Gunsnhalen said:

Sorry my peeps... but i don't see it. I was in a boba shop today... and they played Everytime again

Even whent hey were being ''funny'' or ''ironic'' it just seems forced...and Mark is just a borign frontman. Even when they're trying to joke it seems forced and not right. And the DJ in the mix just seemed like an ''ok why not'' kind of situation.

I think Enrique Iglesias has more rock cred then these dudes

Ha! I agree with everything you stated. I remember them getting national exposure after remaking the song 'Psychedelic Bee' by Howard Stern. As for my reasoning on enjoying a few of there jamz. Chances are I was blazin a at the time. In no way will I try and convince you that they were anything more than a laid back, simple, light and catchy sing- along type of act. Depending on where you were, in your life in that moment. This type of music is needed sometimes to help you ease up the burdens of the world you carry on your shoulders... And why you gotta diss Limp Bizkit? They had some jamz too.

RodeoSchro said:

Gunsnhalen said:

Sorry my peeps... but i don't see it. I was in a boba shop today... and they played Everytime again

Even whent hey were being ''funny'' or ''ironic'' it just seems forced...and Mark is just a borign frontman. Even when they're trying to joke it seems forced and not right. And the DJ in the mix just seemed like an ''ok why not'' kind of situation.

I think Enrique Iglesias has more rock cred then these dudes

See, this is what "art" is all about.

I like Sugar Ray, you don't understand how that is possible.

You like Nirvana, I don't understand how that is possible.

Neither one of us is right or wrong. We just like what we like and no one else's opinion of that means a thing.

Such is the nature of art.

Maybe, but Sugar Ray is not art.

Anyone who thinks "Every Morning" was some of the worst music of the '90s was clearly not alive or conscious back then. Something tells me you where probably a bebe...

Cinny said:

RodeoSchro said:

See, this is what "art" is all about.

I like Sugar Ray, you don't understand how that is possible.

You like Nirvana, I don't understand how that is possible.

Neither one of us is right or wrong. We just like what we like and no one else's opinion of that means a thing.

Such is the nature of art.

Funny seeing you around Music:Non-Prince just to argue against Gunsnhalen.

Nirvana >> Sugar Ray

Well, now I can argue with you, too!

Nirvana = Death of Rock and Roll

novabrkr said:

RodeoSchro said:

See, this is what "art" is all about.

I like Sugar Ray, you don't understand how that is possible.

You like Nirvana, I don't understand how that is possible.

Neither one of us is right or wrong. We just like what we like and no one else's opinion of that means a thing.

Such is the nature of art.

Maybe, but Sugar Ray is not art.

Well then, neither was Nirvana.

novabrkr said:

RodeoSchro said:

See, this is what "art" is all about.

I like Sugar Ray, you don't understand how that is possible.

You like Nirvana, I don't understand how that is possible.

Neither one of us is right or wrong. We just like what we like and no one else's opinion of that means a thing.

Such is the nature of art.

Maybe, but Sugar Ray is not art.

They're absolute garbage, but were the beneficiaries of having a catchy Sublime ripoff and still being alive to sing it for people.

It's funny you bring it up, because i have been hearing Someday in stores recently and thinking "this sucked then and it sucks now!"

RodeoSchro said:

novabrkr said:

Maybe, but Sugar Ray is not art.

Well then, neither was Nirvana.

I'm hardly a fan of their music myself, but it's safe to say that Nirvana have secured their status as one of those rock groups that are widely considered real art (along with the likes of Sonic Youth, The Pixies, Television, Velvet Underground and so on).

I don't want to be unnecessarily rude towards you, but not everything qualifies as art just because you don't understand the use of the word "art" yourself. The lines are of course blurry, but that's no excuse for applying the word on everything.

thesexofit said:

They takes me back to being a young teen watching MTV and seeing people my age skateboard etc....

The Blink 182's, Sum 41's, Kid Rock's and Limp Bizcuit's of the world were big back then. All of them were big in the UK at the time too. Sugar Ray wern't half as big as those guys in the UK, but they must of still had a small following as I remember a few of their video's at the time....

I think our own Britpop sorta imploded with Oasis' "Be here now". I never liked much top 40 rock from the UK since then really...

I still own their album "14:59" somewhere, but the last song of theirs I remember seeing was actually my favourite song of they did. The video was cool too...

You got me looking for my album now LOL

yup so true there were tons of these type bands like sum 41 and the blink 182's limp bizcuit etc..and they were all in that pop/rock/hiphop mode. This was similar to what was going on in RB with groups like 112 NEXT Shai etc...everyone seemed to be in the same mold, to me the 90's were a freaking blur, i look at all my favorite albums of that era and NOT ONE was from an artist that started in the 90's. As for how did they get big, they were just fake rock, or wanna be rock as i call it, with the fashionable lead singer etc...

