New topic
PrintableInsatiableCream said: Slave2daGroove said: just read your sig, sorry, I don't respond to ignorant bait for dumbasses
[Edited 1/7/08 10:15am] mine?  yeah, you're confused...  | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
is this a bait thread?
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
2freaky4church1 said: Ok, so the best thing they ever did was a MEDIOCRE COVER of a mediocre song?? Great job, Nirvana!! Maybe we can go to the movies and cry together | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Volitan said: 2freaky4church1 said: Ok, so the best thing they ever did was a MEDIOCRE COVER of a mediocre song?? Congratulations, you managed to get every part of a sentence completely wrong!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mynameisnotsusan said: Volitan said: Ok, so the best thing they ever did was a MEDIOCRE COVER of a mediocre song?? Congratulations, you managed to get every part of a sentence completely wrong! Bowie has had songs 100 times better than that, and Nirvan's cover of it was bleh, and whiney....  Maybe we can go to the movies and cry together | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Over referenced, but not over rated. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
RipHer2Shreds said: Personally, I think the term "overrated" is overused. Why not just say, "I don't like them?"
Well, I like them and I think they're overrated. "Whitney was purely and simply one of a kind." ~ Clive Davis | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I own "nevermind" and "In utero". I use to play them alot in my mid teens, but they are somewhere gathering dust LOL.
"smells like teen spirit" is pure AOR on the verses. Not the singing, but the production. Those reverby strumming guitars are something outta a David Foster production. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AlexdeParis said: RipHer2Shreds said: Personally, I think the term "overrated" is overused. Why not just say, "I don't like them?"
Well, I like them and I think they're overrated.  me, too. There's not question that the perceived "realness" of someone who dies young contributes to their legend, talent or not.My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
...by the way I am fuckin' feelin that newly issued DVD for Unplugged In New York!
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cinnie said: ...by the way I am fuckin' feelin that newly issued DVD for Unplugged In New York!
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
You had to be a loser kid/teen in the 90s to fully appreciate them. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JoeTyler said: I have to admit that they were a pretty good band inside the grunge/modern-punk genre (though Cobain's lyrics are very overrated); Smells like teen spirit is a timeless single, though, and Nevermind, In Utero and Unplugged are solid albums
Obviously, the main problem with this band was Cobain's annoying arrogance  main problem were his inner demons that man was talking about killing him selve all the time and no one ever took notice. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It's highly unlikely that he killed himself. He was on four times a lethal overdose of heroin, and I don't care how big an addict he was; that's still too much to then properly use a shotgun. He would've been incapacitated.
The gun was too long to be aimed at his head with the trigger pulled by his fingers, so this would mean he would've had to use his toes. And yet, his shoes were on when he died. Other facts: The gun wasn't dusted for finger prints until a month after he died. The door was not barricaded at all. Rather, just a small stool was sitting in front of the door. Kurt had filed for divorce prior to this, and he was going to have Courtney removed from his will. Numerous friends say Kurt was not the least bit suicidal prior to this. Someone was using one of Kurt's credit cards even after he was already dead. The major portion of the "suicide" letter actually reads more like a retirement announcement, and only the last couple of sentences talk of suicide. Suspiciously, they are in different looking hand writing. Get a clue, people. It was really unlikely that it was a suicide at all. The world is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.
"You still wanna take me to prison...just because I won't trade humanity for patriotism." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
RipHer2Shreds said: Personally, I think the term "overrated" is overused. Why not just say, "I don't like them?"
bingo... Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Slave2daGroove said: InsatiableCream said: mine? yeah, you're confused... its from a movie | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
horatio said: is this a bait thread?
no | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
RipHer2Shreds said: midnightmover said: This is the only place I've ever heard the truth spoken about Nirvana. Everywhere else their "greatness" is taken as a given. Truth? It's opinion. The idea that "everything is subjective" is a popular one, and I can understand why you'd buy into it, but it's actually illogical and impractical. For instance let me ask you a question. Who's a better singer? Hilary Clinton or Gladys Knight? I think most of us would agree it's not Hilary. If we can agree on that then we can agree that there is such a thing as objective standards. There is no doubt that Rembrandt was better with a paint brush than I'll ever be. I can't paint to save my life. That's a simple fact, so everything is not subjectve. If it were, there would be no point discussing anything, because hey, it's all subjective right? [Edited 1/8/08 4:24am] “The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
STONE TOTAL POSERS SHOULD NOT BE MENTIONED IN THIS THREAD AT ALL!!!!! SCOTT WEILAND DID HIS BEST "EDDIE VEDDER" TO GET OVER!!!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
midnightmover said: RipHer2Shreds said: Truth? It's opinion. The idea that "everything is subjective" is a popular one, and I can understand why you'd buy into it, but it's actually illogical and impractical. For instance let me ask you a question. Who's a better singer? Hilary Clinton or Gladys Knight? I think most of us would agree it's not Hilary. If we can agree on that then we can agree that there is such a thing as objective standards. There is no doubt that Rembrandt was better with a paint brush than I'll ever be. I can't paint to save my life. That's a simple fact, so everything is not subjectve. If it were, there would be no point discussing anything, because hey, it's all subjective right? [Edited 1/8/08 4:24am] Well, how's about this truth - the truth is you shouldn't even be comparing (or "buying into" the comparison, to use your language) Prince and Nirvana, because they're two completely different kinds of music. If you're going to keep making points until I conceded that, yes, Nirvana sucks, it's not going to happen. My OPINION is that they were a good rock band. Your TRUTH is that they suck. I'll take my opinion over your truth.  And I'll still listen to Prince, too. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
They were a good band, and Kurt was a really good songwriter. That's enough for me. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sosgemini said: RipHer2Shreds said: Personally, I think the term "overrated" is overused. Why not just say, "I don't like them?"
bingo... Better yet, why not just talk about artists that you do like rather than insulting fans of whichever artist by telling them that their tastes are shit. Afterall, it's only music. It ain't going to ruin your life or anything. 
 "In an ideal world..."
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Always rated them as whiny white shit. Nothing overrated with that.
BlueNote | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cloudbuster said: "In an ideal world..."
Meh, The Christians were overrated.... This is not an exit | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rocknrolldave said: Cloudbuster said: "In an ideal world..."
Meh, The Christians were overrated.... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
RipHer2Shreds said: midnightmover said: The idea that "everything is subjective" is a popular one, and I can understand why you'd buy into it, but it's actually illogical and impractical. For instance let me ask you a question. Who's a better singer? Hilary Clinton or Gladys Knight? I think most of us would agree it's not Hilary. If we can agree on that then we can agree that there is such a thing as objective standards. There is no doubt that Rembrandt was better with a paint brush than I'll ever be. I can't paint to save my life. That's a simple fact, so everything is not subjectve. If it were, there would be no point discussing anything, because hey, it's all subjective right? [Edited 1/8/08 4:24am] Well, how's about this truth - the truth is you shouldn't even be comparing (or "buying into" the comparison, to use your language) Prince and Nirvana, because they're two completely different kinds of music. If you're going to keep making points until I conceded that, yes, Nirvana sucks, it's not going to happen. My OPINION is that they were a good rock band. Your TRUTH is that they suck. I'll take my opinion over your truth. And I'll still listen to Prince, too.I never asked you to say they suck. I myself have never said they suck. I said they're overrated. There's a difference. As for the Prince references you're again missing the point. When you see the all time greatest lists they include artists from all genres. For instance Michael Jackson will often be placed alongside U2, so the fact is different artists are already being compared. What's being evaluated is quality and quality has nothing to do with genre. Yes, there may be a subjective element to those issues, but all discussions should start with an unbiased and dispassionate evaluation of the artist's body of work. Unfortunately that simply does not happen. Other factors come into play, and whether you will admit it or not, most sane people realise that Kirt's death has inflated Nirvana's reputation. If Prince had died in 1988 then his repuatation would be stratospheric. My point is that all of this is bullshit and shows that people are not really judging the music on it's own merits. Nirvana were not a bad group but they were far from great. I could name 30 or 40 less hallowed names who's body of work is far more impressive. Prince would be one of them. “The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
