Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I see. It seems we are going on two different definitions of relevancy. What is yours then?
He doesn't know. It changes to whatever suits him.
Relevancy can either mean talking about current things, or making music in a way that is currently popular or used.
In which case, Rage were both.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
B) Look at all the music that came before Rage, then look at the music that came after Rage and tell me it's not a fact that they invented that genre.
First, I agree what the greatness you've placed on Rage and what they represented...but because you're a defensive b*%@$ and you just wanna fight with me you haven't yet realized that I do, and again you're just sticking up for a band you like.
But second, it's not a fact. Don't be silly. You, of all people, should agree with that.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITESWhat the hell?
This man officially has no noodle! 😆First, I agree what the greatness you've placed on Rage and what they represented...but because you're a defensive b*%@$ and you just wanna fight with me you haven't yet realized that I do, and again you're just sticking up for a band you like.
But second, it's not a fact. Don't be silly. You, of all people, should agree with that.
So, that Angels is somehow a good song is fact, while that Rage Against the Machine invented a genre is not?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He doesn't know. It changes to whatever suits him.Relevancy can either mean talking about current things, or making music in a way that is currently popular or used.
In which case, Rage were both.
-AC
You have no bounds do you?
Originally posted by Bardock42
What the hell?So, that Angels is somehow a good song is fact, while that Rage Against the Machine invented a genre is not?
I've always gone on record and said I can't prove that Angels is a good song, and I even went on record and said I can't prove the Pumpkins and Rage are done. But I stand beside my opinion because I feel I know what's up.
Just curious to see why AC thinks Rage are factually genre makers (which I would ARGUE they very much are).
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I'm making a point that AC, who kept dwelling on this fact thing in the "subjective music" thread is now claiming that this achievement by Rage is ACTUALLY a fact.I've always gone on record and said I can't prove that Angels is a good song, and I even went on record and said I can't prove the Pumpkins and Rage are done. But I stand beside my opinion because I feel I know what's up.
Just curious to see why AC thinks Rage are factually genre makers (which I would ARGUE they very much are).
Because it is not taste...
RATM consisted of Tom Morello, Zack De La Rocha, Brad Wilk and Tim Commerford. Fact
RATM disbanded in 2000. Fact.
RATM created a new genre of music. Fact.
RATM made amazing music. Opinion.
Why can't you divide facts and opinions like any normal person? Well, at least you seem to have dropped the "Music can be objectively measured" business.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I see. It seems we are going on two different definitions of relevancy. What is yours then?
I think that...
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
A band being relevant is partly determined by today's musical standards, social landscape and technological progress, but also with whether or not what the band are bringing to the table has any significance to the art or the evolution of music itself.The Beatles making Sgt. Peppers in the 60s was the epitome of relevance...and you can even say (like 'em or not) Limp Bizkit making Significant Other in the 90s was also relevant.
Guess what? Limp Bizkit, although I love em, are no longer, and will probably never again be relevant...and neither would the Beatles if they were still around. Their stars have shone.
There are very, very few artists who remain relevant over a long period of time...It's incredibly hard to do, because it means being a sponge and an antenna for what's goin on in the world (both musically and socially), AND at the same time managing to hold close to the peak of your artistic powers. If one of those is missing, you're just not gonna be relevant.
For example, Lily Allen is actually quite relevant right now for a couple of reasons. For one, her music is ripe with modern sounds and production, modern youth rebellion and "individuality", and even modern party drug references...and most importantly it's all presented in a creative and fresh way. She is hip, she is smart, and she's made what is widely heralded as one of the best pop albums in recent years.
Aside from that, she's one of the first and definitely the biggest star whose take-off platform came in the form of a virtual community (MySpace)...very telling of the times.
And my examples...
"My Chemical Romance. Relevant? No.... a reflection of the times, but...haven't made any significant contribution whatsoever to the art of music."
"Tom Petty. Relevant? no...his sound is in no way pushing the musical envelope...still think he makes quality music though."
...and I'd add he isn't exactly a reflection of the times (thought that'd be obvious).
Again, M.I.A. is a perfect example of a very relevant artist, for scoring where those others missed.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
A band being relevant is partly determined by today's musical standards, social landscape and technological progress, but also with whether or not what the band are bringing to the table has any significance to the art or the evolution of music itself.
All said in this part of your post Rage does.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
For example, Lily Allen is actually quite relevant right now for a couple of reasons. For one, her music is ripe with modern sounds and production,
And so is Rage's.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
modern youth rebellion and "individuality",
Rage basically invented youth rebellion and individuality.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
She is hip, she is smart,
Rage is much more intelligent than she is, and they are still well liked.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Aside from that, she's one of the first and definitely the biggest star whose take-off platform came in the form of a virtual community (MySpace)...very telling of the times.
And what keeps Rage from making a Myspace?
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
All said in this part of your post Rage does.
I maintain they haven't done that after their second album...which is actually quite an accomplishment in itself.
I really can't think of many bands of the top of my head that do do that.
The Beatles are obviously one...but they did it in a much bigger way. Both Revolver and Sgt. Peppers were TOTALLY revolutionary (no pun intended)...and this was apart from them being the phenomenon that they were to begin with.
You might disagree with that, but talk to musicians and critics from the time and they'll preach all that "The Beatles changed music" stuff like it's the gospel. They were huge because they were able to be so hugley relevant again and again...and in a big way.
As I also said, I think the Pumpkins managed quite well as well, but again, their contribution over their years of staying relevant wasn't near what the Beatles' was.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I think it's pretty clear that's our main point of disagreement. Can't we just leave it at that?I maintain they haven't done that after their second album...which is actually quite an accomplishment in itself.
I really can't think of many bands of the top of my head that do do that.
The Beatles are obviously one. Both Revolver and Sgt. Peppers were revolutionary (no pun intended)...and this was apart from them being the phenomenon that they were to begin with.
Okay then. We're done here.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
After looking back at my posts for the last guy...I can better see how you could think that.Basically you're saying, I could've made the distinction and said...
..."I don't think Rage will ever write good music again"...
...which, according to me, doesn't have anything to do with being "relevant"...and wouldn't in fact make them a waste of time (as I appeared to suggest due to my usual bold and flippant tone).
Then fine. Right.
WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY WHAT I JUST SAID?
Still, there was the assumption however...Because I don't in fact think they will write good music, or make a fresh contribution, and I do indeed think they will be a waste of time...could've said that better though.
Oh well done, lad. It only took you a couple of days to work that out, despite me and a couple of other members continually repeating ourselves. Must mean you got dem brain smarts, right?
On a serious note, surely you now have enough wank-material to stop posting for a while? You've got pages and pages of people spunking all over your face, so you should take a breather and enjoy what you've got.
Live the dream!
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Sorry dude. That isn't (according to AC's criteria of fact in the past) isn't fact.That's why I picked on him.
I would very much argue it's a fact...but my point is...AC saying it's fact, is a TOTAL contradiction to how he's been challenging me to prove what he thinks I consider are facts.
My point was always that taste is subjective, nothing more. It's not taste that they invented a genre, they did.
-AC