I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Jul 25th, 2003 11:57 AM

KILLADEUCE

MEtallica- Don't get me wrong great band... however i personally feel that after the black album- shit went downhill.. I am all for there pushing there abilities in new directions or what-not but i really miss the raw power of Master of Puppets and Justice for All (which is still one of my most favorite albums of all times)

Limp Bizkit- Do i even have to say anything about this one- Anyone who does a fucking George Micheal Cover should be bludgeoned with a large freshwater trout and gagged with a "Mr. Two-Head"

In terms of the production value- shit... I could fart on a record and they could produce it the point where it would sound like butter-- but it would'nt change the fact that its just a fucking fart-

Ninja- I agree with ya on slayer to a point, i welcome you to check out Seasons in the Abyss, which i always thought was a pretty solid album- But Believe me- i am far from bieng a connoisseur.

Jul 25th, 2003 11:50 AM

soundtest

If you're referring to the ability to play an instrument, as far as I can tell, they are both equally 'talented' musicians. Do you play an instrument? Pick up a guitar and try learning some Kiss and Rolling Stones songs. Then count how many songs are structured like this:

Verse | Chorus | Verse | Chorus | Boring Guitar Solo | Verse | Chorus

How innovative.

Both of their songs are generally comprised of 'a few chords' and are not that difficult to learn. I don't consider guitar solo-wank sessions talent mind you (quite the opposite); I'm just trying to get a handle on your definition.

Trite lyrics? Again, which band are you talking about? Both have pretty boring lyrics imo.

Quote:

Also, how many bands really list Kiss as an influence ... perhaps in theatrics (a la Marilyn Manson) but not so much musically.

Many metal and rock bands site Kiss as an influence, at very least as many as bands that site the 'Stones. Kiss is known more for their theatrics, yes, but that doesn't detract from their influence on a generation of current musicians.

Quote:

What do you consider talented? Somebody that challenges the norms of their times? Well, the Stones did that in their time and had the talent and longevity to continue on long after many of their contemporaries fell by the wayside. Why do you think that is?

Again, replace "the Stones" with "Kiss" and shut up.

You bash Kiss for being exactly what the Rolling Stones are. Honestly, wtf are you arguing here? Just because you have some phaglust for Mick Jagger doesn't mean they are actually any better than Kiss to anybody else except Jagger groupies like yourself.

Quote:

I'm thinkin' that your one of those counter culturists who probably listens to some techno-industrial shit that indicates more of a knowledge of technology than music talent. Whatever!

And why are you 'thinkin'' this? Because I've discussed drugs in previous threads? Because of my avatar? I like anything that sounds good to me. Relevance?

Jul 25th, 2003 11:46 AM

kellychaos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dole

"talent and longevity to continue on long after many of their contemporaries fell by the wayside" -come on dude, this is the band that really should have stopped touring and recording new albums 20 years ago.

I agree. It's getting to be embarrassing.

In their prime, though, I'd pit them against ANY current band our time. In general, I'd have to agree with whoever posted that there is no best band. Different bands produce equally impressive music in their respective genres and it's possible to like more than one genre. Certain genre's have never appealed to me for a variety of reasons but still have show something impressive in their skill as lyricists or musicians ... some I'll never like in any context ... EVER!

Jul 25th, 2003 11:12 AM

Dole

Jul 25th, 2003 11:02 AM

kellychaos

Quote:

Originally Posted by soundtest

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellychaos

The Stones have an archive of hits in the dozens, tons of budding musicians who still site them as an influence after 30 plus years in the biz and millions of fans that still continue to listen to their music.

Replace "The Stones" with "Kiss" and tell me what you're arguing. Personally, I think they're both shit.

The fact that once has talent and knows more than a few chords and trite lyrics. Also, how many bands really list Kiss as an influence ... perhaps in theatrics (a la Marilyn Manson) but not so much musically.

What do you consider talented? Somebody that challenges the norms of their times? Well, the Stones did that in their time and had the talent and longevity to continue on long after many of their contemporaries fell by the wayside. Why do you think that is? I'm thinkin' that your one of those counter culturists who probably listens to some techno-industrial shit that indicates more of a knowledge of technology than music talent. Whatever!