midnightmover said: RipHer2Shreds said: Well, how's about this truth - the truth is you shouldn't even be comparing (or "buying into" the comparison, to use your language) Prince and Nirvana, because they're two completely different kinds of music. If you're going to keep making points until I conceded that, yes, Nirvana sucks, it's not going to happen. My OPINION is that they were a good rock band. Your TRUTH is that they suck. I'll take my opinion over your truth. And I'll still listen to Prince, too.I never asked you to say they suck. I myself have never said they suck. I said they're overrated. There's a difference. As for the Prince references you're again missing the point. When you see the all time greatest lists they include artists from all genres. For instance Michael Jackson will often be placed alongside U2, so the fact is different artists are already being compared. What's being evaluated is quality and quality has nothing to do with genre. Yes, there may be a subjective element to those issues, but all discussions should start with an unbiased and dispassionate evaluation of the artist's body of work. Unfortunately that simply does not happen. Other factors come into play, and whether you will admit it or not, most sane people realise that Kirt's death has inflated Nirvana's reputation. If Prince had died in 1988 then his repuatation would be stratospheric. My point is that all of this is bullshit and shows that people are not really judging the music on it's own merits. Nirvana were not a bad group but they were far from great. I could name 30 or 40 less hallowed names who's body of work is far more impressive. Prince would be one of them. ...and it would still be your opinion...not a fact. Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cinnie said: ...by the way I am fuckin' feelin that newly issued DVD for Unplugged In New York!
és mesmo bonito! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sosgemini said: midnightmover said: I never asked you to say they suck. I myself have never said they suck. I said they're overrated. There's a difference. As for the Prince references you're again missing the point. When you see the all time greatest lists they include artists from all genres. For instance Michael Jackson will often be placed alongside U2, so the fact is different artists are already being compared. What's being evaluated is quality and quality has nothing to do with genre. Yes, there may be a subjective element to those issues, but all discussions should start with an unbiased and dispassionate evaluation of the artist's body of work. Unfortunately that simply does not happen. Other factors come into play, and whether you will admit it or not, most sane people realise that Kirt's death has inflated Nirvana's reputation. If Prince had died in 1988 then his repuatation would be stratospheric. My point is that all of this is bullshit and shows that people are not really judging the music on it's own merits. Nirvana were not a bad group but they were far from great. I could name 30 or 40 less hallowed names who's body of work is far more impressive. Prince would be one of them. ...and it would still be your opinion...not a fact. It would be a rational judgement based on the musical merits. I don't think any rational person would deny that Kirt's death has helped massively to enshrine the band's reputation. Therefore, their reputation is less about the music than the myth. Prince's body of work is clearly far larger than Nirvana's and the number of songs that most people would consider great if they listened to them is clearly far greater than the number of Nirvana songs that would be considered great. Sorry, but if you think about it objectively you'll see how logical what I'm saying is. And please don't resort to the "everything is subjective" argument. I already debunked that, and if we think it's all subjective then that would support the argument that they're overrated anyway, since it would mean their reputation as the best act of the 90s is unjustifiable, because nothing is ever better than anything else. “The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
midnightmover said: sosgemini said: ...and it would still be your opinion...not a fact. It would be a rational judgement based on the musical merits. I don't think any rational person would deny that Kirt's death has helped massively to enshrine the band's reputation. Therefore, their reputation is less about the music than the myth. Prince's body of work is clearly far larger than Nirvana's and the number of songs that most people would consider great if they listened to them is clearly far greater than the number of Nirvana songs that would be considered great. Sorry, but if you think about it objectively you'll see how logical what I'm saying is. And please don't resort to the "everything is subjective" argument. I already debunked that, and if we think it's all subjective then that would support the argument that they're overrated anyway, since it would mean their reputation as the best act of the 90s is unjustifiable, because nothing is ever better than anything else. you didn't debunk anything but your own delusions man... Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |