree with me. You're a H.I.M fanatic, you're literally denying factual evidence of what they've done wrong so why would I go into lengthy detail for you to say "Nah."?
I included reasons why. Also, stop focusing on the words I use when you've done NOTHING but repeat yourself.
Originally posted by Pernille
"Oh boy. Do you know what this band is being known for? They're known for their MELODIES. You're quite a fool if you say with a straight face that they don't have any melodies in their songs or their guitars. Have you heard Razorblade Kiss? Probably not.
Yes I have heard it. Way to make an assumptuon 🙂. You're making yourself look rather silly by doing that.
Melodies is a technique. All band have "melodies" somewhere. H.I.M just don't do a very good job.
Now, if you're gonna reply, do so about H.I.M. I've already dealt with a deluded Beatles fan.
-AC
Lets think of it this way -
H.I.M are only popular because of Bam. They wouldn't last five minutes without his endorsement.
By endorsement, I obviously mean anal activity.
Is it really that simple? Yes, yes it is. Barrage the impressionable youths with any old crap, and as long as someone says "these guys are cool" they'll follow. Tis the way the world works. The world is brimming with wrongability.
If Bam said eating shit was fun, millions of 'sk8ers' (complete with tie and angst) would begin to dine on their pet canines fecal matter within minutes.
Alright, because this shit is going nowhere, this is a sum up of what I'm trying to say here. And probably my last reply on this thread.
AC:
First of all, I never claimed that Stones have people writing all their music for them. (hello... They're the Stones!?)
What I was doing I was merely pointing out the fact that when it comes to working your ass off & not letting ANYONE else do the work for you, it's not that simple because it HAPPENS, you know, a LOT (people helping you), and so that was just an example of it. It was a friendly gesture from Paul & John to use their hard earned free time to go and compose a track for them, that was it and nobody complains about it as they shouldn't. You say it's alllll ok if the Beatles crack a song for the Stones that just happens to be one of the songs that helped them to get signed & delivered to America to perform on Ed Sullivan etc. yet you're pretending like it's OMG if a dedicated fan of a band wants to let people know about that band that probably not many had heard before in the States and helps them get visibility. It's not a sin if you have friends having your back if it's still YOU who do the work, the music, it's a different thing to have all those zillions of songwriters and composers do the music FOR you.
What really boggles me is the fact that Blur, Massive Attack and all the other bands I mentioned have had airtime on MTV (yes, the biggest & corrupted sellout network) yet you say NOTHING about it. Why? Because you're a HYPOCRITE. Every reply you make is storming about how "wrong" it is to let yourself be shown on MTV/sacrificing your art and be ok with it, yet all these other bands have done exactly the same thing and you don't even realize it. These bands do NOTHING to avoid that channel, they're probably glad & thrilled to have their music videos up there pushing in the faces of 13-15 year olds, the same age group that probably watches the Bam show. An average MTV viewer is prob almost the same as a person who watches Viva la Bam (or whatever the hell it's called, I do not know because I have never watched one single episode of that in my life), so your excuse of that HIM are the only ones pushing their stuff in throats of teenage girls is the lamest I've ever heard.
If you are a 100% indie supporter, then I could understand it. Maybe. But you're not, you're a hypocrite.
You said you liked Blur? Well, then you probably know that Damon Albarn's side project is basically BASED ON music videos that run on MTV. The whole Gorillaz idea is based on visuality & trendy music and it's MOST definitely targeted to viewers of MTV. But, boy, oh boy, you say NOTHING about it. Why? Because you know what you are. You claim to be all educated & wise, but guess what, you're not.
Am I wrong or making excuses? No I am not. You are.
Even if I have said that I never liked the unfortunate Bam/MTV episode in HIM's career, for me (or for anyone who supports ANY acts in that channel) it's not a real reason to hate the band. I don't hate Blur if they're on MTV, I don't hate Metallica if they were nominated and awarded for MTV Icon, an "icon" of something that represents the Downward of Music. It's a shame but no can do. I can only guess how many "music fans" hate HIM and claim they're "sell out" yet blast their copies of Master Of Puppets in their CD players. If that's not being FAKE and HYPOCRITE I don't know what is.
I will say it now and I will say it again, I do not think HIM are the best band in the world, let's keep it real, okay, but this topic happens to be about them so don't go there babbling and shitting about my music taste of which you know nothing about.
HIM are a great band in what they do, Ville is a good singer & songwriter and the reason I entered this thread was because I'm personally sick of people throwing their shit on them BECAUSE some skateboarder dude who has nothing to do with their music and just happens to be a fan of them and good friends with Ville is now a reason to label them as a sellout teenage band. If you don't like their music that's fine, let's ONLY talk about the music then, but this thread has once again proved that people are not capable of doing that. NOT.
Am I still not making sense? Am I still making excuses?
Ok. If we ARE talking about the music/vocals then, you're whining about that Ville's voice is fake. Try to get over yourself and get the fact that it's NOT the same to sing and talk in English if it's not your first language. Ville does pretty damn good job anyhow. His voice is naturally "husky" he doesn't fake that. And I have given you examples after examples that what you hear on their records, it's not all relying on some f.cking enhancement. You're deaf if you don't hear that. Many, and I mean MANY critics, music fans and listeners agree with me (that's not an excuse it's a fact) that Ville has good and varied voice, it's not something I came up with. Some singers like Celine Dion, who is perfect in EVERY note she lets out from her mouth both in records and live, many would agree that she is still boring and unoriginal. She's basically a walking version of singing lesson, but being different and unique she is not. Ville is not the best example of totally perfect live singing, but he's got at least a voice you don't hear from every guy next door. His live vs. album vocals still don't mean it's all technical enhancement if a person sings better on albums. Consider it's a different situation, atmosphere and so on and so on.
Originally posted by Red Superfly
If Bam said eating shit was fun, millions of 'sk8ers' (complete with tie and angst) would begin to dine on their pet canines fecal matter within minutes.
If Curt Cobain said having a greasy gross shit hair and looking like a homeless drunkard was fun, the next day the kids would be walking copies of him.
If Elvis said f.cking a fourteen year old was fun, the world would say it's allll ok.
So... Your point was?