Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Who is Brian Philips?
Brian Wilson! Sorry.
😆
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.
Ignoramuses like you though have written her off simply because she's mainstream "pop", as if mainstream pop music has nothing to offer to the musical world.
Christ.
Limp Bizkit, The Backstreet Boys, Lily Allen, Kasabian, The Killers; This is the taste you feel puts you above us? Oh dear, anyway...
I've written her (Lily Allen) off cos she's shit, it has nothing to do with pop. Also, Lily Allen being relevant for the reasons you've said would basically mean that to you...relevance is just saying stuff about the modern world, regardless of how obvious it may be. Yet, you go on about relevance as if it's some unattainable thing. If it's that easy for Lily Allen to be relevant, anybody can be.
I asked you a question, are you an American?
-AC
Man. You really aren’t good at this stuff. You have once and for all convinced me you're a complete joke.
I clearly explained what it means to be relevant, and I pointed out how I think Lily Allen has managed all those things, in each area. You’re purposely and childishly being difficult and not acknowledging all my points. And I guarantee you, even your usual supports will kinda think you’re being weak here (although of course they'll never say that).
I never said the Backstreet Boys are good or relevant…and you know that you little weasel. I said at one point I liked two of their songs.
And if you don’t think Kasabian, Lily Allen and Limp Bizkit are or were relevant…(well, what’s the point is saying what I’m gonna say…I’ve already displayed how musically clueless you really, truly are).
Seriously, you...AC...are never getting a response from me again. You’re a punk.
(That's right...EDIT)
Arggggh. You managed to suck me in!!
What does me being American have anything to do with anything?
Listen. I think UK music has a long and proud history...as a result, the artists put a lot of pressure on themselves to meet a standard...and I think that the people's tastes are also refined as a result.
I admit that in the States the artists and people's taste in general aren't up to par with the UK. There's just too much pop/soul R&B crap here that wouldn't sell in the UK...(not to say there isn't pop crap there too...but I think it's less). US has lots of great artists (and I think a lot of US hip-hop is some of the most relevant music in the world right now), but you'll find A LOT more variety, A LOT more innovation, and A LOT more relevant bands coming out of the UK...again, because of the standard
Somewhere along the line, it appears I actually don't like Enter Shikari...I never, ever said that...ever. I think they're very relevant, and I kind of like them...for a lot of the same reasons I liked "The Music" (mixing dance elements with rock) and thought they were also very relevant.
But again...what does it matter if I'm American Canadian, Black White, Spanish, whatever? Why are you asking. Why am I chicken s*#&?
Is this all you got to argue about?
Let's see...pattern here. Every point I make you give no credit to. I think I did decent job explaining what I think relevant music is...but you're being a child and a punk discarding it just because it’s me...
Of course...I can do no right.
As a London born Englishman, I can tell you your opinion of how much shit is or isn't accepted is completely wrong. You've assumed that because...? Oh, it's England. No other reason.
A girl comes along and sings about "English life" in an English accent and the simple minded American, with no sense of cultural diversity nor history, sucks it up like a fat little calf, regardless of whether it's true or not. However, to the point; Why did I ask your nationality?
Because as predicted, you're an anglophile, and therefore I laugh at you and your glorification of a certain country for one, over-generalised reason. You're a silly little wannabe Brit, but only ever end up being the stereotypical ignorant American. So caught up in the "We'll create our own reality." of modern Americanisation, that you've fallen under the blanket of illusion that has caused you to believe you have an accurate view of this country and it's culture, based on nothing. You fail, and I laugh at you.
-AC
Ohhhhhhhh! You're a Brit! So that automatically means you're the authority of British music...(which I know you're not because of the continuous examples of cluelessness you've given around modern music).
BTW...I'm not American...and you shouldn't make fun of them.
I'm Canadian...and I've had a lot more exposure to your backyard than you might think.
I know EXACTLY what you mean with people in North America sucking up anything British-pop...you shouldn't go out on a limb like that and assume I don't...becasue you just coudn't possibly know if I do or not.
Believe me...I know it better than you because I see it right in front of me, and I feel like slapping people who think Starsailor are the next BIG THING!
Jeez!
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I clearly explained what it means to be relevant, and I pointed out how I think Lily Allen has managed all those things, in each area. You’re purposely and childishly being difficult and not acknowledging all my points. And I guarantee you, even your usual supports will kinda think you’re being weak here (although of course they'll never say that).I never said the Backstreet Boys are good or relevant…and you know that you little weasel. I said at one point I liked two of their songs.
And if you don’t think Kasabian, Lily Allen and Limp Bizkit are or were relevant…(well, what’s the point is saying what I’m gonna say…I’ve already displayed how musically clueless you really, truly are).
As jaden101 has already observed, you go on and on and on (and on..) about a band's supposed 'relevancy' as if this is the defining characteristic of musical quality which is persuasive to appreciation. It's not. End of story.
