THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: dalconnsuch on 27 Jan 2008, 02:21

Title: mainstream bands
Post by: dalconnsuch on 27 Jan 2008, 02:21
my fave mainstream bands, yes i know their not independent, tragic, but its all for fun!
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Spinless on 27 Jan 2008, 05:16
My favourite bands who also happen to be very popular. Perhaps, they're popular because they're good? They weren't/are not independent, which means they're helping to fuel an industry that is, to be frank, filled with lowlifes, scum and sleaze. This is a terrible shame.

Tell me which you prefer! There could be some interesting results!
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Spinless on 27 Jan 2008, 05:18
The answer is clearly the Beatles. They didn't suck and they didn't re-unite!
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: amok on 27 Jan 2008, 05:21
I like how Rush is the only one capitalised so that you're subtly drawn to it

this poll is fixed I demand a recount vote al gore for my favourite mainstream band '08
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Thrillho on 27 Jan 2008, 05:31
my fave mainstream bands, yes i know their not independent, tragic, but its all for fun!

Ye gods! I cast thee OUT!

I think that a lot of QC's readers don't quite get that it pisstakes indie-only type people...
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: imapiratearg on 27 Jan 2008, 05:42
Quote from: from the poll, thing at the top.
what is your fave of my favorite mainstream bands?

I...don't care?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Spinless on 27 Jan 2008, 08:12
I'm tired of rather new people coming here and making this assumption that we're all a bunch of uptight-holier-than-thou-elitist-music-snob types.
Some of my favourite forumers here, who've been here long time also carry this misconception, and so they choose not to post in the music forum. This is a shame, there's a lot of intelligent people on the boards who's opinions on music I'd love to read. I don't give a crap about what they listen to, but I know they carry some very good opinions with them. I'll never get to read those because everybody thinks that the core of the music forums are indie-type hipster kids.

I'd like to take a moment to point out that the issue of elitism never comes up around here until some new person comes in and accuses the rest of us of this because we happen to disagree with him or her. That sort of thing is NOT welcome here. It's stated in the music forum description that you shouldn't be a dick about music. So don't be a dick about music.

Before you throw around explosive terms like 'hipster', 'snob', 'elitism...
...I want you to hold off posting for a few weeks. Observe the long time regulars. I mean REALLY observe them. One or two of them make fun of everybody, that's a given. Sometimes, it's funny. The vast majority do nothing but discuss the music they like. They will not make fun of you if you have no idea what they're talking about, they love to share. Even if they don't care for the things that you like, they would love to listen. So don't be afraid, just talk about music! Cut out all the bullshit!


So, this thread.

This is not me being elitist, this is not me being a snob. This thread sucks. It's a selfish thread. It's a thread about you. I don't understand why. What's more, you implied that the rest of us have a problem with bands that aren't independent. Take your prejudice elsewhere or get in line.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: jeph on 27 Jan 2008, 08:15
I think we can all agree that Rush are hilarious
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 27 Jan 2008, 08:29
I must say that after hanging around on an 'elitist' metal forum you guys are not elitist in the slightest.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Liz on 27 Jan 2008, 08:38
I abstained from voting because i am not really a big fan of any of them. I almost chose The Beatles because I have some of their stuff but I don't think I would actually call myself a fan. At the same time I do not claim to be an indie snob or something. I enjoy my fair share of mainstream stuff. Like Justin Timberlake. I don't care if you think he's silly because he was once in a boy band, his two solo CDs are friggin' fantastic.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: JackyL on 27 Jan 2008, 08:47
You can dump on Rush all you want guys, but they helped give birth to prog rock and you know it. I hope you can at least recognize their contribution to rock as a genera and their exceptional musicianship. As a bass player I feel totally comfortable citing Geddy Lee as the best bass/vocals in rock. His tone is impeccable and I love the emotion and meaning he puts into his lyrics. I don't think any rock musician should be able to look down on such exceptional song writing and musicianship simply because it isn't exactly to their taste.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: valley_parade on 27 Jan 2008, 08:59
Except that I don't care about prog rock in the slightest.


(this is the part where I stand up on a table and admit that I think Pink Floyd fucking suck).
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: JimmyJazz on 27 Jan 2008, 08:59
"WE ARE THE PRIESTS OF THE TEMPLE OF SYRINX!"

Wow, those are deep lyrics man. Myy mind is blown.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 27 Jan 2008, 09:10
I like rush. I don't particularly care for prog rock (I also think Pink Floyd aren't terrific) but I like rush.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 27 Jan 2008, 11:40
Quote
What is their contribution to rock? Dream Theatre? Coheed & Cambria?

I'm pretty sure their contribution to rock is their own music. But you may disagree.

Anyways, why the huge rush discussion?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Spinless on 27 Jan 2008, 11:46
What else are we supposed to talk about in this thread? Let's just see where the discussion takes us! Sit back and relax.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 27 Jan 2008, 11:59
I haven't and I won't. No music is above criticism.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: jeph on 27 Jan 2008, 13:31
I feel totally comfortable citing Geddy Lee as the best bass/vocals in rock.

Do you mean he's the best bassist AND vocalist? Or the best person to do both at once?

Singing and playing bass IS way harder than singing and playing guitar, I'll grant you that. But I find his vocals and bass tone incredibly grating.

I feel bad bagging on Rush because from everything I've read they're all really nice guys (with the possible exception of Neal Peart, but then again I hate anybody who takes Ayn Rand seriously). But yeah, I really do not enjoy their music.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 27 Jan 2008, 14:02
I'm tired of rather new people coming here and making this assumption that we're all a bunch of uptight-holier-than-thou-elitist-music-snob types.

This.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Alex C on 27 Jan 2008, 14:15
Agreed; I've never heard anything that implies Geddy Lee is a bad person, but man, do I hate XYZ.

Anyway, yeah, it must be really grating for the posters that have been around a long time to keep hearing the implication that they're really elitist, although in the case of this thread I think people are being perhaps a bit oversensitive; the OP doesn't seem really confrontational. That said, I've only been really heavily posting for the last month or two (I've been bored), and I've seen at least a half dozen rather backhanded posts implying such, so I understand how even the hint of such accusations can really touch a nerve at this point. But honestly, were I to post about Hall and Oates right now, there'd be some good natured snickering about mustaches, but that's hardly the same as people screeching like howler monkeys and throwing feces at me until I flee the forum.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 27 Jan 2008, 14:17
I'm a big fan of britney spears.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 27 Jan 2008, 14:43
But honestly, were I to post about Hall and Oates right now, there'd be some good natured snickering about mustaches

Not at all!  Hall and Oates did some great work in the 70s.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KvP on 27 Jan 2008, 14:51
Having listened to the radio a lot as a toddler, I have great memories of Hall & Oates. I don't care what anybody says, "I Can't Go For That (No Can Do)" is a ridiculously awesome song.

As for Rush, Geddy Lee is a pretty good bassist, I'll give him that, but his voice grates on my nerves. "Tom Sawyer" is still a pretty okay song.

Can't abide by Tool, though. I like Maynard's voice and all, but their "hardcore" fans are the worst idiots you will ever meet, aside from maybe Skinny Puppy fans. And the last 2 records have been utter shit.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 27 Jan 2008, 14:52
I feel totally comfortable citing Geddy Lee as the best bass/vocals in rock.

Do you mean he's the best bassist AND vocalist? Or the best person to do both at once?

Singing and playing bass IS way harder than singing and playing guitar, I'll grant you that. But I find his vocals and bass tone incredibly grating.

I feel bad bagging on Rush because from everything I've read they're all really nice guys (with the possible exception of Neal Peart, but then again I hate anybody who takes Ayn Rand seriously). But yeah, I really do not enjoy their music.
Why is it more difficult to do vocals and bass than guitar and bass? I am not being facetious, I really do want to know why, I would think it is easier, but then again, I have a guitarist's natural bias against bass.

Out of the choices listed, I am going to have to go with The Beatles.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: jeph on 27 Jan 2008, 14:57
For me, it was very difficult to try and do melody over root notes or fills that often had completely different rhythms and/or syncopations. For some reason playing guitar and singing was just a lot easier for me, back when I tried to sing.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 27 Jan 2008, 14:58
I uh, really don't appreciate Led Zepplin. In fact I cannot stand Led Zepplin. This isn't becase every 14 year old guy who is learning guitar buys a Led Zepplin shirt and it's not because they are mainstream because they are not anymore. I don't like them because I find their music has not aged well. What I'm sure was once relevant and inspiring has become stale and boring. I don't think it is cool to like old music simply for the sake of liking old music and honestly, in a lot of the people I see who prattle on about bands like Queen, Led Zepplin and INXS, that is why they say they like these bands, in a poseurish attempt to look cool. I am sure, and I would hope, that this is not always the case; merely what I have seen in my limited experience.
I can see the contribution that bands like Led Zepplin made. I am aware that if they didn't exist then a lot of the bands I really like wouldn't exist either (though if Led Zepplin didn't exist there is a good chance that Wolfmother wouldn't either and that would make me so happy). I am also aware that in the early days of psychiartry horrible things were done to people in the name of helping them. Pain was a necessary side-effect. I am not happy that those things happened nor do I approve of them but they were exceptionally influencial in gaining the knowledge we have today. That is basically how I feel about Led Zepplin.

I do however quite like the Beatles. I even like Tool, though they are incredibly self absorbed sometimes I quite like a lot of their songs.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 27 Jan 2008, 15:00
Do you mean he's the best bassist AND vocalist? Or the best person to do both at once?

Two words dude.  Two words.

KIP WINGER.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Scarychips on 27 Jan 2008, 15:00

Why is it more difficult to do vocals and bass than guitar and bass?

Find the error
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 27 Jan 2008, 15:04
Hmm... guess that is the best answer I am likely to get. Oh well, my singing voice and I aren't on too good terms anyway, I don't need to worry about it all that much. I will probably end up trying to sing at some point in the future, though, I will just have to hope that nobody with too sensitive ears it there when I do.

Bah, Scary, I am barely awake right now, just about every time I try to capitalize something, I have to go back and do it again because my left pinky finger is apparently asleep, and I capitalize a letter about three words down.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: jeph on 27 Jan 2008, 15:08

Why is it more difficult to do vocals and bass than guitar and bass?

Find the error

Boris?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 27 Jan 2008, 15:11
Either you are talking about a metal band or you are suggesting that I use a Russian that only barely fails to qualify as a mountain, and only communicates in growls to silence all criticism towards my posting. I like the latter one better.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 27 Jan 2008, 15:17
Boris are awesome.

Couldn't you have a guitar+Bass double neck instrument?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Scarychips on 27 Jan 2008, 15:20

Why is it more difficult to do vocals and bass than guitar and bass?

Find the error

Boris?

Takeshi can play guitar and bass at the same time?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 27 Jan 2008, 15:36
Boris are awesome.

Couldn't you have a guitar+Bass double neck instrument?

That's what the guy has (not the girl who does the lead guitar parts).

EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXr1nTsWKYk
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: RallyMonkey on 27 Jan 2008, 15:48
When does something count as mainstream?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Alex C on 27 Jan 2008, 15:48
Also, I'd take Phil Lynott over Geddy Lee when it comes to best "mainstream rock" bassist/vocalist hands down every time. I'm not what you'd call a big Thin Lizzy fan, but I think its hard to argue that Rush was the more influential band when you consider Thin Lizzy's use of galloping minor key rhythms and twin guitar leads married to rock melodies as early as the mid-70s. Meanwhile Rush has sterile production and too many drum solos. And hell, there's probably better choices than that, I'm just kind of too drunk to think of anyone else at the moment.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 27 Jan 2008, 15:50
Singing and playing bass IS way harder than singing and playing guitar, I'll grant you that.

I don't find it that tough, but then again I play in 4/4 almost exclusively.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 27 Jan 2008, 15:55
When does something count as mainstream?

When your mom knows what it is.

Seriously.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 27 Jan 2008, 15:59
I actually like quite a few Rush songs.  In most situations I would rather listen to them than Led Zeppelin.

I'd rather listen to any of Pink Floyd's first four albums than either, though.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 27 Jan 2008, 16:03
I would rather listen to the beatles.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Alex C on 27 Jan 2008, 16:06
I like When the Levy Breaks but that's about it. No complaints about Pink Floyd.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 27 Jan 2008, 16:06
For me, the Beatles get old pretty fast, aside from a few songs like "While My Guitar Gently Weeps".
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 27 Jan 2008, 16:13
Rush are the funniest band on the planet.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: GenericName on 27 Jan 2008, 16:20
"Tom Sawyer" is still a pretty okay song.

Wait, that's Rush? Whenever that comes on on Rock Band I just pretend it's a rare Led Zeppelin outtake so I can respect it slightly more.

Plus, it has to be done:
WHAT ABOUT THE VOICE OF GEDDY LEE? HOW DID IT GET SO HIGH? I WONDER IF HE SPEAKS LIKE AN ORDINARY GUY?
(I know him, and he does)

Actually, it didn't have to be done, but that song came up on shuffle as I was typing this.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 27 Jan 2008, 16:22
Coheed and Cambria are the funniest Rush cover band on the planet.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 27 Jan 2008, 16:29
Rush are the funniest band on the planet.
I dunno... Graveyard BBQ are pretty hard to beat for me.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: jeph on 27 Jan 2008, 16:31
Coheed and Cambria are the funniest Rush parody on the planet.

Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KvP on 27 Jan 2008, 17:33
In high school, I was in the library one day and there was this kid, you know those kids, with the expensive black hair? He was one of those kids. They always wore tight pants and overdesigned black hoodies. This particular one was wearing a Coheed and Cambria hoodie (he was also in a "hardcore" band called Love Letters Burn Red). So I asked him, "who the hell are Coheed and Cambria?" and he gave me a nasty look and said something like "fuck you man". So Coheed and Cambria has that going for them. True story.

Around that time I was going around uploading Musick to Play in the Dark onto every computer in the school, so at least I can say I had much better taste than him.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Uber Ritter on 27 Jan 2008, 17:44
Rush are amusing. I enjoy them on occasion.  I don't think they gave birth to prog, though, since they weren't making prog records when Yes and King Crimson whatnot were getting there start.  I mean, prog had mostly peaked by the late 70's anyway--mostly the old prog bands were in the process of making pop successes ala' "Owner of a Lonely Heart," by my understanding.

