Recent Reformations ( RATM, The Smashing Pumpkins etc )

Originally posted by jaden101
the fact that they dont get subtle references makes them dumb...and the fact that they only listen to mainstream music makes them ignorant...

so off with you youngster...come back when you

a: learn to read things in context

b: formulate a decent opinion

and c: learn the difference between their, there and they're

Screw you elitist bastard. Your opinion is that because people listen to mainstream music they are ignorant? Yeah, thats definitely what I would call a decent opinion. And also, be sure to come up with another witty and intelligent sounding comment that makes you sound like even more of a jerk.

Oh and by the way, this isn't an english class so shut the hell up about grammar, no one cares about grammar on a stupid message board.

Originally posted by Arctic
Screw you elitist bastard. Your opinion is that because people listen to mainstream music they are ignorant? Yeah, thats definitely what I would call a decent opinion. And also, be sure to come up with another witty and intelligent sounding comment that makes you sound like even more of an jerk.

You have no right to call others elitists, Arctic.

Yeah, I do. He thinks just because people listen to mainstream music they are ignorant, and that because he listens to whatever music he listens to makes him more intelligent. I would call that elitist.

You learn English in class so you can use it properly outside of class.

Yeah but on a message board? I might use it correctly on a story I'm writing or something like that, but I'm not going to be monitering it on a message board. And I usually even use good grammar on message boards, but I don't want to be corrected when I make a mistake.

Well, people have to read and understand it.

I'm not saying confusing the odd there/their is a crime, but my point was it does matter outside of class.

Anyway, to reply on topic:

I think the reformations could possibly be good.

It all depends on how good the music is. Nothing else, even in RATMs case. **** the politics.

Originally posted by Arctic
Yeah, I do. He thinks just because people listen to mainstream music they are ignorant, and that because he listens to whatever music he listens to makes him more intelligent. I would call that elitist.

No, you don't. You are an elitist, so therefore have no right to accuse others.

I'd like to know when elitism in itself became a bad thing.

As if people who accept any form of bastardised art are better just because that have more variation of shit.

-AC

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No, you don't. You are an elitist, so therefore have no right to accuse others.

I am, huh? I'm not the one claiming people who listen to a different type of music than me are ignorant. 🙄

And AC, why in the world would elitism ever be a good thing?

On your side Arctic. Jaden's comments were all quite pointless.

They were very much representative of the warped reactions you get from most people here.

Warped minds who only like to see what they wanna see just so they can come out of an argument to appear (usually to themselves) that they've won at all costs.

Truly sad.

SO, how about instead of nitpicking and bringing up the crappiest arguments imaginable, you guys tell me what YOU think relevant music is.

I'll just do a quick review of what mine is for some of those who are kinda slow...

I’ll give some examples to be more clear. Again, I'm just looking at these artists according to my definition of being relevant. Go ahead and disagree with the definition itself...but if you start defending the individual examples then you're missing the point.

My Chemical Romance. Relevant? I'd say no.

-Not because they aren't a reflection of the times, but because they haven't made any significant contribution whatsoever to the art of music.

Tom Petty. Relevant? Again, I'd say no.

-Not because he doesn't make good music anymore, but because his sound is in no way pushing the musical envelope. I still think he makes quality music though.

M.I.A. - Relevant? Absolutely.

She's managed to reflect what's very "now" in her songs (on many levels, not just the social aspect), and it's been done in a very innovative and fresh way musically. Her album "Arular" was a mega hit and critically praised for both those reasons.

And for you RocasAtoll...as is the case with Lily Allen's "Alright, Still". That's exactly why she's relevant.

That's my take on it.

And btw The Core...I actually had high hopes for you. I like how you managed to side step giving your opinion on the debate, and just threw another pot-shot at me with the 2-Pac reference. Typical.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
SO, how about instead of nitpicking and bringing up the crappiest arguments imaginable, you guys tell me what YOU think relevant music is.

I'll just do a quick review for some of those who are kinda slow of what mine is.

I’ll give some examples to be more clear. Again, I'm just looking at these artists according to my definition of being relevant. Go ahead and disagree with the definition itself...but if you start defending the individual examples then you're missing the point.

My Chemical Romance. Relevant? I'd say no.

-Not because they aren't a reflection of the times, but because they haven't made any significant contribution whatsoever to the art of music.

Tom Petty. Relevant? Again, I'd say no.

-Not because he doesn't make good music anymore, but because his sound is in no way pushing the musical envelope. I still think he makes quality music though.

M.I.A. - Relevant? Absolutely.

She's managed to reflect what's very "now" in her songs, and it's been done in a very innovative and fresh way musically. Her album "Arular" was a mega hit and critically praised for both those reasons. As is the case with Lily Allen's "Alright, Still".

Lily Allen isn't being innovative. Nothing she says is new, nothing she says hasn't been said before, so all she's doing is posing as some streetwise kid and telling you the obvious.

You say Tom Petty isn't relevant because he doesn't make good music, but you say Lily Allen is because she reflects the now, in ways that people (For some reason) think are innovative?

That's stupid. If relevance is reflecting the now, then anybody can do it, that is being relevant. Like being relevant to a debate is debating what's being discussed. It doesn't matter if you're innovative or not, what matters is the content.

You say My Chemical Romance aren't relevant based on the fact that they're not contributing anything in your eyes. How does that have anything to do with relevance? You are defining relevant in so many different ways so you can apply it to people you want to apply it to.

Then you seal your own fate by saying Lily Allen is relevant because she writes about "the now". Therefore, as I said, anybody can be. Innovation in doing so is not inherent to being relevant, it's just being relevant in a way that you don't find to be fresh or enjoyable.