Rage Against The Machine have more than enough current political fuel to fire their writing process, and a band of their nature would be unlikely to reform unless they had something pretty special in the making.
Ohhhhhhhh! You're a Brit! So that automatically means you're the authority of British music...(which I know you're not because of the continuous examples of cluelessness you've given around modern music).
i would hazard a guess at the fact that AC being English and from London makes him better placed to gauge the relevancy of a musician (and i use the term loosly) who is English and from London and who sings about being English and from London, more accurately than someone who is neither from London nor England nor even the United Kingdom
now if by some degree of a miracle she is relevant to you in Canada...then please...take her away
let it also be said that she's not doing anything thousands of other UK Urban acts haven't been doing for the past 10 years...
singing about party drugs...hahaha...that'd be the drugs that the likes of the stone roses and happy mondays were singing about 15 plus years ago
perhaps (as is typical with Northern Americans) you need your relavancy to have absolutely no subtlety about it whatsoever and those artists who put their point across without the need to spell it out for the dumb and ignorant are shunned by the brainless mainstream audience.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Hee hee! I was thinking of the Wilson Philips connection...Brian Wilson! Sorry.
😆
Or maybe you just don't know what you are talking about.
Who knows?
(Me)
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.
Ignoramuses like you though have written her off simply because she's mainstream "pop", as if mainstream pop music has nothing to offer to the musical world.
Hahaha. Good one, Epibites. Funny how when you define a term, you bring up more indistinct terms, like 'individuality' and 'modern youth rebellion'. Indicative of the fact that you are talking bullshit.
I don't write Lily Allen off. She's just another pop chancer.
What you have just said (or tried, desperately to say) is that relevance is some sort of zeitgeist. So essentially, things are relevant if they appeal to the prevailing trends, as decided by random idiots.
Apparently music is relevant if it is trendy and socially bonded to current events, as determined by fools in the NME and other such pieces of trash.
Great. Relevant music sounds excellent. Such a brilliant way to judge musical quality. It must be, actually, if Lily Allen is an exemplar.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Ohhhhhhhh! You're a Brit! So that automatically means you're the authority of British music...(which I know you're not because of the continuous examples of cluelessness you've given around modern music).BTW...I'm not American...and you shouldn't make fun of them.
I'm Canadian...and I've had a lot more exposure to your backyard than you might think.
Where did I say that? I said it makes me more of an authority on what the culture and standards of British music are like, because I live here and you...well you're just guessing.
You've not had more exposure to English music and culture than me though, have you? That's like me saying I know more about Canada because I love it there.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I know EXACTLY what you mean with people in North America sucking up anything British-pop...you shouldn't go out on a limb like that and assume I don't...becasue you just coudn't possibly know if I do or not.Believe me...I know it better than you because I see it right in front of me, and I feel like slapping people who think Starsailor are the next BIG THING!
Jeez!
For someone obsessed with relevance, you can't apply it to your debates.
-AC
What a true bunch of winners we got here. Again, people out of their league with this stuff, but making themselves look doubly foolish by letting their biases with a certain someone get in the way of using clear reasoning.
A really sad display of individual character…and a truly amazing display of the power of gang mentality working on the weak-minded.
Yeah…I’m sure you don’t see it…
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
As jaden101 has already observed, you go on and on and on (and on..) about a band's supposed 'relevancy' as if this is the defining characteristic of musical quality
So…what I’m about to put forward here is to just explain where you’re wrong, NOT to argue if the individual examples I'll give are justified…(cause I know some of you will miss the point and do that).
I think the song “Angels” is a great song (whether you do or not is beside the point…we’re talking about how I’m defining relevancy)…but I don’t think it’s at all relevant. It doesn’t have to be in order to be great.
I think Jet had a good album. Was it relevant…heck NO! It didn’t have to be to be good.
And I think G Love and Special Sauce are a great band. Are they or were they ever relevant (as I’ve described it). No way. But I think they rock without having to be relevant.
And I know you fools are gonna jump at the chance now and say…wait a sec, G Love are relevant because of this and this! That could be arguable, but I’m not focusing on that…I’m explaining how I think MY interpretation of relevance is different from my interpretation of quality music. And I’ve successfully done so.
Chalk one up for me!
Originally posted by jaden101
i would hazard a guess at the fact that AC being English and from London makes him better placed to gauge the relevancy of a musician
That’s 2 for me!
Originally posted by jaden101
let it also be said that she's not doing anything thousands of other UK Urban acts haven't been doing for the past 10 years...
But besides that, you’ve missed the bigger point. I claim her music is relevant because she has managed to take what I said about culture, technology and musical standards AND has created music that is a significant contribution to the art of music itself.
Now whether you agree or not with my definition of relevancy is besides the point for this particular argument, (or whether you agree Lily Allen’s music is a significant contribution is also besides the point)...This is about you criticizing MY interpretation of relevance and how I’VE used it wrong according to my criteria. Thing is though, you didn’t get it, and I’ve proven you wrong.