I can understand why people hate Pink Floyd.  They are either absurdly psychedelic and drawn-out (all their pre-Dark Side albums after Barret left, particularly all of Meddle and Wish You Were Here save the singles) or just kinda silly and arguably juvenile (the Wall).  Still, just because I can see where people are coming from doesn't mean I agree with them.  I know that the Beatles are arguably better (indeed, I think by most of my criteria other than "I like them more" they -are- better) but I voted Pink Floyd due to a partiality to Wish You Were Here.

Now that that's over with I think we should turn this thread into one about -our- favorite mainstream bands, partiularly contemporary ones.  I vote Queens of the Stone Age and The White Stripes for myself.



Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KvP on 27 Jan 2008, 17:57
Despite some willfully bad production on a few of their albums (haven't heard them all, so I can only say "a few"), I heartily enjoy Queens of the Stone Age. It's good road music.

They don't seem to be real popular around here, but I enjoy Nine Inch Nails. The lyrics are terrible and embarassing, but I've always liked the music, poppy as it is. And if I had never liked them, I probably would have never discovered Coil, Autechre or Squarepusher, who were all represented through Nothing, although they never actually released albums on that label. Still, I'll never really forgive Trent Reznor for unleashing Marilyn Manson on the world. That shit ain't cool.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 27 Jan 2008, 18:00
Marilyn Manson made at least two albums I enjoyed.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: costacide on 27 Jan 2008, 18:05
Where's the option for "none of them"?  Or at least Judas Priest?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 27 Jan 2008, 18:08
GET IN THE GROUND
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: imapiratearg on 27 Jan 2008, 18:11
You can dump on Rush all you want guys, but they helped give birth to prog rock and you know it.

Rush is R&B guys, not prog rock. (http://www.channelfrederator.com/methminute39/episode/TMM_20071011)

[Edited for clarity/consistency.]
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KvP on 27 Jan 2008, 18:19
Marilyn Manson made at least two albums I enjoyed.

Which ones? A lot of people seem to like everything up to Mechanical Animals. What I can't quite stand is MM's continued attempts to be David Bowie. It's a lot like watching My Chemical Romance trying to be Queen. It doesn't help that Chuck Klosterman seems to actually take this comparison seriously.

I get a good kick out of Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers every once in awhile.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 27 Jan 2008, 18:37
I thought Antichrist Superstar and Mechanical Animals were both very solid albums.

I seem to remember even liking Holy Wood the one or two times I listened to it.

Haven't heard anything he's done since then, but I've heard it goes way downhill from there.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: De_El on 27 Jan 2008, 18:48
I've a fancy for NIN and MM both.  NIN I like...most of, not a completist fanboy who has all the "Halos" but that said I'm only missing a few. Marilyn Manson I like pretty much all of until Holy Wood, and then I like certain songs off that and the next album.  The latest, Eat Me, Drink Me is laughable even by his standards.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KvP on 27 Jan 2008, 19:02
Yeah, I almost sort of liked Mechanical Animals. Antichrist Superstar I felt was a bit too sludgy for my tastes (much in the same way The Downward Spiral was) The consensus seems to be that after the failure of Holy Wood he kept trying to remake MA over and over again, a couple of times with that guy from KMFDM. The last one even tried at the new wave craze, which seemed to alienate even more people.

Anyway, I'm annoyed at him presently because he eliminated any chance of a Goon Moon tour by recruiting Twiggy back and he continues to prevent Chris Vrenna from making Tweaker records (they weren't bad, they weren't exactly good, but they had a spacey-ness to them I liked)

And besides, unless it's the 70s and you're David Bowie / Iggy Pop, you should not shave your eyebrows.

I've a fancy for NIN and MM both.  NIN I like...most of, not a completist fanboy who has all the "Halos" but that said I'm only missing a few. Marilyn Manson I like pretty much all of until Holy Wood, and then I like certain songs off that and the next album.  The latest, Eat Me, Drink Me is laughable even by his standards.
Most of the NIN singles and remix albums sucked. The exceptions being the Peter Christopherson / Danny Hyde work on the Broken and TDS remix albums. And the Aphex Twin stuff, of course.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: De_El on 27 Jan 2008, 19:12
NIN remix albums I have and actually enjoy: Fixed, Closer to God, Every Day Is Exactly the Same, Further Down the Spiral. And I have a UK import of the Head Like a Hole Single because some of the versions, (Opal) in particular, are more interesting than the album edit.  Oh, and The Perfect Drug Versions.

But pretty much all of them are hit and miss.

Also, you like NIN but not TDS? wtf.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Alex C on 27 Jan 2008, 19:18
I can admit to liking NIN; he has some fun beats and the production is consistently buffed to a glossy shine that suits things perfectly. Plus, I'm inherently incapable of taking music at face value so the lyrics don't bother me much since I always figured he was being about as sincere as Peter Steele.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KvP on 27 Jan 2008, 19:19
I like the more propulsive songs contained in the first half of the record, but the concept doesn't work for me and I don't care for the back half. "Big Man With a Gun" is just embarrassing. I much prefer the Fragile, even if it could use with less bloat.

What about Metallica? Does anybody think they can make another good album? They're currently on my shitlist for making randomized Rock Band playlists annoying. Although I suppose it's my own fault for downloading their song pack.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 27 Jan 2008, 19:21
Are you fucking kidding me?  Fixed is by far the best, and most truly industrial, thing to ever be associated with Trent Reznor, and the work that Foetus did on it was nothing less than fantastic.

Man, someone should put that EP in the Mediafire thread because I haven't seen a copy in a store in forever.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Spluff on 27 Jan 2008, 19:22
I believe that Metallica should just give up already. They're getting worse and worse - without the influence of Mustaine or Burton they just can't produce anything worthwhile.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KvP on 27 Jan 2008, 19:22
Hey, I liked Fixed. I'll see if I can't dig it up.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Beastmouth on 27 Jan 2008, 19:28
Wait wait wait, Metallica on a shitlist just for videogame stuff?  What about this whole internet thing?


Also, I'm listening to the Beatles atm, so...


And, if solo Beatles count, All Things Must Pass is way way up there for Best. Album. Ever.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KharBevNor on 27 Jan 2008, 19:34
NIN and Manson are both singles artists for me. A few good, fun tracks out of each of them, but I can't remember the last time I listened to a whole album of eithers work.

Quote
When your mom knows what it is.

My mums an old goth. What do I do?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 27 Jan 2008, 19:37
My mother doesn't know who Radiohead, The Killers, Interpol, Bright Eyes, or anything like that is.

So that definition fails.  Hard.

(My mother listens to Rascall Flatts.)
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 27 Jan 2008, 19:40
My mums an old goth. What do I do?

Drugs.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: De_El on 27 Jan 2008, 19:44
Man, someone should put that EP in the Mediafire thread because I haven't seen a copy in a store in forever.

I've got it on this comp, but the quality and relative volume are inconsistent. Some prick stole my copy two years ago and I had to retrieve it piecemeal.

to KVP: I can understand what you're saying about TDS, but don't agree (obv).  I even like "Big Man With Gun" provided it's within the context of the album.  
Also: Yes! I am glad someone else likes the Fragile.  I've heard tell of its bloatedness from other people, but not when actually listening to the record myself.  He cut so much from it to get it down to two discs, too; I'd pay for a compilation of those outtakes.  The only thing that brings it down is Starfuckers, because as far as I'm concerned that is the most bewilderingly out of place piece of shit he's ever written. It's excised from my playlist of the album.  

And I thought everyone gave up on Metallica after ...And Justice for All, and by that I mean after it, not including. That's a damn fine album.

Edit: My mom listens to Belle & Sebastian, Spoon, Shout Out Louds, Asobi Seksu and Andrew Bird. It's kind of exciting.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KvP on 27 Jan 2008, 19:56
A good number of Fragile outtakes made it onto that Saul Williams album that our Zerodrone loathes so passionately. I really liked them, even if the vocals got in the way. It's my hope that one of these days Reznor makes the instrumental tracks available, like he has with Year Zero and TDS. It doesn't look like he'll get The Fragile out in instrumental form, which is a shame.

My mom listens to Willie Nelson and Manheim Steamroller and she thinks jazz is garbage. Southern women, I suppose.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: imapiratearg on 27 Jan 2008, 19:57
I'm digging your avatar, Johnny.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 27 Jan 2008, 20:08
I like the "quiet" disc of The Fragile.

I haven't felt compelled to listen to The Downward Spiral since about a year after it came out.  Maybe it was because I was kind of a snob about my industrial music back then combined with what are, in retrospect, just plain stupid lyrics.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 27 Jan 2008, 20:14
I'm digging your avatar, Johnny.

Man, I love The Meth Minute 39.

Quote
i have a problem with people talkin out of line unless i have fornicated with them. unless you wanna do that, then you should not talk anymore, okay?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: De_El on 27 Jan 2008, 20:15
Never until I was told they were stupid did I really think to criticize Trent Reznor's lyrics. Something about NIN's role in my childhood must have prevented me from thinking about them.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Thrillho on 27 Jan 2008, 20:17
(all their pre-Dark Side albums after Barret left, particularly all of Meddle and Wish You Were Here save the singles) or just kinda silly and arguably juvenile (the Wall).

...those singles being... 'Money,' that being the only single they released between 1968 and 1979?

As for NIN, I'd say NIN count as the modern era Pink Floyd - actually that's a lie. What I really mean is that The Fragile is the 1990s Wall.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: MadassAlex on 27 Jan 2008, 20:39
I must say that after hanging around on an 'elitist' metal forum you guys are not elitist in the slightest.

I never really got why people seem to think that metal is an elitist culture tbh.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 27 Jan 2008, 20:52
I never really got why people seem to think that metal is an elitist culture tbh.

A couple months ago:

Me:  (Calls up a local metal show on the college station)  "Can you play some Boris, Pelican, or Isis?"
DJ: "I don't play any of that arty shit."
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: RedLion on 27 Jan 2008, 20:55
It's funny how people think themselves somehow cool or different for not being into the bands listed in that poll (I'm not very big into Tool. Or Rush, apart from YYZ, but hey.)

Whether you like it or not, without Floyd, The Beatles and Zeppelin, none of "your" music would exist. Each one of those bands accomplished more in each one of their albums individually than any indie artist nowadays accomplishes in a lifetime of work. And I love Indie. But it's just a fact. Deal with it.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KvP on 27 Jan 2008, 20:59
Up on your high horse, ain't you?

And I don't know, I'd be surprised if Boris didn't develop outside the influence of Zeppelin or Floyd.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Spluff on 27 Jan 2008, 21:10
I must say that after hanging around on an 'elitist' metal forum you guys are not elitist in the slightest.

I never really got why people seem to think that metal is an elitist culture tbh.

It depends how far into it you get. There are some pretty hardcore elitist black metal (or whatever, it happens it pretty much any genre) listeners out there, who hate everything that has more than say a thousand listeners, or call anything that has any kind of other influence than pure metal 'sold out'.

But generally we're just elitist towards metalcore and nu metal, lol.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 27 Jan 2008, 21:20
It's funny how people think themselves somehow cool or different for not being into the bands listed in that poll (I'm not very big into Tool. Or Rush, apart from YYZ, but hey.)

Whether you like it or not, without Floyd, The Beatles and Zeppelin, none of "your" music would exist. Each one of those bands accomplished more in each one of their albums individually than any indie artist nowadays accomplishes in a lifetime of work. And I love Indie. But it's just a fact. Deal with it.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU, YOU FUCKING.... FUCK!!!!!!!

Sorry.  Got carried away.  BUT SERIOUSLY, TELL ME THIS IS A JOKE POST!!!!!
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: doki on 27 Jan 2008, 22:03
hey, is it just me, or more and more threads devoted to causing/encoraging flamewars popping up now?

i mean that seems to be the entire point here.  its like if i posted "I hate Nintendo" in the games forum.  the only purpose that serves is to piss people off, and im seeing a fair bit of it here
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: MadassAlex on 27 Jan 2008, 22:06
A couple months ago:

Me:  (Calls up a local metal show on the college station)  "Can you play some Boris, Pelican, or Isis?"
DJ: "I don't play any of that arty shit."



That isn't as elitist as it is stubborn, stupid and close-minded.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KvP on 27 Jan 2008, 22:24
What is elitism to you if not stubborn, stupid and close-minded?

Also, on a lighter note, revisiting great / awful prog album covers with the AV Club (http://www.avclub.com/content/feature/decorate_thine_facade_with).
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 27 Jan 2008, 23:06
Each one of those bands accomplished more in each one of their albums individually than any indie artist nowadays accomplishes in a lifetime of work.

No band is untouchable.

Famously, this board decided two years ago that Joy Division was superior to The Beatles (http://www.quiki.net/wiki/Battle_of_teh_bands). There aren't a lot of sacred cows here.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: MadassAlex on 28 Jan 2008, 00:11
What is elitism to you if not stubborn, stupid and close-minded?

Good, honest, true elitism is well informed, considered and open-minded.

It's like actually listening to MCR and reading their lyrics before declaring that they're shit, for example.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: E. Spaceman on 28 Jan 2008, 00:12
I like New Order better than Joy Division! true story!


anyway, let's see. I really like the Beatles and will make no attempt to talk about that.


Led Zeppelin, I really love the first two albums, almost back to back. Zeppelin at that point was just really 4 guys who rocked the fuck out, stoner worship and songs about bilbo would come later. III is neat but also kind of patchy. Physical Graffitti is probably the best album they ever did though. The other albums i can live without ever listening to.


Pink Floyd, I also really like some of their stuff. Piper... and associated singles are all quite neat but really sound nothing like the rest of the stuff. I especially like the period that involved making longass songs, specially Meddle, although the OST for More is also quite neat! DSOTM i used to love but now i am not really keen on it, overplayed by me i think. WYWH is neat but has stuff i don't care about and then the rest were all just overwrought shit.


Rush: Sucks in every conceivable way that is not an awesome Futurama quote

Tool: Is tool, sucks more than Rush




Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 28 Jan 2008, 01:23
When I bought Dark Side of the Moon, at first I thought the CD was broken because I didn't hear anything for the first 30-40 seconds. I hadn't been looking for it specifically, so I didn't know about the heartbeat intro thing.

