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 [B]you. [/B]

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.

If Pink Floyd released an album tomorrow it'd hit the top of the Billboard charts too silly!

Syd Barrett is dead. The..

..biggest Floyd fan in the world.

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).