Jul 25th, 2003 12:22 AM

Perndog

I never said Godsmack sounded like Alice in Chains (incidentally, I like them equally); I said Sully sounds like Layne. Yes, he does. It's not even that his voice is similar, it's that he sings the same way, the same inflections and stuff.

Weiland and Vedder don't sound similar to me.

Oh, and I'd like to invite the sharks to feed by saying the Beatles were overrated. Yes, they were fantastic. Yes, they had some amazing songs. No, they weren't the greatest band in history - I don't think there can be a greatest band because so many groups have accomplished so many different things. I think the Beatles should be praised, but as one of a handful of phenomenal groups, not on their own sacred pedestal. They're overrated because they have so many more fans and get so much more attention than these other groups who deserve to be seen at the same level. (and no, I'm not going to name any names, you can think of great artists on your own)

Here's your chance, Tenenbaum. Give it to me with both barrels.

Jul 25th, 2003 12:02 AM

crash0814

Rongi: Ah well, I'm not going to continue this because I have enough enemies on this board already.

Ninjavenom: I have a love/hate relationship with Nirvana. I love 'em because I dig their music. I hate them because they've turned alternative rock into a genre of music that is a mere mockery of what it used to be. Hell, it's not even alternative anymore. But I digress. Nirvana is good. Don't hate on them.

Jul 24th, 2003 11:59 PM

Zero Signal

Godsmack sounds NOTHING like Alice In Chains. Sully's voice is maybe remotely similar, but nowhere near the same sound.

You are the same people that though Weiland was ripping off Vedder's voice.

OMG! Someone has a voice similar to someone else's! They MUST be ripping them off! Just STFU, please.

Jul 24th, 2003 11:26 PM

Ninjavenom

Slayer: Revisited -

Upon listening to Show No Mercy, i have concluded that Slayer still have nothing good to offer me that wasn't topped a year or two later, thus making them generic, but i find this album listenable and listworthy. Still extremely overrated, however. I view them akin to the way i view Origin or Jungle Rot, in that they're nothing incredibly original, but i'll keep them anyway. :/

I'd also like to accent my hatred here for Nirvana as well.

Jul 24th, 2003 10:54 PM

Perndog

Quote:

Is it just me or do most of these new bands like creed, godsmack, and all those other gay bands sound exactly like alice in chains ripoffs?

Godsmack started as an Alice in Chains cover band. You can tell Sully had a lot of practice imitating Layne's voice.

My entry for overratedness is Incubus. For all their fans rave and for all the critics praise their originality and everything (and yes, they are innovative), I just don't like them enough to think they deserve all of this adulation.

Jul 24th, 2003 10:44 PM

Rongi

No, many people would disagree with your opinion.

Jul 24th, 2003 10:43 PM

crash0814

Opinions can very easily be wrong. What if I said Korn is the best band ever? I'd be wrong then, now wouldn't I?

Jul 24th, 2003 10:42 PM

The Retro Kat

I just don't understand how they got so fucking popular with such shit music. I mean, Carter Beauford can bust out some mean drums, but he doesn't. And Dave Matthew's is the King of Mediocraty when it comes to gutairing. I FUCKING HATE WHEN THEY ARE CONSIDERED A JAM BAND! They're are a bucket of alternative shit.

Jul 24th, 2003 10:27 PM

Rongi

I could not agree more about Dave Matthews Band. The only thing I hate more then them is their boring fans

Jul 24th, 2003 10:22 PM

The Retro Kat

Yeah, that Jag Panzer thing is a stab in the heart, I really just love their gutairest most. He played a solo of Flight of the Bumblebee, it was badass.

most have been already said:
Pearl Jam
Metallica
Slayer
Green Day (ARGH)
Blink 183
Sum 41
All new age punk and Emo
Madonna
Dave Fucking Matthews Band

Jul 24th, 2003 10:06 PM

Rongi

On the subject of Jag Panzer, I just can't stand that guy's voice

. And everyone LOVES Jag Panzer

And what was I so completely wrong about, crash? You do realize that opinions can't be wrong, right?

