It's not a matter of me knowing what you mean, you now know how to spell it. Is adding an apostrophe and an extra letter really so hard? I am making the effort to read your post, the least you could do is be literate.I'm not missing anything, Tabby. You're (there we go) the one who chose to dodge things in favour of defending your (see?) grammatical flaws. So it becomes clear to me that you either don't want to be on topic or you're generally too ignorant.
I'm not calling you stupid because you disagree, I called you stupid because when you look at the evidence, it's clear that you're wrong. If it's not clear that you're wrong, then you're being ignorant.
Agreed entirely, but that doesn't mean we have to accept it.
Especially being a long-term music fan yourself, I'd assume you know better than to just agree with what majority says, and I believe you do. I'm not saying that I'm trying to change what the mainstream thinks, they can and will think what they want, but that doesn't mean they're right.
I knew the age thing would somehow come up.
Why does my age mean I have the inability to know about it? I wasn't there, so? I wasn't there for The Beatles either, or Zeppelin. Doesn't mean I haven't got knowledge about them or the era they were dominent in. If anything, not being there makes an opinion more objective. You'll hardly find a fan of The Beatles who was swept up in the hype of being there that will say "They're overrated.".
I spend most of my time researching these things and I know very well what I'm talking about, when things happened and how. I'm not saying I was at the front row watching Led Zep at MSG, I'm saying I know enough to talk about it.
I know that for most of that era Bon Jovi, Poison and Motley Crue were being passed off as metal, while Anthrax and others were overlooked. I'm not an idiot. That's why Geffen were so reluctant about signing Guns 'N' Roses, because "hair metal" was "in". It annoys me too when people act like Coldplay are some thinking-man's rock band, purely because they know no better, but I'm a firm believer in the whole idea of if you're being spoonfed meals, don't complain that the food is bad.
Well, yes. I'm not debating what it will unfortunately be remembered as, I'm aware of that.
I'm aware people will call punk a fashion before they call it what it's meant to be called, a music genre. I'm aware "emo" will be remembered as floppy fringes, tight striped shirts and cutting rather than Ian Mackaye's bands and those great bands that came with them. I'm not debating that this is how things WILL play out, I'm just saying the following:
A) That's not how it actually is, if you bother to look it up.
and B) Something being labelled "emo" or "punk" doesn't make it so, and I know you agree. It's not evolution just because some numbskull decides to call it that.
So yes, I've never debated that history will show these things inaccurately due to the vast majority viewing them incorrectly, they will. I'm just saying they shouldn't, and that instead of accepting emo as a "fashion" and a depressed condition (which is stupid anyway), at least do a little research.
*You're. I.e: You are. It takes seconds to type.
I agree with him, for the most part. We're both equally disgusted, he's just more accepting of the fact that history will portray that which is true in a false light, so it would seem.
You're wrong, and I've proven you wrong. You're also vastly ignorant and you're being very stupid. I won't afford you any respect if you're going to ignore the evidence supplied to you.
-AC