Modern Mainstream? I have to admit that I have a bit of a soft spot for Alter Bridge, yes, it is the musicians of Creed with a different singer, but it seems like the guitarist at least is trying to get better. And Velvet Revolver is good too. No disagreement shall be allowed, enforced by flying biker monkeys.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 28 Jan 2008, 02:54
Deciding that Joy Division is better than the Beatles isn't all that radical.

Deciding that the Olivia Tremor Control is better than the Beatles, now, that might be a little more interesting.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: gardenhead_ on 28 Jan 2008, 04:34
It's funny how people think themselves somehow cool or different for not being into the bands listed in that poll (I'm not very big into Tool. Or Rush, apart from YYZ, but hey.)

Whether you like it or not, without Floyd, The Beatles and Zeppelin, none of "your" music would exist. Each one of those bands accomplished more in each one of their albums individually than any indie artist nowadays accomplishes in a lifetime of work. And I love Indie. But it's just a fact. Deal with it.
Why does it matter how much a band has accomplished? If their music is shitty there's no reason to like it.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Alex C on 28 Jan 2008, 06:22
I dunno, Velvet Revolver just isn't doing it for me, although I haven't really heard anything but their singles. I wouldn't call them bad, by any means, they just can't really command my undivided attention, which isn't a great sign considering they ostensibly exist to rock out.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: valley_parade on 28 Jan 2008, 06:25
(not the girl who does the lead guitar parts).


Wata is fucking great.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: jeph on 28 Jan 2008, 06:39
Each one of those bands accomplished more in each one of their albums individually than any indie artist nowadays accomplishes in a lifetime of work. And I love Indie. But it's just a fact. Deal with it.

Uh, no. That by definition is NOT a fact, it is a subjective value judgement.

I suggest you lurk moar before trying to argue with the grownups.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Ben yayayayayayayay on 28 Jan 2008, 06:42
Deciding that the Olivia Tremor Control is better than the Beatles, now, that might be a little more interesting.

I guess I'm pretty interesting, then  :-P
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: the-artful-dodger-rodger on 28 Jan 2008, 06:43
so liking mainstream bands is ok, thats fine by me, since I like alot mainstream bands.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 28 Jan 2008, 06:47
I guess I'm pretty interesting, then  :-P

No, I agree that Olivia Tremor Control is more enjoyable than the Beatles, but there are people who have this crazy idea that it's impossible to think the band that "did it first" is worse than the band who "came along and did it better".

Now I will say something controversial that I honestly believe!

She Wants Revenge are more enjoyable than New Order.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: McTaggart on 28 Jan 2008, 07:27
The bolded white symbolises all the crack he's smoking.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Thrillho on 28 Jan 2008, 07:33
It's funny how people think themselves somehow cool or different for not being into the bands listed in that poll (I'm not very big into Tool. Or Rush, apart from YYZ, but hey.)

Whether you like it or not, without Floyd, The Beatles and Zeppelin, none of "your" music would exist. Each one of those bands accomplished more in each one of their albums individually than any indie artist nowadays accomplishes in a lifetime of work. And I love Indie. But it's just a fact. Deal with it.

Bro, did you actually read the damn thread?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: McTaggart on 28 Jan 2008, 07:45
Something possibly controversial that I really believe:

None of the op's favourite bands are as enjoyable as Fleetwood Mac.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Beastmouth on 28 Jan 2008, 08:05
Also, Rush suck something fierce this century. 

I remember about four years ago, I'd run by the music store and was chatting with a friend of mine when somebody comes in from the radio station or the promoters with a stack of Rush tickets to give away.  I think the number was 60, but it could have been just fiftyodd.  I took 4 because I'd go, and *surely* I could find 3 friends that wanted to go to a free concert.  I mean, yeah, Rush were always kinda nerdy and Geddy sings girlier than a girl, but they can play, right?  Well, all my friends are busy, but one friend knows some kid who digs the band, so I call him up and he's like, -Hell, yeah, free Rush!

So we get to the show, and it's okay.  And then it gets to be ooo kaaay.  And then we're turning to each other like, wow, they don't have it anymore.  Complete agreement with the whole crowd, no one seems to be having any fun at all.  I make the suggestion that we leave during 'Natural Order', and we're on the highway before they're done with the song (it doesn't hurt that it's ten minutes long).  We'd barely stayed an hour of what I later heard was a two hour and a half show.  And 'Natural Order' was my favorite Rush song. 
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: TrialAndTerror on 28 Jan 2008, 08:07
These bands are all OLD, and therefore irrelevant. Things have progressed.

Question: Who are Rush? No-one has heard of this band, I think you guys made them up to make fun of Coheed and Cambria fans.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Beastmouth on 28 Jan 2008, 08:08
These bands are all OLD, and therefore irrelevant. Things have progressed.

Question: Who are Rush? No-one has heard of this band, I think you guys made them up to make fun of Coheed and Cambria fans.
Man, I got away without knowing Coheed & Cambria existed until I worked at the CD booklet factory.  Thanks for reminding me of one more way that place sucked.  :/
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: TrialAndTerror on 28 Jan 2008, 08:18
Now you're just teasing me! Who are Rush? Where are they hiding? What are they plotting? Where is the bomb?!
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 28 Jan 2008, 08:23
None of the op's favourite bands are as enjoyable as Fleetwood Mac.

In your DREAMS.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KickThatBathProf on 28 Jan 2008, 08:33
Now I will say something controversial that I honestly believe!

She Wants Revenge are more enjoyable than New Order.


I also believe this, but my roommate also believes this way too much.

He actually enjoys listening to She Wants Revenge on a regular basis.

Ironically, he also listens to Freezepop on a regular basis.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: dalconnsuch on 28 Jan 2008, 08:42
Quote from: from the poll, thing at the top.
what is your fave of my favorite mainstream bands?

I...don't care?


i ... don't care if you don't care, its just for fun, relax woman, the world will still be indie-ruled by the end of the day no matter what th eresponse is here
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: dalconnsuch on 28 Jan 2008, 08:43
I'm tired of rather new people coming here and making this assumption that we're all a bunch of uptight-holier-than-thou-elitist-music-snob types.
Some of my favourite forumers here, who've been here long time also carry this misconception, and so they choose not to post in the music forum. This is a shame, there's a lot of intelligent people on the boards who's opinions on music I'd love to read. I don't give a crap about what they listen to, but I know they carry some very good opinions with them. I'll never get to read those because everybody thinks that the core of the music forums are indie-type hipster kids.

I'd like to take a moment to point out that the issue of elitism never comes up around here until some new person comes in and accuses the rest of us of this because we happen to disagree with him or her. That sort of thing is NOT welcome here. It's stated in the music forum description that you shouldn't be a dick about music. So don't be a dick about music.

Before you throw around explosive terms like 'hipster', 'snob', 'elitism...
...I want you to hold off posting for a few weeks. Observe the long time regulars. I mean REALLY observe them. One or two of them make fun of everybody, that's a given. Sometimes, it's funny. The vast majority do nothing but discuss the music they like. They will not make fun of you if you have no idea what they're talking about, they love to share. Even if they don't care for the things that you like, they would love to listen. So don't be afraid, just talk about music! Cut out all the bullshit!


So, this thread.

This is not me being elitist, this is not me being a snob. This thread sucks. It's a selfish thread. It's a thread about you. I don't understand why. What's more, you implied that the rest of us have a problem with bands that aren't independent. Take your prejudice elsewhere or get in line.


obviously with this post you ARE holier than though and a snob and being quite selfish

thsi this is for fun, lighten up
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: a pack of wolves on 28 Jan 2008, 08:46
You do realise you basically just said 'I know you are, you said you are, but what am I'?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 28 Jan 2008, 08:46
I honestly like She Wants Revenge, something I cannot say for New Order.  And I am a huge fag for Joy Division so no one start with me on how liking one should logically lead to liking the other.

The thing about She Wants Revenge is, besides the fact that their music is genuinely catchy, their songs are such perfectly-done paint-by-post-punk numbers that there is literally no way they are taking themselves seriously.  I mean, have you heard the new album?  It's almost literally the exact same album as the first, including the obligatory "this is a song about how cool it is to be at a club and check out a chick and dance with her".

This is a band who have lyrics like:

I heard it's cold out
but her popsicle melts.
She's in the bathroom
she pleasures herself.


There is no more sublime parody than that which perfectly imitates.  She Wants Revenge are the logical extension of Trans Am's horribly underrated album TA.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: dalconnsuch on 28 Jan 2008, 08:48
You do realise you basically just said 'I know you are, you said you are, but what am I'?


yes i know :D but as childish as it is like i said, just for fun! his opinions his opinion and not gonna get upset about that :P
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: pinkpiche on 28 Jan 2008, 08:50
People can take anything seriously. Which is horrifying.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 28 Jan 2008, 10:00
I think his argument is the same that we use for Complete, except extended towards one of the worst bands I can think of.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KharBevNor on 28 Jan 2008, 10:13
Man, guys, don't bitch about metal elitism. At least not in the sense of someone not wanting to play Pelican on a metal show. There are definitely times when metal elitism becomes utterly ridiculous and stagnatory (Just look how boring black metal was in the late 90's) but it comes from a very understandable place. It's a natural reaction to people who have no fucking idea what the hell metal is about trying to invade our subculture all the fucking time. Whether its teens at one end who think that Coalchamber and KoRn are metal, or hipsters at the other end who think they're diverse because they listen to things like The Sword and Goblin Cock, which is pretty much the equivalent of me saying I'm into rap because I like a couple of Goldie Lookin' Chain songs. Yeah, maybe you like to sneer at the excesses of metal fandom, and call it staid, conservative, elitist, whatever, but there's a lot of people out there, me included, who really fucking enjoy metal and the experiences associated with it. It is, after all, our fucking subculture. We're the ones who made it up, and we're the ones who keep it going. If you're not a metalhead, you don't even have the right to moan about some DJ refusing to play Isis or whatever.

All those bands you mentioned suck anyway. Good call, mr. Metal DJ!
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 28 Jan 2008, 11:18
All those bands you mentioned suck anyway. Good call, mr. Metal DJ!

Including Boris.

Including Boris.

Metal elitism is awesome because it's so wildly inconsistent from one metalhead to the next. It's stupid bullshit though, just like any other form of musical elitism, and calling it a "natural reaction" makes it even less justifiable. Never mind that you've set up strawmen who think metal is just The Sword and Goblin Cock - people on this forum listen to everything from Burzum to Neurosis to Nevermore to Jesu to Priest, largely of their own accord. I'll be the first to admit that this forum is somewhat of an anomaly but still. There's a difference between being protective of the culture you've established and being a dick who goes "BAWWWWWWWWWWW" the second someone else likes a certain set of bands who fit within a given genre.

I'll be blunter than I've been in a while and say that if that's the presiding attitude towards outsiders discovering metal, then metalheads need to collectively grow up.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: amok on 28 Jan 2008, 11:19
Famously, this board decided two years ago that Joy Division was superior to The Beatles (http://www.quiki.net/wiki/Battle_of_teh_bands).

This seriously took until 2006 to figure out?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 28 Jan 2008, 11:20
Well, it was the first time it was organized.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 28 Jan 2008, 11:24
Metal elitism can be taken to ridiculous extremes, but c'mon, what do you think the reaction to kids saying marilyn manson and slipknot are metal is gonna be?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Joseph on 28 Jan 2008, 11:26
So I heard this great new indie band on the radio today.  The Killers, I think they were called.  What would be a good album to start with?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Joseph on 28 Jan 2008, 11:27
I also heard this one Panic! At the Disco song.  What other emo bands are good?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 28 Jan 2008, 11:30
I would recommend the killers album 'hot fuss'-It has most of their singles on it.

Bands similiar to panic! at the disco? Well, fall out boy instantly spring to mind. Hawthorne heights?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: valley_parade on 28 Jan 2008, 11:31
All those bands you mentioned suck anyway. Good call, mr. Metal DJ!

Including Boris.

Including Boris.

I'm not even sure I'd consider Boris "metal" as much as I would "drone band that can FUCKING RAWK".
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 28 Jan 2008, 11:35
I can do nothing but agree with that statement. Boris do fucking rock.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: amok on 28 Jan 2008, 11:36
I also heard this one Panic! At the Disco song.  What other emo bands are good?

there's this band called Funeral For A Friend they're like old school emo I guess maybe check them out
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: valley_parade on 28 Jan 2008, 11:37
From Autumn To Ashes amirite?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 28 Jan 2008, 11:41
Yes they are all old school emocore. And tehre is always taking back sunday, but they are quite obscure.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: amok on 28 Jan 2008, 11:42
And tehre is always taking back sunday, but they are quite obscure.

man I was into taking back sunday back in the good ol days when they had a mere 10 million fans and only 1 video on mtv

who wants to touch me
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: valley_parade on 28 Jan 2008, 11:46
Queue forms behind me, people.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 28 Jan 2008, 11:51
I'm not even sure I'd consider Boris "metal" as much as I would "drone band that can FUCKING RAWK".

Nothing rocks harder (http://www.channelfrederator.com/methminute39/episode/TMM_20071011).
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 28 Jan 2008, 11:53
Metal has many characteristics.

man I was into taking back sunday back in the good ol days when they had a mere 10 million fans and only 1 video on mtv (http://man I was into taking back sunday back in the good ol days when they had a mere 10 million fans and only 1 video on mtv)

That's still pretty popular.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 28 Jan 2008, 11:55
Sometimes I read your posts and wonder if Kieffer is playing an elaborate prank on us.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 28 Jan 2008, 11:55
 :? Who is kieffer?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: amok on 28 Jan 2008, 11:55
That's still pretty popular.

this guy can see right through me like woah
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: ledhendrix on 28 Jan 2008, 12:04
Nothing gets past him. Nothing
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KharBevNor on 28 Jan 2008, 12:15
some stuff

1) When did I say I was talking about anyone on this forum? Did I? I don't think I did!
2) The issue is absolutely not about outsiders trying to discover metal. The issue is about outsiders attempting to define what metal is. If you can't see the difference, then that's your problem.
3) Hyperbole dude. That Boris/Merzbow split was one of my end of year top 10s back in 2006. However, Boris aren't really metal. This is not to denigrate them in any way at all, but it's the truth. Theres metal involved, but I wouldn't say that was their essence. Doom, drone and sludge exist as fairly well defined genres outside of the overall metal scene. Certainly, they're not mainstream metal, and there's no reason to assume that the average metalhead would even appreciate them. Hell, I barely ever listen to them. Pelican, however, really do suck, and Isis are studiously mediocre.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 28 Jan 2008, 12:18
I seem to be sensing some sort of underlying humorous current directed towards ridiculing someone.

