|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Mar 1, 2010 18:34:30 GMT -5
I was not, as I said I am incredibly biased.
As in to me punk is the Sex Pistols, The Clash, The Damned, all those wonderful British bands.
After listening to a few of their songs I retract my statement.
They're more like a slightly less failed attempt at goth rock. Like if Nine Inch Nails sucked less.
That's just what I'm going by from the lyrics.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Mar 1, 2010 18:57:01 GMT -5
Quiet.
|
|
|
Post by darthtoxic on Mar 1, 2010 20:21:46 GMT -5
They're more like a slightly less failed attempt at goth rock. Like if Nine Inch Nails sucked less. Every opinion you've ever had and have yet to have has been rendered invalid. Good day.
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Mar 2, 2010 8:45:22 GMT -5
They're more like a slightly less failed attempt at goth rock. Like if Nine Inch Nails sucked less. Every opinion you've ever had and have yet to have has been rendered invalid. Good day. I would have said it the second he said "Sex Pistols." But your quote works, too.
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Mar 2, 2010 23:36:13 GMT -5
Meh, to each their own.
|
|
|
Post by Maryland Bear on Mar 3, 2010 8:06:00 GMT -5
Whatever suits my mood at the time.
I'm particularly fond of classic country (Dolly Parton especially) and classic rock (defined as "popular when I was in high school or before).
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Mar 3, 2010 19:07:13 GMT -5
Believe it or not, I'm also somewhat into more "traditional" rap. Mostly Ice-T and Lil' Jon.
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Mar 3, 2010 22:20:29 GMT -5
When the hell did Lil' Jon or Lil' whatever the fuck become "traditional" rap?
Maybe I've listened to too much Wu-Tang Clan and N.W.A.
|
|
FrizzleFry
Full Member
Some Really Interesting Guy
Posts: 147
|
Post by FrizzleFry on Mar 4, 2010 3:40:58 GMT -5
See, this is why I don't believe in cramming a bunch of labels and genres on music. Everyone has their own interpretation of where a band belongs on the spectrum, and in the end it renders the whole genre system obsolete when each and every band has to have their own obscure genre. Especially in the heavy metal fandom it can get to absurd levels.
"-That's actually post-apocalyptic neo-trash, NOT blues-influenced sumo-grindcore.
-No, you're wrong! It's neo-progressive wank-metal."
I realize that genres as such are needed, so as to have even the slightest way of describing some music so that hopefully somebody understands, but it's a utopian dream where people can talk about "simple" genres such as blues, jazz, rap, metal, soul, funk or whatever without people having shitfits over whether a band is X or Y, or some obscure sub-genre or crossover, complete with opinions of why everybody else in the world is wrong. Sometimes maybe with a reason equivalent to "because I want to" or "because my brother said so".
Sort of makes you think of religious fundies, in a way...
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Mar 4, 2010 7:48:05 GMT -5
Especially in the heavy metal fandom it can get to absurd levels. Metal fans are pretty absurd to begin with. Then again, I'm a music geek. But I agree about genres, especially subgenres. They get really ridiculous fast. A lot of distinctions are arbitrary and silly, driven by an attempt to legitimise and delineate. I love watching metalheads fight over what "true" metal is, though. Also, Pop-Punk is a ridiculous genre, since most pop-punk acts share more in common with the Ramones than most of the punk that followed them. then again, there's the other problem with genres. They change. R&B now compared to 40 years ago? Big difference. People were talking about "Punk" music back in the 60s, the term "Heavy Metal" was coined for Led Zep, And what "Rock" is changes by the decade. Sometimes faster.
|
|
|
Post by Hades on Mar 4, 2010 8:11:54 GMT -5
See, this is why I don't believe in cramming a bunch of labels and genres on music. Everyone has their own interpretation of where a band belongs on the spectrum, and in the end it renders the whole genre system obsolete when each and every band has to have their own obscure genre. Especially in the heavy metal fandom it can get to absurd levels. "-That's actually post-apocalyptic neo-trash, NOT blues-influenced sumo-grindcore. -No, you're wrong! It's neo-progressive wank-metal." I realize that genres as such are needed, so as to have even the slightest way of describing some music so that hopefully somebody understands, but it's a utopian dream where people can talk about "simple" genres such as blues, jazz, rap, metal, soul, funk or whatever without people having shitfits over whether a band is X or Y, or some obscure sub-genre or crossover, complete with opinions of why everybody else in the world is wrong. Sometimes maybe with a reason equivalent to "because I want to" or "because my brother said so". Sort of makes you think of religious fundies, in a way... This is exactly the way I feel about it. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Mar 4, 2010 9:44:12 GMT -5
When the hell did Lil' Jon or Lil' whatever the fuck become "traditional" rap? Maybe I've listened to too much Wu-Tang Clan and N.W.A. Traditional as opposed to Deltron Z. Which I also happen to like.
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Mar 4, 2010 18:10:42 GMT -5
Especially in the heavy metal fandom it can get to absurd levels. Metal fans are pretty absurd to begin with. Then again, I'm a music geek. But I agree about genres, especially subgenres. They get really ridiculous fast. A lot of distinctions are arbitrary and silly, driven by an attempt to legitimise and delineate. I love watching metalheads fight over what "true" metal is, though. Also, Pop-Punk is a ridiculous genre, since most pop-punk acts share more in common with the Ramones than most of the punk that followed them. then again, there's the other problem with genres. They change. R&B now compared to 40 years ago? Big difference. People were talking about "Punk" music back in the 60s, the term "Heavy Metal" was coined for Led Zep, And what "Rock" is changes by the decade. Sometimes faster. I never understood why Led Zeppelin was considered Heavy Metal. I always considered them Rock or something along those lines. Of course I'm sure someone more knowledgable about metal and its different genres and sub-genres would be able to explain it.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 4, 2010 18:32:08 GMT -5
Metal fans are pretty absurd to begin with. Then again, I'm a music geek. But I agree about genres, especially subgenres. They get really ridiculous fast. A lot of distinctions are arbitrary and silly, driven by an attempt to legitimise and delineate. I love watching metalheads fight over what "true" metal is, though. Also, Pop-Punk is a ridiculous genre, since most pop-punk acts share more in common with the Ramones than most of the punk that followed them. then again, there's the other problem with genres. They change. R&B now compared to 40 years ago? Big difference. People were talking about "Punk" music back in the 60s, the term "Heavy Metal" was coined for Led Zep, And what "Rock" is changes by the decade. Sometimes faster. I never understood why Led Zeppelin was considered Heavy Metal. I always considered them Rock or something along those lines. Of course I'm sure someone more knowledgable about metal and its different genres and sub-genres would be able to explain it. Because heavy metal has gotten heavier and metalier after them. It has evolved into something where the older stuff just doesn't belong in that classification anymore.
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Mar 4, 2010 19:24:17 GMT -5
Ah, makes sense.
|
|