Up by 3.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
What you have just said (or tried, desperately to say) is that relevance is some sort of zeitgeist. So essentially, things are relevant if they appeal to the prevailing trends, as decided by random idiots.
Here it is again...
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......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.
Final score. EPIIIBITES: 4 - Musical 1st Graders: 0
Yeah that’s right…there’s that feeling again where deep down you know you’ve goofed and your brains are scrambling to come up with something to throw back it me just because you’re too tiny too accept defeat.
Point is, although I took time to explain it, most of you clearly did not get what I meant about relevancy. It seems it’s probably too complex…and I know you’re gonna argue that you did…but you clearly didn’t. If you had, you wouldn’t have bothered with the crap you just did (but you’re fools, and you just wanna “win”).
Disgusting.
This is what I'm really curious about...
The Core hasn't given his response yet. I have a feeling...just a feeling...he has enough insight into this particular topic that he would generally agree with how I've attempted to define relevancy, and that he wouldn't go on record (as you fools have) to totally discard what I've said about it.
And coming into the argument at this point, I think he has a good enough perspective to admit that I've successfully pointed out how you lot have put forth pretty lame arguments to the contrary.
Actually...what am I saying. The Core...agreeing with me?
Are you that insecure that you really have to monologue three posts in a row? Seriously? Can't you just post everything at once, instead of panicking, feeling scared, and attempting to win something you've already lost by posting many times?
Seriously, why the triple posts? Just post once with everything in it. It's not that hard.
Also, you didn't reply to my post. You're a wannabe Brit anglophile, that's why you love everything to do with Britain, well, your opinion and perception of Britain is entirely wrong, fact. I'm telling you that as one that lives here, was born here.
How many times have you even visited England? London, specifically?
I think it's endearing how you are the one telling yourself that we're lame, and that you've won.
You make shit points, we counter them, and you ALWAYS, without fail, say "You don't get it! *Crying*". You're pathetic, little Brit wannabe.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I think the song “Angels†is a great song (whether you do or not is beside the point…we’re talking about how I’m defining relevancy)…but I don’t think it’s at all relevant. It doesn’t have to be in order to be great.
And your taste gets worse. I didn't think it was possible.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
It would only matter if she was singing about stuff that happened ONLY when the Mondays and the Roses were around. What a CRAP point! Oh what, we can't sing about war songs any more cause CCR ad Hendrix did it in the 60s??? Yes, that is what you're saying with your lame example.
"You don't get it!!!".
You couldn't sing about Vietnam and be relevant, because it's long gone. You could sing about Iraq and be relevant, because that's now. He's not referring to the concept of an anti-war song, just the time in which they're set.
Furthermore, Lily Allen really isn't singing about anything relevant that isn't blisteringly obvious. "London can be a bit bad, people get mugged and do drugs.", yes, I know, I've lived in one of the worst parts of London for 21 years while she was living with her rich, comedian father.
I can tell you for a fact that your view of her is biased because you're a Brit lover, because any aware Londoner would tell you that she's not saying anything special or new, or good. Only NME idiots who want to believe they are "in" and "cool" are citing her as fresh because they believe they are getting an insight into London life and youth culture. You're not and they aren't either. She's some buttered up little rich girl would wouldn't know trouble if it bit her face off.
She's on Jonathan Ross's talk show in designer clothing with her posh mum, what does she know about how bad London can be? Nothing. What do you know about it, as a Canadian? Much less than even her.
You're uneducated, and I expect everything I've said to be dodged as a result.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"You don't get it!!!".You couldn't sing about Vietnam and be relevant, because it's long gone. You could sing about Iraq and be relevant, because that's now. He's not referring to the concept of an anti-war song, just the time in which they're set.
-The post in question...
Originally posted by jaden101
let it also be said that she's not doing anything thousands of other UK Urban acts haven't been doing for the past 10 years...
-and my response...
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Great! Good point! That doesn’t in any way make her less relevant, does it? What kind of sorry point was that? It's because a) if it’s of the time and her music is truly responding to it, what does it matter if it was done at an earlier time as well? It would only matter if she was singing about stuff that happened ONLY when the Mondays and the Roses were around. What a CRAP point! Oh what, we can't sing about war songs any more cause CCR and Hendrix did it in the 60s??? Yes, that is what you're saying with your lame example.But besides that, you’ve missed the bigger point....
Good job AC! Way to catch on!
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
She's some buttered up little rich girl would wouldn't know trouble if it bit her face off.She's on Jonathan Ross's talk show in designer clothing with her posh mum, what does she know about how bad London can be? Nothing. What do you know about it, as a Canadian? Much less than even her.
Amazing! You seriously have a knack for proving you're completely clueless. Truly incredible how bad you get time after time.
You excel at incompetence in pretty much all areas. You're weak in your knowledge, logic, musical insight, and character.
I feel my soul and brain are actually starting to rot just by talking to you. 😆
(...and again, I'm sticking it to you cause you're a punk)