But I may be wrong.

Nevertheless, the post where this thread became silly:

Quote
my fave mainstream bands, yes i know their not independent, tragic, but its all for fun!


@Kharbevnor; I agree with point two and parts of point two..Not the last sentence however.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: imapiratearg on 28 Jan 2008, 12:56
Quote from: from the poll, thing at the top.
what is your fave of my favorite mainstream bands?

I...don't care?


i ... don't care if you don't care, its just for fun, relax woman, the world will still be indie-ruled by the end of the day no matter what th eresponse is here

Alright, my turn:

I like various kinds of music, some of my favorite bands are:

The Weakerthans, Yo La Tengo, Dinosaur Jr., Sonic Youth, Explosions in the Sky, and Built to Spill.

What is everyone's favorite out of all of them?

INFLATE MY EGO, NOW, PEOPLE!
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: amok on 28 Jan 2008, 12:59
at some stage during this thread people started to be silly.

See if you can pinpoint the specific post!

You can dump on Rush all you want guys, but they helped give birth to prog rock and you know it. I hope you can at least recognize their contribution to rock as a genera and their exceptional musicianship. As a bass player I feel totally comfortable citing Geddy Lee as the best bass/vocals in rock. His tone is impeccable and I love the emotion and meaning he puts into his lyrics. I don't think any rock musician should be able to look down on such exceptional song writing and musicianship simply because it isn't exactly to their taste.

rock as a genera, man.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Beastmouth on 28 Jan 2008, 13:52
None of the op's favourite bands are as enjoyable as Fleetwood Mac.

In your DREAMS.
Peter Green's twice the guitarist Jimmy Page could ever be. 
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Beastmouth on 28 Jan 2008, 13:57
Quote from: from the poll, thing at the top.
what is your fave of my favorite mainstream bands?

I...don't care?


i ... don't care if you don't care, its just for fun, relax woman, the world will still be indie-ruled by the end of the day no matter what th eresponse is here

Alright, my turn:

I like various kinds of music, some of my favorite bands are:

The Weakerthans, Yo La Tengo, Dinosaur Jr., Sonic Youth, Explosions in the Sky, and Built to Spill.

What is everyone's favorite out of all of them?

INFLATE MY EGO, NOW, PEOPLE!
I really dig Dino Jr but I think I'll have to quit liking them sometime so I don't go deaf.
Also SY are nice but Yo La 4L
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: a pack of wolves on 28 Jan 2008, 14:04
Doom, drone and sludge exist as fairly well defined genres outside of the overall metal scene.

Really? Drone's really a whole different thing to metal and sludge often has roots in punk but I always thought of doom as being, well, metal. Not one of the more popular styles, certainly, but no more outside of it than black metal for example. What is it that makes doom so separated in your opinion?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KvP on 28 Jan 2008, 14:23
Wait, wait, gah. Nevermind.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 28 Jan 2008, 14:55
Well, this thread took a bit of a nosedive while I took a nap.

I think metal elitism, or at least metal exclusionism, is illustrated well by the kind of statement Khar made, and many other people make about other genres, "Well, sure, band X have elements of genre Y, but that doesn't mean they're part of it..."

Basically I just hate micro-management of genres.  I eagerly await the day when every band is its own genre.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 28 Jan 2008, 15:22
Who knows, every band may end up as exactly the same genre.

Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Joseph on 28 Jan 2008, 15:32
What was up with people actually answering my questions?  This thread only confuses me now.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 28 Jan 2008, 15:34
response!

1) I was using this forum more as an example - once again, it's a tiny gold nugget in the Internet's constant shitstream, but I was using it to prove a point. There are very few people who define metal as Goblin Cock exclusively, and those people are clear beginners to the genre at any rate, so it seems counter to your argument that it's not about outsiders discovering metal to suggest that they present any issue other than being neophytes.
2) See above, mostly. Plus, we've had similar conversations about the definition of pop and the best we can come to is "it's a nebulous genre and encompasses." What makes metal different, especially when it has more subgenres than you can shake a broadsword at?
3) Oh now come on. Garage does pretty well for itself but I wouldn't place it outside of rock. New wave did pretty brisk business in the eighties but I wouldn't for one second suggest it's entirely separate from pop. Once again, what makes metal different?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 28 Jan 2008, 15:36
It confuses me that I'm supposed to "know" that there is a certain narrowly-defined list of bands I can call a college radio show and request.  It's not like I called and requested Def Leppard.  Or Belle and Sebastian.  I requested three bands which are heavy and which a lot of metal fans, especially metal fans who are likely to be listening to a college radio station, could conceivably like.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 28 Jan 2008, 15:38
Quote
Once again, what makes metal different?

I would say its many splinterous subgenres, and the fact that a lot of it sounds a hell of a lot different.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 28 Jan 2008, 15:40
The point is that you can say that about any and every genre, dude.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 28 Jan 2008, 15:46
I would say its many splinterous subgenres, and the fact that a lot of it sounds a hell of a lot different.

So Wax Mannequin sounds the same as The New Year?

Get outta town!
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 28 Jan 2008, 15:49
Also Pink Floyd and AC/DC totally sound identical.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Joseph on 28 Jan 2008, 16:06
Also, Fall Out Boy and Panic! At The Disco.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: dalconnsuch on 28 Jan 2008, 16:09
Also, Fall Out Boy and Panic! At The Disco.


fall out boy is the single most technical and musical band ever, complex time signatures and the like!
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: sean on 28 Jan 2008, 16:13
Please guys, if we're talking about technical complexity, Nickelback takes the cake.

I mean, I've tried playing their songs. Do you know how hard it is to make the same three power chords in not one, but two songs?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Kai on 28 Jan 2008, 16:23
Nickelback is an exercise in minimalism.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: GenericName on 28 Jan 2008, 17:02
Guys, it's things such as Nickelback that discourage my guitar playing.

I mean, if I tried to play a Nickelback song my guitar would get so bored it would start to gently weep. And then it's a completely different song!
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: imapiratearg on 28 Jan 2008, 17:10
Nickelback is an exercise in minimalism.

Nickleback is an exercise in everything that is glorious about music.  For real, dudes.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 28 Jan 2008, 17:31
Nickelback is what you get if you take AC/DC, get rid of the high-pitched singers, and remove everything that could conceivably be considered "fun" about it.

I am sorry, but they don't have a 50-year-old man jumping around in a schoolboy outfit, that instantly loses them quite a few points.

And thanks generic, now I am going to have to listen to that song, while being angry at myself for not knowing how to play it.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: GenericName on 28 Jan 2008, 17:35
Oh, I can't play it either. That makes it even more horrible.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 28 Jan 2008, 17:37
Curse you Clapton... Curse youuu!
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: MadassAlex on 28 Jan 2008, 17:46
My thoughts on metal elitism:

I personally believe it's justifiable due to the huge amount of controversy, ignorance and close-mindedness surrounding metal since its creation and up until today. But mainly the 90s. I mean, come the fuck on:

- Grunge basically killed metal in the mainstream. Even though hair metal needed to be culled, it also meant that the thrash metal that was gaining popularity took a nosedive, too.

- Chuck Schuldiner gets a brain tumor.  :cry:

- Nu-metal. 'Nuff said.

- Church burnings

How do I explain this? Think of it this way:

Your favourite art form is butchered beyond recognition in the form of shitty glam metal. Both your favourite genre and its bastard child are then killed off by a grunge band trying to be pop, only to be resurrected even MORE mutilated with bands like Limp Bizkit and Linkin Park. To make matters worse, Metallica, Megadeth and Slayer sell out. To a metalhead at the time, those bands were supposed to be showing the mainstream how much metal kicked ass, but instead we got things like Load and Risk.
To make things worse, a certain small amount of metalheads in Norway were fucking around with churches, making the lot of us look bad and Chuck Schuldiner's death was basically confirmed. Any way you slice it, not a happy time for metal.
I believe it was chiefly this that bred the elitism and exclusivity in metal. If you didn't know your stuff or you weren't willing to learn, you were laughable but moreover you were something of an enemy because you're exactly the kind of person that contributed to the stuff in the first subparagraph of this motherfucker. It's not like metalheads in general had anything against casual listeners of metal, they just had something against casual listeners to claimed to be metalheads. And it's still that way.
For a good reason.
Because of Trivium and Arch Enemy and Slipknot and their fans, as those bands and their fans tend to miss the point entirely. Because if you're not death metal, black metal or germanic thrash then the brutality of your vocals doesn't matter, because down-tuning doesn't automatically make you heavy and because chugging isn't enough. If you want to be metal, then you have to write music that's heavy irrespective of those things, and if you can't then you've missed something along the way. Think about it. Deathklok is a motherfucking joke band and they're heavier than just about any reasonably popular metal band outside of metal circles.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is a shitton of poseur-metal and poseur-metalheads out there. And we see them and leave them be, but if they're going to spout nonsense then we're going to correct them. That's the fucking long and short of it, ladies and gentlemen; your average, learned-in-metal metalhead is a self-righteous asshole who has every right to be self-righteous because so many people spout stupid bullshit about metal.
Anyway, the tl;dr version is this:

Metalheads are elitist because there's a surprisingly high amount of people who claim to know about metal who actually don't but insist they do.

Au revoir, I'm off to wipe Synyster Gates off my hitlist.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 28 Jan 2008, 17:54
But the exact same argument could be used to defend "indie elitism" or "rock elitism" or "rap elitism", since all genres have at some point been bastardised and all genres have people who talk as if they know about them when they don't.

I think metalheads are more blatant in their elitism because they don't get laid enough.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: MadassAlex on 28 Jan 2008, 18:05
Metal has very specific parameters, but it's also very broad.

Personally, I think "rock elitism" for example is right out as "rock" can mean so many things. "Rap elitism" and "indie elitism" are far more believable and the second one could even be considered common.

Oh, and there's the fact that metal has a reputation as idiotic and devolved. I mean, seriously, what the hell.

But I basically justified by saying that metal is so exclusive because its essence has been torn out about three different times in different ways in the mainstream.

That radio dude was still wrong though because Isis and Pelican are great.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Spluff on 28 Jan 2008, 18:08
Why is Arch Enemy being lumped into the same category as Trivium and Slipknot? Arch Enemy are (were?) a perfectly good band.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: MadassAlex on 28 Jan 2008, 18:16
Because they seem to think that downtuning to C makes them automatically heavy, when it fact they're just recycling Megadeth riffs. And in this case the downtuning won't help because some riffs are just heavier higher up.
That said, I admit that the guitarists are incredibly technically skilled.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 28 Jan 2008, 18:27
I have read plenty of metalheads saying that metal is the genre closest to classical music, never seen a classical listener say that, but I don't read classical music forums all that much. "Have you heard the new Bach?" "No." "Why not?" "He is dead, dumbass."
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Beastmouth on 28 Jan 2008, 19:13
I have read plenty of metalheads saying that metal is the genre closest to classical music, never seen a classical listener say that, but I don't read classical music forums all that much. "Have you heard the new Bach?" "No." "Why not?" "He is dead, dumbass."
Because all performers make the same record of it.  :roll:

And metal isn't classical; it's baroque.  <__</
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 28 Jan 2008, 19:17
Covers don't count as new. Remixes don't either.

Baroque... isn't that the really cheery stuff with violins? I don't listen to classical/romantic/baroque music, nothing against it though.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Beastmouth on 28 Jan 2008, 19:25
Covers don't count as new. Remixes don't either.
Really, don't do this.  The aesthetic reasons people play centuries-old masterpieces are quite different than the reasons someone mashes up the Beatles with whomever.  Cover is such a poor fit it's like y're speaking another language.

Quote
Baroque... isn't that the really cheery stuff with violins? I don't listen to classical/romantic/baroque music, nothing against it though.
Baroque, from a Portuguese word meaning 'crappy little pearl', was a term applied after the fact to a lot of music from the 17th and early 18th centuries.  It's the equivalent, nearly, of Rococo in the visual arts:  Layers and layers of ornamentation resting upon a rather simple base motif. 
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 28 Jan 2008, 19:28
I would think that the closest thing to classical music would be Godspeed You! Black Emperor and Labradford's fourth and fifth albums.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Beastmouth on 28 Jan 2008, 19:32
Classical describes a particular time period as well, tho, which GY!BE et al. really don't reach.  They follow Impressionism with a hearty dose of 20th cent. pop, I'd say.  That is, orchestral post-rock or whathaveyou relies not merely on long forms of music that would have been at home in the late 19th century, but they treat their instruments as fully modern actors, what with electricity and all.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 28 Jan 2008, 19:33
Calling it a cover was my attempt at explaining it in terms commonly used in modern music. And I would say that your example is more like a remix, or possibly a blasphemy.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Beastmouth on 28 Jan 2008, 19:40
Which example is that?

The really nerdy metal often uses a Baroque approach; taking a blues, speeding it up, then adding every fancy flourish under the sun.

Your idea of the cover, though, doesn't quite portray the nature of a piece led by different conductors, or performed by drastically different chamber orchestras.  The idea of a remix is interesting, though, as technological as it is; most concert music today is performed on modern instruments, in modern temperaments, and sounds rather different than what the composer may have expected. 
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: GenericName on 28 Jan 2008, 19:44
I think Nodalsho was referring to the Beatles/anyone mashup.
Which, indeed, would be blasphemy,
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Beastmouth on 28 Jan 2008, 19:50
I think Nodalsho was referring to the Beatles/anyone mashup.
Which, indeed, would be blasphemy,
Grey Album much?

Actually, what brought it to mind was searching for an image of this goofy Beastles record I put in the Most Ridic thread; apparently someone more recently than what I've got has used that name for a Beastie Boys/Beatles thing.  Also, we are discussing metal, so Beatallica I guess.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 28 Jan 2008, 19:53
Grey Album needs to be in Mediafire thread.  I've run across so many people who haven't even heard it.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 28 Jan 2008, 20:06
All right... I will grant you that Beatallica isn't bad, but some of that is just through sheer audacity.