Lily Allen singing about the war in her way, and Tom Petty doing it in an old style are still as relevant. You just prefer one expression over the other.

Tired of whooping you.

-AC

Can you guys believe this???...and this is what happens all the time with this guy...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You say Tom Petty isn't relevant because he doesn't make good music

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
-Not because he doesn't make good music anymore...I still think he makes quality music though.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Again, I'm just looking at these artists according to my definition of being relevant. Go ahead and disagree with the definition itself...but if you start defending the individual examples then you're missing the point.

AC...you are a phenomenon. Seriously

Go away...you're a child...no, no... yes you are.

It's truly a wonder to see that these guys are so whoopped up in a frenzy, that they don't even realize how confused they've made themselves.

I was asked to give a definition of "relevant", and since then it's basically been...

PROVE THAT LILY ALLEN ISN'T RICH!!!

ANGELS ISN'T A GOOD SONG!!!

RAGE AGINST THE MACHINE ARE SOCIALLY CONSCIOUS!!!

...as opposed to offering a different definition of "relevant" and not obsessing over why my self-contained examples don't work within my own criteria.

I'm going to REPEAT that again...

...as opposed to offering a different definition of "relevant" and not obsessing over why my self-contained examples don't work within my own criteria.

Can anyone take a guess as to why that hasn't happened???

...the term "rabid dogs" comes to mind.

Can you please stop panic posting? It's really sad.

Second, if you're going to pick and choose what parts to reply to, and then not even properly reply to the parts you pick, shut up and don't reply at all, because that's not debating.

Third: "-Not because he doesn't make good music anymore...I still think he makes quality music though.".

He doesn't make good music...but he still makes quality music? Read that back to yourself you retard.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
A really sad display of individual character…and a truly amazing display of the power of gang mentality working on the weak-minded.

Aww, I think you've made an erroneous self-description; you're not being 'weak-minded' in this discussion, you're just being idiotic. We are a gang, though; a gang of people who share the common bond of taking pleasure in exposing the idiocy of idiots. Idiotic idiots, we call them (you).

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I never said that actually. I was just talking about “relevancy”...you know…the point of the post. You wanna hear what I have to say about musical quality, read my defining segments in that “subjective good music?” thread.

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!

That's all very nice, but your original post's sole focus was on RATM's comeback being a waste of time because they are no longer 'relevant'. Despite the fallacy of this belief, you didn't mention anything about them being a great band, so it would appear that you base your judgement on a band's supposed 'relevancy'. Here's your original post again:

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
How much do you think what's happening here with these artists is that...

A) They're getting back together for the money

or

B) They are so lost with direction in their lives that the only thing they can do well and that brings them joy is to WANK out with their old band mates (who are most likely also in the same pathetic boat) and WANK out on their comfy old material.

Unfortunately...what the bands who reform aren't able to do well is write relevant music again. Sure they're gonna write "music"...and there's gonna be people who'll believe the hype, buy the albums, and go to the concerts...but again...It's all about having a clue...and if you have a clue...you know this is all just a joke.

Teehehe, it's kind of embarrassing to read, isn't it?

So, you see, if you make a silly 'point', and use incorrect criteria in your judgement, then people will call you on it. Just as we did here. Now, after a few posts berating you, you have tried to reconcile this original post by explaining yourself a little better than a 12 year old. If you had done this at the start we wouldn't have needed to state what we did. However, my dear, it is no 'win' for your poor soul because your original post already had you in deficit.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He doesn't make good music...but he still makes quality music? Read that back to yourself you retard.

...not because he doesn't make good music (meaning, my point isn't that he makes bad music...If you had anyidea of how to look at things in context - ESPECIALLY since my last example what the opposite of this one - then you would get what I was saying...and I added "he makes quality music" at the end just in case people like you wouldn't get it.

Solid!!

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
So, you see, if you make a silly 'point', and use incorrect criteria in your judgement, then people will call you on it...

What are you on about you strange, person?

Know when you've been schooled and be quiet!

I made a post about Rage not being able to make a decent comeback, and you ASSUMED I thought they were never a great band. Brilliant. Good work.

And then I made a second post with a completely different focus...you argued that post, and I schooled you.

Again, know when you're beat...and be quiet.

Now you're saying..."but from what I got from your first post...and then the second post...b-but the first post"

Are you serious? That's what you came back here to say?

Again...pathetic, weaselish, wanting to drag a point out of nothing.

Get real.

Hey here's an idea...

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I'm going to REPEAT that again...

...as opposed to offering a different definition of "relevant" and not obsessing over why my self-contained examples don't work within my own criteria.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
What are you on about you strange, person?

Know when you've been schooled and be quiet!

I made a post about Rage not being able to make a decent comeback, and you ASSUMED I thought they were never a great band. Brilliant. Good work.

Come on, little one! Surely even you can see where you're going wrong? The reasoning you used for saying they wouldn't make a decent comeback is because they weren't 'relevant' - here's that word again, 'relevant'. You based your whole ass(umption) on criteria that has no bearing - as you belatedly acknowledged - on musical quality. Please can you at least attempt to wind your neck in.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And then I made a second post with a completely different focus...you argued that post, and I schooled you.

Again, know when you're beat...and be quiet.

Now you're saying..."but from what I got from your first post...and then the second post...b-but the first post"

Are you serious? That's what you came back here to say?

Again...pathetic, weaselish, wanting to drag a point out of nothing.

Get real.

When you masturbate I bet you think of 'us' gang-banging you, don't you?

What's that? Huh? We just bukkaked all over you? Lick it up, special boy. We know that's what you're here for.