Jul 24th, 2003 09:46 PM

Zero Signal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Tenenbaum

"I am surprised that no one has mentioned The Beatles yet."

that's because you'd have to be a fucking retard to think so.

I did not say they were overrated.

Jul 24th, 2003 08:08 PM

Royal Tenenbaum

"I am surprised that no one has mentioned The Beatles yet."

that's because you'd have to be a fucking retard to think so.

"The Beatles are far from the best band ever. In fact, except for a certain time period (Revolver - Abbey Road), they pretty much sucked."

With those two sentences you proved yourself to be one of the most musically illiterate morons who has ever existed. Every single song the Beatles ever did is pure prefection. Also, Revolver to Abbey Road is like seven albums, how many bands actually make 7 great albums? Let alone the other masterpieces that came before it, like HELP, Rubber Soul, and Beatles for Sale.

Jul 24th, 2003 07:19 PM

Ninjavenom

Here, here, Soundtest.

Personally, i'm very sick of hearing about just about any heavy metal band, more than likely because a friend of mine speaks of nothing but what Van Halen did with some baloney and chicks at hotels, or who KISS porked or what Ozzy & Co. did with the furniture in a hotel room. :/

Dole: Pistols at dawn.

Rongi: Jag Panzer

Jul 24th, 2003 06:20 PM

soundtest

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellychaos

Replace "The Stones" with "Kiss" and tell me what you're arguing. Personally, I think they're both shit.

Jul 24th, 2003 06:12 PM

crash0814

The Beatles are far from the best band ever. In fact, except for a certain time period (Revolver - Abbey Road), they pretty much sucked.

Jul 24th, 2003 05:35 PM

distance

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellychaos

Case in point: The guy who had both Kiss and the Rolling Stones on his overrated list. How could you even put those two bands on the same list? The Stones have an archive of hits in the dozens, tons of budding musicians who still site them as an influence after 30 plus years in the biz and millions of fans that still continue to listen to their music. They must be doing something right. Kiss is a poser band that have always been about image and album sales as evidenced by their sellout behavior, particularly in the past 10 years or so.

just because i said i thought they were both over-rated it doesn't mean that i think they are remotely similar bands.

yes the rolling stones were influential. i'm not saying they weren't.
i'm saying i think they recieve more credit and praise than is warranted. not everything they have released has been equally good.

i think the beatles are over-rated also, but i won't deny their influence on music. can i think of a band that is "better" than the beatles? i don't know, but i don't think _I_ am going to say that the beatles are the best band ever, like a lot of people do.

over rated != suck.

Jul 24th, 2003 04:45 PM

crash0814

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rongi

All Nu-metal
Oasis
Kid Rock ( I hate him so much )
Most rap ( I will agree that there is such thing as "good rap" )
The Sex Pistols
The Who
Nirvana
Metallica ( Well, I will admit that I like some of their stuff, but over all I hate them )
Evanesence ( sp? )
Most pop ( again, there is such thing as "good pop" )
Mr. Bungle
Kiss
Black Sabbath ( well, later sabbath )
Ozzy Osbourne
Dimmu Boiger
Children Of Bodom
Cradle Of Filth
Jag Panzer ( I'm going to get flamed for saying that

)
Radiohead ( I hate to admit it, but they are

)
Pink Floyd

And probably a lot more.

Isn't it amazing how someone can be half right and half totally, completely wrong?

Jul 24th, 2003 04:28 PM

Zero Signal

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellychaos

How many "farewell tours" have they had?

I know.

KISS in the 80s gave even glam some credibility. It was that horrible.

Jul 24th, 2003 04:21 PM

kellychaos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

Quote:

Originally Posted by kellychaos

Kiss is a poser band that have always been about image and album sales as evidenced by their sellout behavior, particularly in the past 10 years or so.

Uh, clue alert. KISS has ALWAYS been about money and pussy from the beginning. How do you sell out when that is the case?

Absolutely! I just meant that they were being more blatant about it as of late. How many "farewell tours" have they had?

This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off