I can not bring myself to believe that the grey album would be anything but horrible.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 28 Jan 2008, 20:11
So wrong!
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Beastmouth on 28 Jan 2008, 20:14
All right... I will grant you that Beatallica isn't bad, but some of that is just through sheer audacity.

I can not bring myself to believe that the grey album would be anything but horrible.
'Helter Skelter' with '99 Problems' is better than anything I've heard a DJ spin.  :D
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: De_El on 28 Jan 2008, 20:15
Virtually any conceivable alteration to "Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da" would be an improvement.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 28 Jan 2008, 20:17
Better than anything I have ever heard a DJ spin either, but that isn't difficult, seeing as I have never heard a DJ spin anything.

Hey, I like Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da. It isn't going to win any prizes for insightful storytelling or groundbreaking musicianship, but it is a fun song, and last time I checked, that is what music is about. Having fun, you remember that?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 28 Jan 2008, 20:20
I can not bring myself to believe that the grey album would be anything but horrible.

You have no idea how absolutely wrong you are.  It is really, incredibly good.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: De_El on 28 Jan 2008, 20:26
It's annoying and I don't enjoy it? My opinion is different from yours? Let's all eat ice cream and exchange friendly notes?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: GenericName on 28 Jan 2008, 20:30
There are already 2 Beatles tribute albums in the last 5 pages of the Mediafire thread, I believe. But I still recommend uploading.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 28 Jan 2008, 20:38
It's annoying and I don't enjoy it? My opinion is different from yours? Let's all eat ice cream and exchange friendly notes?
Way ahead of you, already had some ice cream as I read your post.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Edible on 28 Jan 2008, 21:11
All those bands you mentioned suck anyway. Good call, mr. Metal DJ!

Nice view from up there?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Spluff on 28 Jan 2008, 21:12
Way ahead of you, already had some ice cream as I read your post.

What is this iced cream you speak of, and where can I obtain it?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 28 Jan 2008, 21:14
Either a store, or you can steal some from a little kid.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: MadassAlex on 28 Jan 2008, 22:45
I have read plenty of metalheads saying that metal is the genre closest to classical music, never seen a classical listener say that, but I don't read classical music forums all that much. "Have you heard the new Bach?" "No." "Why not?" "He is dead, dumbass."

Yes, if you're talking Yngwie, Rusty Cooley or the likes of their neoclassical ilk. But metal is closer, in general, to blues than classical.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KharBevNor on 28 Jan 2008, 22:55
But the exact same argument could be used to defend "indie elitism" or "rock elitism" or "rap elitism", since all genres have at some point been bastardised and all genres have people who talk as if they know about them when they don't.

I think rap elitisms probably the closest to metal elitism.

Look, the issue here is not so much genre as culture. Metal is a subculture, far more so than indie. Metal isn't just the music I listen to. To a lesser or greater extent it informs how I dress, how I decorate my room, what I do on my nights out, where I go on holiday, my hobbies, my friends, even who I fuck. I'd even self-identify as a metalhead, though that doesn't completely sum up what I'm about by a long shot. I still feel more attached to metal than I do to my country, though. A lot of people feel the same. We, together, as a subculture, invest a lot of time and money in creating and enjoying metal, and the culture that surrounds it. It does not seem to me at all unreasonable that people who are deeply invested in this subculture should be allowed to define its discourse. If that seems unreasonable to you, then fuck you. I see the same crap going on in different ways amongst most of the subcultural communities I'm connected to or interested in. Subcultures were not created by people for the voyeuristic amusement of others, they were created so that these individuals could have fun in a defined environment. If you're not a metalhead, you don't get to decide what metal is. If you're not a goth, you can't delineate the boundaries of goth. If you're not a punk, then your opinions on what is and isn't punk are probably worthless, and so on.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 28 Jan 2008, 23:02
But Khar, the music you make isn't metal at all.  I was always under the impression that you're basically a goff/rivethead (which is a good thing, not an insult).
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KharBevNor on 28 Jan 2008, 23:25
Who said that anyone has to identify solely with one culture? I'd call myself a metalhead: I dress like a metalhead, I have long hair, I buy metal albums, I go to metal shows and metal nights and metal festivals. I've also been a member of a couple of metal bands in the past. I also dress like a rivethead, and buy industrial albums, and go to industrial and goth nights, and make industrial music, and occasionally write for a post-industrial website and involve myself wiith industrial organisations and groups. I'm not sure I'd call myself a rivethead though, for a variety of reasons. I'm a fellow traveller with the goth subculture, but not really part of it: I would say I understand it and enjoy it, but I do not actively engage with it to any great extent. I realise the fact that I wouldn't call myself a goth probably strengthens the case for me actually being one but, whatever.

I mean, what would you say? (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/KharBevNor/100_3433small.jpg?t=1201591490)
 
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 28 Jan 2008, 23:31
I have read plenty of metalheads saying that metal is the genre closest to classical music, never seen a classical listener say that, but I don't read classical music forums all that much. "Have you heard the new Bach?" "No." "Why not?" "He is dead, dumbass."

Yes, if you're talking Yngwie, Rusty Cooley or the likes of their neoclassical ilk. But metal is closer, in general, to blues than classical.
I don't listen to neoclassical, at least not much. I am referring just to the... I have a poor music vocabulary, so I am likely to misuse words here, but the multi-part harmonies you see in metal, with the... Not sure how to describe it, when you get almost a wall of sound, so many different threads woven together.

And you misunderstood me, I was saying that of all of the modern genres of music, metal is the closest one to classical. I think by classical, though, people usually mean classical, baroque, romantic, and whatever other ones there might be.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 28 Jan 2008, 23:39
I mean, what would you say? (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/KharBevNor/100_3433small.jpg?t=1201591490)

Well, I'd say you don't look like I thought you did!

I suppose that is a "metal" look, though over here in the USA, almost nobody dresses like that anymore.  At least, I never see anyone dressed that way.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: MadassAlex on 29 Jan 2008, 00:37

I don't listen to neoclassical, at least not much. I am referring just to the... I have a poor music vocabulary, so I am likely to misuse words here, but the multi-part harmonies you see in metal, with the... Not sure how to describe it, when you get almost a wall of sound, so many different threads woven together.

And you misunderstood me, I was saying that of all of the modern genres of music, metal is the closest one to classical. I think by classical, though, people usually mean classical, baroque, romantic, and whatever other ones there might be.

The first thing, where you mention "harmonies", you're referring to the likes of Iron Maiden, Slayer, ect. where you can hear two distinct guitars playing the same thing (or close to) at different pitches to create the harmony? In that case, you'd be correct. Many classical composers liked to harmonise particular melodies to add interest.

Well "neoclassical" is a modern genre and it's pretty damn close to classical. Out of rock-influenced genres, yes, metal definately has the largest correlation with classical music, but one has to be careful not to overstate said influence. Where classical stuff is concerned, metal tends to add classical phrasing and theory to blues concepts.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: just-another-andy on 29 Jan 2008, 01:12
Rush!
If only for 2112 and The Spirit of Radio.

Because...  We are the priests! of the temples! of Syrinx!

Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 29 Jan 2008, 01:20

I don't listen to neoclassical, at least not much. I am referring just to the... I have a poor music vocabulary, so I am likely to misuse words here, but the multi-part harmonies you see in metal, with the... Not sure how to describe it, when you get almost a wall of sound, so many different threads woven together.

And you misunderstood me, I was saying that of all of the modern genres of music, metal is the closest one to classical. I think by classical, though, people usually mean classical, baroque, romantic, and whatever other ones there might be.

The first thing, where you mention "harmonies", you're referring to the likes of Iron Maiden, Slayer, ect. where you can hear two distinct guitars playing the same thing (or close to) at different pitches to create the harmony? In that case, you'd be correct. Many classical composers liked to harmonise particular melodies to add interest.

Well "neoclassical" is a modern genre and it's pretty damn close to classical. Out of rock-influenced genres, yes, metal definately has the largest correlation with classical music, but one has to be careful not to overstate said influence. Where classical stuff is concerned, metal tends to add classical phrasing and theory to blues concepts.
I was talking more about when you get multiple completely rhythmically different parts going on, so I guess that isn't a harmony, though now I am going to have to listen to A Matter of Life and Death again, I am wondering whether they actually use three different guitar parts, or just have two on rhythm.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: amok on 29 Jan 2008, 03:00
I love the slightly embarrassed/ashamed look on the relatively normal-looking guy at the front's face.

"You know what I hate? A guy with stupid spiky hair.


...



Oh god, there's one right behind me, isn't there."
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 29 Jan 2008, 03:21
That kind of hair would have to be a pain to sit down with when you had a chair with a high back, you would have to be leaning forward.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: pinkpiche on 29 Jan 2008, 04:20
If you're not a punk, then your opinions on what is and isn't punk are probably worthless, and so on.

I understand what you are saying but I disagree with the notion that in order to be a real fan of music you should look like the archetypal sort of person that enjoys that music.

Well Khar only said "a punk" not "dressed like a punk". So there.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: a pack of wolves on 29 Jan 2008, 04:20
Also, in that picture Mackaye is wearing a totally stereotypical outfit for a hardcore fan who's over the age of 21.

However, I don't think he's right in saying that you really need to identify with a subculture to be able to informatively enter into its discourse. I don't know if I'm punk, hardcore or emo. I'd feel a bit odd about those last terms about myself. However, I've played in punk, emo and hardcore bands and I definitely think I know enough about those genres to contribute to their discourse and what constitutes their definition. Similarly, I know a load of people who would never call themselves metalheads but saying they shouldn't be allowed to contribute to that genre since they don't want to self-identify with it would be ridiculous, they enjoy and know a great deal about the music. Why isn't that enough?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KharBevNor on 29 Jan 2008, 04:43
I understand what you ar saying but I disagree with the notion that in order to be a real fan of music you should look like the archetypal sort of person that enjoys that music.

EH UH that's not what I said Tommy. That's not what I said at all. Nor did I say you've got to call yourself names to be involved in something, though maybe its important.

Also, if you pick another picture of Ian Mackaye:

(http://fusionanomaly.net/minorthreathenrygarfield.jpg)

Edit: addressing an earlier hanging point, I wasn't talking about Doom in its entirety, more in combination with the other two. For example, I know people who, for example, dress more like punks then metalheads, might even say they hate metal, often smoke a lot of pot and pretty much exclusively listen to things like Iron Monkey, Eyehategod, Weedeater, The Melvins, Electric Wizard, Kyuss, Bongzilla and maybe, in fact, bands like Boris, Isis and Pelican, not all of whom I would say were metal, though they all could be grouped together. Then again, maybe its more accurate to say that these guys are a little splinter metal subculture. I dunno. I'm not a sociologist, I just call 'em how I see 'em.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: a pack of wolves on 29 Jan 2008, 04:59
You basically did say you needed to call yourself something to be meaningfully involved with this:

If you're not a metalhead, you don't get to decide what metal is. If you're not a goth, you can't delineate the boundaries of goth. If you're not a punk, then your opinions on what is and isn't punk are probably worthless, and so on.

I'm not an emo (although some of my friends would disagree on this). I still say I can make a contribution to what is and isn't emo.

Ah right, I get you now with the doom thing. I listen to most of those bands myself and know a lot of guys that play in bands heavily influenced by them and yes, not really what you'd think of as metalheads. It is sort of a splinter thing isn't it, a lot of people who're into that stuff seem to come from both punk and metal backgrounds and generally have a lot of love for both but they're starting to carve out something separate from either. Rather like those bands that call themselves either metalcore or death metal with the funny hair have done, they seem to exist in a totally separate scene to hardcore or metal these days.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: MadassAlex on 29 Jan 2008, 05:07
I was talking more about when you get multiple completely rhythmically different parts going on, so I guess that isn't a harmony, though now I am going to have to listen to A Matter of Life and Death again, I am wondering whether they actually use three different guitar parts, or just have two on rhythm.

Time signatures and tempos, then. Alterations in both are common in all technical and progressive music, not just classical.

Ah right, I get you now with the doom thing. I listen to most of those bands myself and know a lot of guys that play in bands heavily influenced by them and yes, not really what you'd think of as metalheads. It is sort of a splinter thing isn't it, a lot of people who're into that stuff seem to come from both punk and metal backgrounds and generally have a lot of love for both but they're starting to carve out something separate from either. Rather like those bands that call themselves either metalcore or death metal with the funny hair have done, they seem to exist in a totally separate scene to hardcore or metal these days.

It's like post rock if post rock wasn't completely inhabited by huge pussies.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: 2HourHiatus on 29 Jan 2008, 09:21
On a side note: I love how this thread has turned into a giant debate on a bunch of different music subjects. It's been really interesting to read. *ahem* sorry, carry-on
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 29 Jan 2008, 09:37
I'm not a goth, but I listen to lots of goth music.  I'm not a punk, but I listen to lots of older punk bands.  I'm not an indie rocker, but I listen to indie rock.  I'm not a psyche rocker, but I listen to lots of psyche rock.  I'm not a rivethead, but I listen to industrial.  I play in a band that combines elements of space rock, drone, metal, psychedelic, garage rock, math rock, jazz and post-rock.  So what do I get to delineate?  Since I'm not a member of any specific subculture, does that mean I can't speak about any of them, despite that I probably listen to more actual bands from those subcultures than many people who would claim to be members of them?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Thrillho on 29 Jan 2008, 09:46
Quote from: from the poll, thing at the top.
what is your fave of my favorite mainstream bands?

I...don't care?


i ... don't care if you don't care, its just for fun, relax woman, the world will still be indie-ruled by the end of the day no matter what th eresponse is here

'Relax woman'? Congrats, you've now made a false assumption and made yourself look sexist. Good job.

As for indie ruling the world, that's funny, because the fact that most indie musicians make about $10 a week and (until recently) four labels controlled almost all of the money exchanged in the music world suggests otherwise to me...
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: jeph on 29 Jan 2008, 09:55
I guess my favorite "mainstream" band would probably be Radiohead.

I'M SO AVANT GARDAY
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: amok on 29 Jan 2008, 09:56
So what do I get to delineate?

My Chemical Romance.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Thrillho on 29 Jan 2008, 10:01
I guess my favorite "mainstream" band would probably be Radiohead.

I'M SO AVANT GARDAY

ISN'T AN AVANT ONE OF THOSE GUYS WHO'S RETARDED BUT GOOD AT SOMETHING?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: ledhendrix on 29 Jan 2008, 10:35
If the only people that can contribute to a genre (we'll take punk as an example here because it has already been mentioned)  and understand it fully are those that call themselves punks then who gets to decide what a punk is and what a punk isn't. How does one qualify to be a punk, if i decide to call myself a punk now and someone argues and tells me i am not a punk what right do they have to say that i am not. Is it because they are punk? If so who is it that gets to decide that they get to fit into this group.
 
 I agree that their are circumstances where this would be obvious ( Your granny and grandpa claiming to be punk) but i still think that people get a bit to worked up about the whole "scene" that seems to come with music. Most people have a wide and varied music taste but there seems to be this elite group of people that think it is there "right" to define there genre. It is almost like self electing yourself as the leader of the country. Its just crap i can't be arsed with this any more i think i've gone a bit of the point but anyway just my thoughts on the matter.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 29 Jan 2008, 11:27
Mogwai call themselves a punk rock band.

/tangent
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KharBevNor on 29 Jan 2008, 11:46
The formation of subcultures is an organic process, going through a number of stages, such as perhaps:

1) Influencing
2) Prototyping
3) Inauguration
4) Identification
5) Culturalisation
6) Mimicry
7) Dilution
8) Popularisation
9) Disenchantment
10) Diminishment
11) Stabilisation
12) Faux-Sociology Books by former Rolling Stone Journalists

Or something like that. I need to think about it more carefully when I'm more drunk.



Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: amok on 29 Jan 2008, 11:48
I love how cool #8 is on lists on this board. That guy is so smugly aware that he is by far the best item on the list, every time.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 29 Jan 2008, 17:07
If the only people that can contribute to a genre (we'll take punk as an example here because it has already been mentioned)  and understand it fully are those that call themselves punks then who gets to decide what a punk is and what a punk isn't. How does one qualify to be a punk, if i decide to call myself a punk now and someone argues and tells me i am not a punk what right do they have to say that i am not. Is it because they are punk? If so who is it that gets to decide that they get to fit into this group.

The guy who is more punk than you?


That's right. I went there.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 29 Jan 2008, 17:22
The guy who has more Crass patches than you?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 29 Jan 2008, 18:47
I guess my favorite "mainstream" band would probably be Radiohead.

I'M SO AVANT GARDAY
Now you are going to have to do recordings with one string. You know that, right?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: De_El on 29 Jan 2008, 19:32
When I saw Steve Krakow's Guitarkestra there was a dude with a wooden plank on which there was a single bass string, and he bowed the fuck out of it.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KvP on 29 Jan 2008, 19:37
I think Les Claypool has a similar contraption.

Anyway, let's take this topic onto more predictable and beaten paths, what do you say?

Does anybody remember when the Black Eyed Peas were actually a respected hip hop group? I mean, seriously. I thought they were pretty good. And then they got Fergie. Exhibit A on why some people should never succeed.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: E. Spaceman on 29 Jan 2008, 19:49
The formation of subcultures is an organic process, going through a number of stages, such as perhaps:



list



Like i said once, Elvis can be used as a metaphor for most succesful subcultures.

He took a lot of stuff from marginalised people
He was young, he was dangerous, he was decried
he became accepted
he became the mainstream
He became bloated and fat
He died while trying to eat and shit at the same time


All succesful subcultures are destined to die fat and bloated while trying to eat and shit at the same time.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Beastmouth on 29 Jan 2008, 20:05
I think Les Claypool has a similar contraption.

Anyway, let's take this topic onto more predictable and beaten paths, what do you say?

Does anybody remember when the Black Eyed Peas were actually a respected hip hop group? I mean, seriously. I thought they were pretty good. And then they got Fergie. Exhibit A on why some people should never succeed.
But will.i.am and the other guy still produce crap records sans Fergie.  So she, if anything, just opened the door to their inner suck.  :(

Also, the book for one of their albums made them seem like major jackasses.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: sean on 29 Jan 2008, 20:33
When I saw Steve Krakow's Guitarkestra there was a dude with a wooden plank on which there was a single bass string, and he bowed the fuck out of it.

On the subject of AVANT GARDAY BASSES LOL, I present the cardboard box.

A first big picture! (http://www.edencompanies.com/bogdon/images/dte/IMG_3039_1_web.jpg)

Also in washtub variety!

A second big picture! (http://www.edencompanies.com/bogdon/images/washtub/washtub_webshot.jpg)

Edit: these links work now!
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KvP on 29 Jan 2008, 20:39
The links, they fail to work.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 29 Jan 2008, 20:50
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/turquoisemoleeater/guitars/5453_file_8766_3-1.jpg)
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KvP on 29 Jan 2008, 20:55
Hot.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 29 Jan 2008, 20:55
Does anybody remember when the Black Eyed Peas were actually a respected hip hop group? I mean, seriously. I thought they were pretty good. And then they got Fergie. Exhibit A on why some people should never succeed.

I was under the impression that she was always a back up singer for them and they eventually gave her a bigger role in the process. I think the solo stuff by the individual members is not that great but that may be because they don't have the collaborative process going on when they write songs. Maybe in the case of Black Eyed Peas it's too few cooks that spoil the broth...
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 29 Jan 2008, 21:03
*img*
The hell?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Spluff on 29 Jan 2008, 21:09
img

This thread has officially produced its magnum opus. All posts hereafter should hang their head in shame, as they can not possibly measure up to that awesomeness.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: RedLion on 29 Jan 2008, 21:20
..do..you people not understand the concept of sarcasm? I mean..jeez. My post was mocking the typical response that this thread would get from the average music consumer.. (although I do like all of the bands listed in the poll).

Wow. My fingertips shall only produce seriousness from here on out.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 29 Jan 2008, 21:42
We get sarcasm.  We use it all the time.

You, however, might need some lessons, because your post came across not as a parody or joke or sarcastic.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Alex C on 29 Jan 2008, 21:43
Compounding things with a "What I did went SO FAR over your heads" post rather than a rueful acknowledgement of miscommunication isn't exactly tactful either. I'm going to go ahead and quote Jeph on this one: Lurk moar.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KvP on 29 Jan 2008, 21:54
Does anybody remember when the Black Eyed Peas were actually a respected hip hop group? I mean, seriously. I thought they were pretty good. And then they got Fergie. Exhibit A on why some people should never succeed.

I was under the impression that she was always a back up singer for them and they eventually gave her a bigger role in the process. I think the solo stuff by the individual members is not that great but that may be because they don't have the collaborative process going on when they write songs. Maybe in the case of Black Eyed Peas it's too few cooks that spoil the broth...
I thought they had a different backup singer (the one from the video for "Falling Up") but she left and they cut an album without her which nobody particularly liked, and then Fergie stepped in to fill the void and the scourge that was Elephant came into being. God, my dad likes that album. It's embarassing.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Alex C on 29 Jan 2008, 21:56
Yeah, Fergie wasn't really involved until 2003. Never did like the black eyed peas though.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: MadassAlex on 29 Jan 2008, 21:58
Compounding things with a "What I did went SO FAR over your heads" post rather than a rueful acknowledgement of miscommunication isn't exactly tactful either. I'm going to go ahead and quote Jeph on this one: Lurk moar.

You think that's Jeph you're quoting?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Alex C on 29 Jan 2008, 22:14
He said it earlier in the thread. Perhaps I should have said, "repeat" or perhaps "reiterate", since I'm sort of aware that on the internet things sometimes, you know, get repeated due to memes. Amazing, I know.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: MadassAlex on 29 Jan 2008, 23:41
I'm just giving credit where credit is due.

Fear 4chan ect.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: onewheelwizzard on 29 Jan 2008, 23:55

All succesful subcultures are destined to die fat and bloated while trying to eat and shit at the same time.

Genius.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: RobbieOC on 30 Jan 2008, 00:37
This probably brings the thread too far back to the begining. Sorry.

I heard a kid try to explain Tool to his dad by saying they were the Beatles of his generation.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Spluff on 30 Jan 2008, 00:48
In a way, progressive alt/metal is the cheesy pop of this generation.

But in another, much more realistic way, cheesy pop is the cheesy pop of this generation.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: MadassAlex on 30 Jan 2008, 03:30
In a way, progressive alt/metal is the cheesy pop of this generation.

What. Prog metal isn't particuarly accessible, hugely technical, rhythmically varied and stable. How is it in any way like cheesy pop apart from being cheesy if you're listening to Dream Theater or Symphony X?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Chrasstor on 30 Jan 2008, 07:10
One of the main reasons I myself, do not like main-stream bands(other than the whole trend-jumpiness of them) is because the people who like mainstream shit.

Have you ever tried to have a conversation with an MTV kid? Words cannot describe.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: dalconnsuch on 30 Jan 2008, 07:35
One of the main reasons I myself, do not like main-stream bands(other than the whole trend-jumpiness of them) is because the people who like mainstream shit.

Have you ever tried to have a conversation with an MTV kid? Words cannot describe.

its like slowly ramming your head into boiling water again and again and again and again and again, i know, torture beyond hell for anyone who uses their brain

but for me, i try not to judge mainstream bands based on who listens to them, i judge bands for their musical knowledge, i compare every band to the hiearchy set by jazz musicians like miles davis

to me every band i listen too needs to be somewhat musically intelligent, not just bashing out chorus after chorus in 4/4 with power chords en prestissimo ( 200+ bpm)

and don't bash tool, danny carrey is a polyrhythm god 5/4 with poly 3/4 ftw!
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 30 Jan 2008, 08:08
One of the main reasons I myself, do not like main-stream bands(other than the whole trend-jumpiness of them) is because the people who like mainstream shit.

I do not even know where to begin with listing how ridiculous this post is.

I bet you listen to dozens of mainstream bands.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: psyne on 30 Jan 2008, 08:24
I hate defining bands at all. I try not to take popularity or fanbase into account (though I do sometimes ignore a band based on its fanbase; like, I've never bothered checking out MCR because MCR fans are ridiculous). I don't even like the term "indie" very much since it's so vague, debatable, and doesn't really tell you much about a band besides "not mainstream" (usually). Some technically mainstream bands don't have a typically "mainstream" sound, some "indie" bands have a very mainstream sound but just aren't well known. I only take popularity into account in context - if a band is popular with people with similar taste to me, I'll probably check them out.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: pinkpiche on 30 Jan 2008, 08:38
And that is idealistic. Sure, it would be swell if everyone went around thinking like that, but that's not the case.

Pure logic isn't gonna work.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: SevenPinkerton on 30 Jan 2008, 08:39
It's hard to not be turned off to a band because the fans look like something that make you really depressed about life. It can be unfortunate because you just might miss out on a decent band, but everyone stereotypes.
I know I already develop a "sigh...not another one.." attitude when I go to check out a new band's show and notice the entire crowd is dressed in typical hipster clothing. It's hard not assuming the band is the latest copycat of the current hipster accepted crap. But it's not like I just leave, assumptions are ridiculous.

Anyways, when did mainstream become hip hop and rap? The radio station I listened to when I was a kid is now entirely hip hop.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 30 Jan 2008, 09:10
the music you listen to (and the music you look like you might listen to for shit's sake) is completely unimportant in the grand scheme of things. It's actually ridiculous!

Yeah, while it's nice to be able to have a conversation about music with someone and have them know entirely what you're talking about, it's certainly no judge of their character.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: dalconnsuch on 30 Jan 2008, 09:40
And that is idealistic. Sure, it would be swell if everyone went around thinking like that, but that's not the case.

Pure logic isn't gonna work.

thats the contradition paradox theorem for ya
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 30 Jan 2008, 09:43
I hope you people are all saying this because you're still young and stupid because seriously, SERIOUSLY.

I don't give a fuck how someone dresses or what they listen to.  I have friends with atrocious taste in music.  One of my best friends listens almost exclusively to mainstream latin american rock, 95% of which I think is tedious shite.  But it doesn't matter to me!

I have friends that dress like they just came from a Rennasissance Fair or a Matrix Lookalike Convention.  Once again, who gives a fuck!

I wear prescription sunglasses at night.  Oh noes!  I'm pretentious!  Please don't speak to me!

Man I really hope that 10 years ago I didn't think this way.  "Oh, that band's fans look stupid.  Probably I should not listen to them."

GOD.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: psyne on 30 Jan 2008, 09:55
I wear prescription sunglasses at night.  Oh noes!  I'm pretentious!  Please don't speak to me!
Yeah, obviously it's so you can keep track of the visions in your eyes.

Seriously though, I agree. When I was younger I used to be kind of judgmental of people's taste in music - I wouldn't be friends with someone who liked rap, I had really defined senses of what was good taste and never thought I could be good friends with someone who liked music I thought was crap. Now, sharing music taste is obviously a bonding point, but that's not what the world is about. A lot of my closest friends have "very low" matches with me on last.fm, which makes me laugh because that kind of thing used to matter. Now I realize that some people consider different things important or good in music, and that's their own choice. I'm also much less ridiculous about my own tastes now - back then, I was very anti-mainstream, but now I just like what I like. Pretensions are a waste of time.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: pinkpiche on 30 Jan 2008, 10:32
It's not about caring what your friends listen to or what clothes they wear, it's about the mindnumbing quantity of people who don't know that you can't label a person like a genre. Because that is a pretty widespread phenomena i tell ye. I don't do that either, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world aren't total idiots on the subject. Which they are. Especially teenagers. I was a mean condescending fucker as a teenager, and a whole lot else that's not easy to put into words. But some people don't get over that and it's all a fucking big evil circle man.

Btw. I absolutely loathe Pink Floyd
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: dalconnsuch on 30 Jan 2008, 10:37
I hope you people are all saying this because you're still young and stupid because seriously, SERIOUSLY.

I don't give a fuck how someone dresses or what they listen to.  I have friends with atrocious taste in music.  One of my best friends listens almost exclusively to mainstream latin american rock, 95% of which I think is tedious shite.  But it doesn't matter to me!

I have friends that dress like they just came from a Rennasissance Fair or a Matrix Lookalike Convention.  Once again, who gives a fuck!

I wear prescription sunglasses at night.  Oh noes!  I'm pretentious!  Please don't speak to me!

Man I really hope that 10 years ago I didn't think this way.  "Oh, that band's fans look stupid.  Probably I should not listen to them."

GOD.


my point exactly, you should never not listen to a band just cuz of their fan scene, yeah the grateful dead's fan scene is full of hippies
and junkies doesn't mean i ain't going to listen to them just i don't like em
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KharBevNor on 30 Jan 2008, 11:16
Itt: People do not understand what subcultures are.







YUO CANT LABEL MEEEEEEEE
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Beastmouth on 30 Jan 2008, 11:49
Anyways, when did mainstream become hip hop and rap? The radio station I listened to when I was a kid is now entirely hip hop.
After Kurt's Lead Breakfast
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: SleeperCylon on 30 Jan 2008, 14:16
Like I've said, there's nothing wrong with being mainstream.  It just so happens that a whole lot of mainstream bands are really lame.

More now than in the 60s and 70s, because back then mainstream bands tended to play their own instruments and write their own music, with a few exceptions (Monkees, etc).  Mainstream tends to be lamer now because the performer is basically a dancing, singing robot who does whatever the record company says.  And instruments have been replaced mostly by weak dance loops.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 30 Jan 2008, 14:23
Mainstream tends to be lamer now because the performer is basically a dancing, singing robot who does whatever the record company says.  And instruments have been replaced mostly by weak dance loops.

I think perhaps you are curiously unaware that bands such as Radiohead, REM, Bright Eyes, Arcade Fire, Interpol, TV On the Radio, etc. are mainstream.

It is a tiresome cliché to define "mainstream music" as simply "stuff I don't like that is on some radio stations".
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: ViolentDove on 30 Jan 2008, 15:54
Er... seems to be a bit of confusion in this thread regarding the difference between a subculture and fan of a particular type of music. They can be different things!

Khar was referring to subcultures. Subcultures have multiple traits that define them, not just one. A fan of a particular type of music has one trait. 

It's not about caring what your friends listen to or what clothes they wear, it's about the mindnumbing quantity of people who don't know that you can't label a person like a genre.

You really can. Labelling people/subcultures is the same as labelling anything. If subculture A is defined by the characteristics X, Y and Z, and person A has characterstics X, Y and Z, then you can refer to them as A.

As much as people like to think that they're a beautiful, unique individual that defies categorisation, if you walk around with a mohawk, a jacket with "The Exploited" smeared on the back in your own faeces, and put out a shitty zine on DIY tattoos, then people are going to call you a punk.

Labelling things is not some evil corporate plot designed by a hegemony of oil barons and vampire record company execs, it's a function of human language that simplifies communication.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 30 Jan 2008, 16:03
As much as people like to think that they're a beautiful, unique individual that defies categorisation, if you walk around with a mohawk, a jacket with "The Exploited" smeared on the back in your own faeces, and put out a shitty zine on DIY tattoos, then people are going to call you a punk.

Yes, of course.

It is my experience, however, that most intelligent people over the age of 21 tend to get over such obsession with fashion.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: GenericName on 30 Jan 2008, 17:58
Wait.

People plan on living past 21?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Ballard on 30 Jan 2008, 18:09
The chap who said we should appreciate Rush for their contribution to music. It's a ridiculous stance.

Just to play devil's advocate here- Black Flag?

She Wants Revenge are more enjoyable than New Order.

Man. If you want to edit this out of your post, I will absolutely forget it ever happened.

For the sake of both of us.

Not if I sig it first.

Incidentally, if this song (http://youtube.com/watch?v=LJvvxEs1_pE) is representative of Maynard James Keenan from Tool's latest direction, I am pretty much okay with it.

I feel like I just got the hipster equivalent of rickrolled.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KharBevNor on 30 Jan 2008, 19:55
It is my experience, however, that most intelligent people over the age of 21 tend to get over such obsession with fashion.


I'm sorry, but you're an arse.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 30 Jan 2008, 20:05
Well, that is certainly a sterling example of pot-kettle theory in action!
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KharBevNor on 30 Jan 2008, 20:16
(http://www.cosand.net/~cosandw/imgs/bothell/image002.jpg)

This is you.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 30 Jan 2008, 20:21
OK, who pissed in Khar's oatmeal this morning?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 30 Jan 2008, 20:40
Looks to me like that kid thought ahead, he has enough room to make steps out.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Spluff on 30 Jan 2008, 21:02
In a way, progressive alt/metal is the cheesy pop of this generation.

What. Prog metal isn't particuarly accessible, hugely technical, rhythmically varied and stable. How is it in any way like cheesy pop apart from being cheesy if you're listening to Dream Theater or Symphony X?

I was being sarcastic - but it seems that particular saying is only found in my particular locale.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 30 Jan 2008, 23:10
I actually can't tell what Khar was trying so with that picture because I can't think past "GET IN THE GROUND."

Eugene, while the members of Black Flag produced worthwhile things, the best thing that ever came out of Black Flag musically was that eventually Dirty Projectors turned Damaged into Rise Above.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: MadassAlex on 31 Jan 2008, 00:41
Well, that is certainly a sterling example of pot-kettle theory in action!

Not exactly. Fashion can be a shitty trend or it can be a method of pre-communication. An office uniform, for example. It's not exactly a chosen fashion but it's a visual presentation that is widely accepted. The black tee and jacket of a metalhead is the same thing, outside of formal grounds. Even choosing what t-shirt to wear and which pants go best with it is just visual presentation and nothing different from the others apart from style without a group, but even then most people in casual clothes ever wear a tee and jeans.

And for the record, you're contradicting yourself. Earlier you stated that you wanted people to get over judging others based on their dress and now you're accusing subcultures of being fashion obsessed and, by implication, shallow.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 31 Jan 2008, 01:32
I actually can't tell what Khar was trying so with that picture because I can't think past "GET IN THE GROUND."

Eugene, while the members of Black Flag produced worthwhile things, the best thing that ever came out of Black Flag musically was that eventually Dirty Projectors turned Damaged into Rise Above.
Digging yourself into a hole, I think.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 31 Jan 2008, 02:12
It is my experience, however, that most intelligent people over the age of 21 tend to get over such obsession with fashion.

Dude, where do you live? People never get over an obsession with fashion. It's pretty much how you alert people to anything from your taste in music, political leanings, religious views, even sexuality without having to speak to them. Every time you put on clothes you are making a choice about your day and making the choice to advertise your opinions on a myriad of subjects for anyone who cares to notice.

Not exactly. Fashion can be a shitty trend or it can be a method of pre-communication. An office uniform, for example. It's not exactly a chosen fashion but it's a visual presentation that is widely accepted. The black tee and jacket of a metalhead is the same thing, outside of formal grounds. Even choosing what t-shirt to wear and which pants go best with it is just visual presentation and nothing different from the others apart from style without a group, but even then most people in casual clothes ever wear a tee and jeans.

Let's take me as an example. Usually I will be wearing a pair of black jeans with the legs tucked into a big fuck-off pair of boots with buckles and shit all over the place, a leather jacket (or trench coat in winter) and usually a black metal T-shirt. It is fairly obvious that I am saying that not only do I have a penchant for being visually dramatic but my views on religion are clearly negative. However, once I get out of uni and go for an actual job in my chosen career, I am probably going to be wearing suits and looking fairly respectable. This will not be because I will not be obsessed about fashion but because that is the required uniform someone who works in a particular profession would generally wear. I am still going to be wearing black and will probably do what I can to work with as much eccentricity as I can get away with.

Blithely dismissing fashion as something simple and ultimately immature is pretty silly because it is an inescapable part of human society. We are pretty visually dull creatures so how we choose to adorn ourselves is always going to play a role in our lives.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: MadassAlex on 31 Jan 2008, 03:21
Tommy, Rush are absolutely brilliant. This is not debatable.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: MadassAlex on 31 Jan 2008, 04:06
Tommy, Rush are absolutely brilliant. This is not debatable.

I don't personally agree

Tommy, Rush are absolutely brilliant. This is not debatable.

These are fighting words Mister Ski and I suggest you revise them lest I play you a phrase of music that transcends all time signatures.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: a pack of wolves on 31 Jan 2008, 04:12
Eugene, while the members of Black Flag produced worthwhile things, the best thing that ever came out of Black Flag musically was that eventually Dirty Projectors turned Damaged into Rise Above.

I reject your revisionist history that tries to pretend that My War isn't one of the greatest records of all time.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: dalconnsuch on 31 Jan 2008, 04:58
Eugene, while the members of Black Flag produced worthwhile things, the best thing that ever came out of Black Flag musically was that eventually Dirty Projectors turned Damaged into Rise Above.

I reject your revisionist history that tries to pretend that My War isn't one of the greatest records of all time.


i never could understand peoples love for black flagg, theres much better punk from the 80's

plus black flagg had like fifty million fuckin trillion lineup changes except for that one guitarist
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 31 Jan 2008, 05:54
And for the record, you're contradicting yourself. Earlier you stated that you wanted people to get over judging others based on their dress and now you're accusing subcultures of being fashion obsessed and, by implication, shallow.

No, actually, all I did was state a fact - that in my experience, meaning out of the hundreds of people I've known in my life, only those that are younger than 21 or so or are to some extent shallow go very far out of their way to make an elaborate statement by their appearance (eg mohawk, tons of patches on the jacket, ripped jeans, piercings, etc).

This is not to say I don't know exceptions to the rule.  I have close friends who spend lots of money on looking a certain way.

This is not to say I don't choose the clothes I wear to look good, just that I don't go out of my way or spend lots of time/money to conform to one particular "look" because in my experience being part of the "same subculture" as someone else has fuck-all to do with whether I'll get along with them.  YMMV.

Right now I'm wearing a Dinosaur Jr. shirt and army surplus camo pants.  I do own a black trenchcoat.  I wear prescription sunglasses at night when I go out.  I am not "above" fashion, but I do not make any effort to meticulously wear an easily identifiable uniform so that people can look at me and say "Oh look, a goth/metalhead/indie rocker/whatever".

My main problem is with "crusty kids" - you know, the homeless "travelers" who dress very punk rock.  As someone I met on the street said when I was in San Francisco a few months ago, "They ask you for spare change while they've got $200 worth of metal in their faces."

Also I have had bad experiences with fashion-goths, because man, they really do tend to be extremely shallow, in every city I've ever been in over the past 14 years.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: McTaggart on 31 Jan 2008, 06:32
I think this is the first time I've heard people talk about Rush and not all be taking the piss.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 31 Jan 2008, 06:36
I've never really encountered any kind of directed hatred of Rush until now.  Pretty much everyone I know concedes they have a few songs that are not bad.

I can't believe the Beatles have almost twice as many votes as Pink Floyd.  WTF, guys.  WTF.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: McTaggart on 31 Jan 2008, 06:50
Pink Floyd never got mashed up with Jay-Z.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 31 Jan 2008, 08:07
They might have but it probably wasn't as good.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: pinkpiche on 31 Jan 2008, 08:34
Er... seems to be a bit of confusion in this thread regarding the difference between a subculture and fan of a particular type of music. They can be different things!

Khar was referring to subcultures. Subcultures have multiple traits that define them, not just one. A fan of a particular type of music has one trait. 

It's not about caring what your friends listen to or what clothes they wear, it's about the mindnumbing quantity of people who don't know that you can't label a person like a genre.

You really can. Labelling people/subcultures is the same as labelling anything. If subculture A is defined by the characteristics X, Y and Z, and person A has characterstics X, Y and Z, then you can refer to them as A.

As much as people like to think that they're a beautiful, unique individual that defies categorisation, if you walk around with a mohawk, a jacket with "The Exploited" smeared on the back in your own faeces, and put out a shitty zine on DIY tattoos, then people are going to call you a punk.

Labelling things is not some evil corporate plot designed by a hegemony of oil barons and vampire record company execs, it's a function of human language that simplifies communication.

But... It's not very polite.

Nah you're right.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KharBevNor on 31 Jan 2008, 09:19
No, actually, all I did was state a fact - that in my experience, meaning out of the hundreds of people I've known in my life, only those that are younger than 21 or so or are to some extent shallow go very far out of their way to make an elaborate statement by their appearance (eg mohawk, tons of patches on the jacket, ripped jeans, piercings, etc).

I'll resist the urge to just post multiple pictures of members of pung, goth and metal bands, and just say, whoah, you don't know ANY bikers?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Ballard on 31 Jan 2008, 09:43
Blithely dismissing fashion as something simple and ultimately immature is pretty silly because it is an inescapable part of human society. We are pretty visually dull creatures so how we choose to adorn ourselves is always going to play a role in our lives.

I think the question being asked here is, how many 45 year old punks do you see walking around? How about 50 year old hipsters in skinny jeans? 60 year old women sporting Chelseas and lip piercings?

(The answer is, a few. For example, there's a hardcore punk who comes into the guitar shop I work at often. I'd place him at 40-ish. He's coked out of his mind and there's no doubt that he lives on the street)

We, as a society, will never get over fashion. However, the fashions associated with music in the last 50-odd years have simultaneously been associated with young people. As priorities, responsibilities, and habits change, most people who are not somehow connected to the music industry begin to listen to music less and less, instead spending their free time with their families, or pursuing other hobbies. Thus, the styles that go along with being immersed in certain genres fade away and are replaced by more mature ones.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: a pack of wolves on 31 Jan 2008, 09:53

i never could understand peoples love for black flagg, theres much better punk from the 80's

plus black flagg had like fifty million fuckin trillion lineup changes except for that one guitarist

Not that many changes. They went through a few singers before Rollins but all of their studio albums had him on vocals. Since Greg Ginn wrote all the songs the main thing needed was the Rollins/Ginn combination, although I do really like Kira's bass playing. Better punk from the 80s? The Minutemen, possibly Minor Threat and Rites of Spring and that's about it, and 80s hardcore is undoubtedly my favourite music of all time. And regardless of my own opinions their recordings and the way they went about touring and releases were key to the development of a lot of heavy music I like. I remember one of Iron Monkey being asked what music he liked in an interview once. His response: "Black Flag and nothing else."
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 31 Jan 2008, 10:01
I'll resist the urge to just post multiple pictures of members of pung, goth and metal bands, and just say, whoah, you don't know ANY bikers?

Members of bands "dressing up" is a bit different from members of the audience, because to some bands, part of the performance is the costume.  I readily admit that I do put a little effort into my appearance when I play a show, though it rarely goes beyond "tucking my jeans into my boots" or "wearing eyeliner".

I actually know a lot of bikers, as one of the bars I've most frequented in the past 10 years is a favorite spot for 40+ year old bikers.  However, they're not really the kind of bikers who dress like Hell's Angels, they're more down to Earth than that, just generally nice guys who smoke pot and like to discuss music and politics.  Half of them or so are Vietnam vets or ex-hippies.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KharBevNor on 31 Jan 2008, 10:39
Sorry, I forgot that you're always right.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: a pack of wolves on 31 Jan 2008, 12:15
That many? Damn, I thoroughly underestimated that one.

I love all those bands, except for Bad Brains who were terrible (and besides, you do not mess with Biscuit from the Big Boys, the man was a legend) and Scream who weren't to my taste. But the only one I like more than Black Flag are the Minutemen, and I like them more than most everything. I know it's all subjective, it's just that whenever Black Flag get brought up round these parts people either say they detest their music but admire the way they went about touring or that they think some of their music is ok but nothing more. For me, My War is absolutely crushing and Damaged has some of the best guitars I've ever heard on a punk record ever. They're damn near flawless, and the little things that I think are off with both those records actually end up adding to the whole working. So I just thought I'd stick up for the Flag.

And Pung really did rock, 'Chechnya's Gone' was a great song.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Hat on 31 Jan 2008, 12:36
(http://rockshot80.com.ne.kr/images1/ratt.jpg)

Duh
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Hat on 31 Jan 2008, 12:51
How about some Winger?

(http://www.sleazeroxx.com/bands/winger/winger1.jpg)

Upon superficial inspection I would not blame you for assuming they were the exact same band.

GLAM-BREAK
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 31 Jan 2008, 13:24
the most commercial band i like is brenoritvrezorkre i know i am such a commercial tool


Seriously though, I like rush, led zep, the beatles, and rainbow.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: SevenPinkerton on 31 Jan 2008, 14:37
I'll resist the urge to just post multiple pictures of members of pung, goth and metal bands, and just say, whoah, you don't know ANY bikers?

Members of bands "dressing up" is a bit different from members of the audience, because to some bands, part of the performance is the costume.  I readily admit that I do put a little effort into my appearance when I play a show, though it rarely goes beyond "tucking my jeans into my boots" or "wearing eyeliner".

I actually know a lot of bikers, as one of the bars I've most frequented in the past 10 years is a favorite spot for 40+ year old bikers.  However, they're not really the kind of bikers who dress like Hell's Angels, they're more down to Earth than that, just generally nice guys who smoke pot and like to discuss music and politics.  Half of them or so are Vietnam vets or ex-hippies.


What I'm wondering is what is considered not "dressing up?" As multiple members of the board has already mentioned, we all make a choice when we get dressed in the morning, as a direct result of a choice as to where we placed our money and the businesses or bands we have chosen to support. What really would be the difference between seeing someone that spent 100+ on an expensive suit with someone who has spent 100+ on hot topic gear and piercings?  As much as we each have our own perceptions as to what is normal and accepted I don't see why either should be respected at all. If we're going for practicality, a nice toga or burlap sack should do just fine.

So, what would be normal, or the opposite of an all out punk kid or complete goth? A polo shirt or an overpriced pre-faded t-shirt? I prefer the lavish costumes, they are far more entertaining and make great conversation starters.

Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 31 Jan 2008, 16:24
What really would be the difference between seeing someone that spent 100+ on an expensive suit with someone who has spent 100+ on hot topic gear and piercings?

Not much at all.  My point is "people who spend a lot of money and time on a look" and "people who don't".

Like I said, I put a minimal effort into what I wear and how I look, but I do not spend literally hundreds of dollars and an hour or two a day to make sure I fit impressively into a subculture's costume.  In my experience, that is a phase that people outgrow as they realise that grouping together with others is more complex than listening to the same bands or reading the same books.  YMMV.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Alex C on 31 Jan 2008, 16:55
Yeah, in my first job right out of high school I ended up working very closely with a cute girl of the same age since our low level positions required pretty much constant collaboration. We came from similar backgrounds, had a lot of the same interests and our senses of style were about as similar as you can get without crossdressing. New coworkers tended to treat us like some kind of matched set and a few even grumbled about the company dating policies, which was really sort of funny since we absolutely could not stand eachother at all.

Moral of the story: Two people can have a lot of superficial things in common and still fantasize about killing eachother with boxcutters. God, I'm never working in another mailroom again.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: ViolentDove on 31 Jan 2008, 17:19
People who have an interest in fashion or clothes and spend money on it are no different from people who have an interest in music and spend money on vinyl imports of the slightly different Japanese edition of some band's seminal first album, or any other hobby or interest, for that matter.

For the record, there are lots of old people in certain sub-cultures. Such as goths, hippies of various types, and there seems to be a fair few older people in the rockabilly scene, too.
Don't see to many older punks, though.

Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 31 Jan 2008, 17:26
Are you kidding?  There are tons of old punks.  They just stop bothering to dress up.

Old hippies never stop dressing like hippies because hippie clothing is cheap.

Old goths keep dressing that way because they're afraid of looking old and not getting laid any more.

Trust me, I know a hell of a lot of old hippies and goths.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: MadassAlex on 31 Jan 2008, 22:39
Right now I'm wearing a Dinosaur Jr. shirt and army surplus camo pants.  I do own a black trenchcoat.  I wear prescription sunglasses at night when I go out.  I am not "above" fashion, but I do not make any effort to meticulously wear an easily identifiable uniform so that people can look at me and say "Oh look, a goth/metalhead/indie rocker/whatever".

I think people over 21 being less prone to altering their visual appearance so much has more to do with holding down a solid job than anything to do with "maturity".

BTW, most "looks" are easy and not very time consuming to achieve - the exceptions are generally the ones that appeal to the younger teenage demographic and are sold via the most popular bands of the time. Pop-punk emo, for example, or gangster. Anyone can grow their hair long/er and wear band t-shirts. Point being, most people who looks metalhead/rocker/indie rocker/most subcultures aren't "meticulous" about it at all.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 31 Jan 2008, 22:41
No, I know many older goth/hippie people who hold down steady "straight" jobs while still dressing up in public, on the weekends, or even at work.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: MadassAlex on 31 Jan 2008, 22:50
Well, that's great for them, then.  :-)

It looks like it's your experience versus mine, which would make this an argument of subjectivity.

For the record, I don't think hippies count because it's not that much of a look to "maintain", really.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 31 Jan 2008, 23:02
Plus, looking like a "hippie" is pretty mainstream nowadays anyhow and in any decent sized city won't get you looked twice at.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: dalconnsuch on 01 Feb 2008, 01:00
Plus, looking like a "hippie" is pretty mainstream nowadays anyhow and in any decent sized city won't get you looked twice at.



u need to go to my college "the evergreen state college" if you any respect for hippies at all going to evergreen will change that trust me


Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: SevenPinkerton on 01 Feb 2008, 11:30
depending on what kind of hippy we're referring too, in my experience it's expensive to dress as a hippy or what people assume are hippies. I get called a hippy all the time because I care about where I buy my clothing and what it's made of and that generally shows on clothing. It can be expensive to buy non-sweatshop made non-pesticide covered clothing.

I'm not sure what would constitute a "hippy" to most people, though. In my experience, they (and I) tend to be mislabeled and stereotyped due to any old factor in our personality or dressing style. And along come the ridiculous generalizations that follow. "Hippy" is one of those words that is practically dead now as it really means nothing but a misunderstood insult directed at people with a broad set of values and lifestyle choices.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 01 Feb 2008, 11:44
i saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "drive less, bike more"

fucking hippies don't think, i swear.


Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Hat on 01 Feb 2008, 12:53
I could buy a full wardrobe of second hand hippie clothes for less than 20 bucks. I can't be certain about how 'environmentally friendly' it is, but even if the cotton was grown on anachronistic slave labor farms and doses with pure coca cola, the fact remains that its comfortable as shit and none of the companies that hypothetically made a profit on it would see any extra dollar as a result of buying it. Seems like a win for me, except I hate clothes that look fucking ridiculous.

I will never understand how a grown man can wear fishermens pants in public unless he has taken LSD and is in a park. To be fair, this gives a lot of leeway to the people who wear fishermens pants.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jasper on 01 Feb 2008, 13:22
I'll resist the urge to just post multiple pictures of members of pung, goth and metal bands, and just say, whoah, you don't know ANY bikers?

Members of bands "dressing up" is a bit different from members of the audience, because to some bands, part of the performance is the costume.  I readily admit that I do put a little effort into my appearance when I play a show, though it rarely goes beyond "tucking my jeans into my boots" or "wearing eyeliner".

I actually know a lot of bikers, as one of the bars I've most frequented in the past 10 years is a favorite spot for 40+ year old bikers.  However, they're not really the kind of bikers who dress like Hell's Angels, they're more down to Earth than that, just generally nice guys who smoke pot and like to discuss music and politics.  Half of them or so are Vietnam vets or ex-hippies.


What I'm wondering is what is considered not "dressing up?" As multiple members of the board has already mentioned, we all make a choice when we get dressed in the morning, as a direct result of a choice as to where we placed our money and the businesses or bands we have chosen to support. What really would be the difference between seeing someone that spent 100+ on an expensive suit with someone who has spent 100+ on hot topic gear and piercings?  As much as we each have our own perceptions as to what is normal and accepted I don't see why either should be respected at all. If we're going for practicality, a nice toga or burlap sack should do just fine.

So, what would be normal, or the opposite of an all out punk kid or complete goth? A polo shirt or an overpriced pre-faded t-shirt? I prefer the lavish costumes, they are far more entertaining and make great conversation starters.



I think it doesn't matter a whole lot, unless GWAR fans start getting in on the action. Then it's a problem.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: SevenPinkerton on 01 Feb 2008, 13:25
i saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "drive less, bike more"

fucking hippies don't think, i swear.




That's like saying it's wrong to support environmental programs when you utilize the environment to live on earth. Of course you can encourage biking when you also own a car. Where else would you put the bumper sticker, on your bike? for other bikes to see? That's silly.

Also, to call someone concerned with their own frickin' environment and breathable air a hippy is beyond stupid.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 01 Feb 2008, 16:26
i just hate hippies.

actually, that's not true. much of my family are hippies, but they were hippies in the sixties and now they are just old and don't try to act smart or be rude to people. they just smoke pot.
i guess what i really hate are hippy hipsters.

hippy-sters, if you will. i have never met one who actually knows what they are talking about or is even a pleasant person. they are confrontational and abrasive and usually ill-informed.

and for the record, i don't care if the hippy-sters in your town are the opposite of what i said because in my experience this is not the case. i would like nothing more than to get along with these people just like anyone else, but they make it near impossible.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: ViolentDove on 01 Feb 2008, 17:02
You sound a bit tense. Maybe you should chill out, and drink a nice cup of chai.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: SevenPinkerton on 02 Feb 2008, 08:35
There are other ways to express your views than bumper stickers, you know. Driving around basically saying "Hey, fuckhead, think about the environment! Ditch your car! Just because I'm keeping my car doesn't mean you should!" is stupid. There's no reason to make an argument over this at all.

If you honestly think that bumper sticker is meant to say "ditch your car" I'd hate to know how you interpret "Coexist" bumper stickers. "Oh oh, I bet they mean several devout people of different religions should like totally get an apartment together and try to make it work!"

Come on, you're really reaching just to make people who care about their environment look bad. If you don't care, that's your own values and that's fine, but don't make ridiculous assumptions and insults towards other people's values. Have some respect.

Now start talking about music again. As much as many people seem to dislike their own idea of what a hippy is, there is some great "hippy" music out there. Was that considered mainstream back then?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KharBevNor on 02 Feb 2008, 08:38
Guys, after our civilisation collapses, none of you are sharing my canned food or getting to play with my crossbow. Just sayin'.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Jackie Blue on 02 Feb 2008, 11:39
No matter how you slice it, bumper stickers are retarded.

Sorry.  It's just true.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 02 Feb 2008, 11:43
True that. That's why everyone should have a bumper sticker saying 'get rid of your bumper stickers, they are fucking retarded'.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Hat on 02 Feb 2008, 12:42
Guys, after our civilisation collapses, none of you are sharing my canned food or getting to play with my crossbow. Just sayin'.

Well you can't join my Roadwarrior gang.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: psyne on 02 Feb 2008, 14:31
There's a natural foods store next door to my apartment, and one of the employees has a mindboggling car that is literally coated in bumper stickers sporting various environmentalist, pro-gay rights, and anti-Bush slogans. I'm not even sure what color the car is.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: bbqrocks on 02 Feb 2008, 14:39
The only good bumper stickers are the big ones saying 'OH NOEZ I IS GOING TO CRASH'
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: KvP on 02 Feb 2008, 16:27
(http://store.theonion.com/images/get/161)
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Ballard on 04 Feb 2008, 07:59
I wonder how many times a car sporting that bumper sticker gets pulled over on a daily basis.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: SevenPinkerton on 04 Feb 2008, 10:04
I'd pull him over and ask him for proof of this insurance. Maybe he'd hand me a Bible.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 04 Feb 2008, 12:02
No matter how you slice it, bumper stickers are retarded.

Sorry.  It's just true.

There are some that are just sadistic instead, like that Goatse/Tubgirl '08 one with the address of the tubgirl site on it.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 04 Feb 2008, 12:12
I suppose they're the Lemon Party candidates?
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Nodaisho on 04 Feb 2008, 12:14
Probably. They are hoping to fix our dire shortage of drinking containers by making a rule of two girls to every cup.
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: Johnny C on 04 Feb 2008, 12:50
Wackity-Schmackity Doo!
Title: Re: mainstream bands
Post by: pinkpiche on 04 Feb 2008, 13:32
Videos containing grossness which can not be overstated are for the masses only.

I'm VIP.