Exactly true on the Maroon 5 comparison they are their older brother, and like Sugar Ray i always think, "this is what people go nuts over". And NO i consider neither group ROCK

I never get why people criticize what is popular and that other folks are supposed to dislike an act just because you don't like them. What's it to you what another person likes and why a group becomes popular? The "taste police" and musical prejudice make no sense to me. Let people enjoy what they enjoy. If those same people who like Sugar Ray puts down whatever is so called "art" music, those fans wouldn't like it, but people feel free to insult folks taste and certain performers because their music doesn't fit some standard as "art" or so-called "real music by real musicians". All music is real, there is no fake music. Music is for people to enjoy, and if someone enjoys Sugar Ray (or any other act) and their music makes them happy, as Paul McCartney said "What's wrong with that?" Why is it cool to make fun of a Lawrence Welk or Michael Bolton? They have lots of fans, and there is nothing wrong with their music or image. I don't think listening to them is embarrasing or a guilty pleasure or "cheesy". If a person feels guilty or embarrased about listening or watching something, and if it isn't considered cool and hip, then why listen to it or watch it in the first place? Then their reputation won't be tarnished.

MickyDolenz said:

I never get why people criticize what is popular and that other folks are supposed to dislike an act just because you don't like them. What's it to you what another person likes and why a group becomes popular? The "taste police" and musical prejudice make no sense to me. Let people enjoy what they enjoy. If those same people who like Sugar Ray puts down whatever is so called "art" music, those fans wouldn't like it, but people feel free to insult folks taste and certain performers because their music doesn't fit some standard as "art" or so-called "real music by real musicians". All music is real, there is no fake music. Music is for people to enjoy, and if someone enjoys Sugar Ray (or any other act) and their music makes them happy, as Paul McCartney said "What's wrong with that?" Why is it cool to make fun of a Lawrence Welk or Michael Bolton? They have lots of fans, and there is nothing wrong with their music or image. I don't think listening to them is embarrasing or a guilty pleasure or "cheesy". If a person feels guilty or embarrased about listening or watching something, and if it isn't considered cool and hip, then why listen to it or watch it in the first place? Then their reputation won't be tarnished.

The thing is that is what people do and have always done, this is why there are magazines like Rolling Stone and Q and whatever music magazine that rates and reviews etc...Point is no one should listen to anyones opinions, because Opinions are like Assholes....everyone has got one. Plain and simple an opinion should never sway you, honestly when people ask me about something "i like" to recommend them I DONT do it, i say go find it yourself thats part of the joy, ME telling you what i like and trying to get YOU into it, never works, and then forces me to defend my choice, which i dont have the energy for.

As for this Sugar Ray thing, they were what they were, i dont really think Mark was really looking to do music overall, since he was doing talk show and reporting stuff once people convinced him he was good on camera, so MUSICALLY he was not serious about it.

lastdecember said:

The thing is that is what people do and have always done, this is why there are magazines like Rolling Stone and Q and whatever music magazine that rates and reviews etc...Point is no one should listen to anyones opinions, because Opinions are like Assholes....everyone has got one. Plain and simple an opinion should never sway you, honestly when people ask me about something "i like" to recommend them I DONT do it, i say go find it yourself thats part of the joy, ME telling you what i like and trying to get YOU into it, never works, and then forces me to defend my choice, which i dont have the energy for.

As for this Sugar Ray thing, they were what they were, i dont really think Mark was really looking to do music overall, since he was doing talk show and reporting stuff once people convinced him he was good on camera, so MUSICALLY he was not serious about it.

I don't read reviews, and have never listened, bought, or watched something because of one. I have my own eyes & ears. If I was depending on the magazine critics, I would never have listened to The Monkees, which have always been put down. My all time favorite TV show is The Dukes Of Hazzard, which I don't think was acclaimed either. But that's ok, many people enjoy it, and they have a Dukesfest every year, and people come from all over the world to it.

.

I don't think music is really about awards or getting into a museum like a Hall Of Fame or being seen as cool. Many of the people I like have never won anything and/or have had little media attention, like Johnnie Taylor. But I heard his records all the time when I was little, from my mom and at different relatives homes.

MickyDolenz said:

lastdecember said:

The thing is that is what people do and have always done, this is why there are magazines like Rolling Stone and Q and whatever music magazine that rates and reviews etc...Point is no one should listen to anyones opinions, because Opinions are like Assholes....everyone has got one. Plain and simple an opinion should never sway you, honestly when people ask me about something "i like" to recommend them I DONT do it, i say go find it yourself thats part of the joy, ME telling you what i like and trying to get YOU into it, never works, and then forces me to defend my choice, which i dont have the energy for.

As for this Sugar Ray thing, they were what they were, i dont really think Mark was really looking to do music overall, since he was doing talk show and reporting stuff once people convinced him he was good on camera, so MUSICALLY he was not serious about it.

I don't read reviews, and have never listened, bought, or watched something because of one. I have my own eyes & ears. If I was depending on the magazine critics, I would never have listened to The Monkees, which have always been put down. My all time favorite TV show is The Dukes Of Hazzard, which I don't think was acclaimed either. But that's ok, many people enjoy it, and they have a Dukesfest every year, and people come from all over the world to it.

.

I don't think music is really about awards or getting into a museum like a Hall Of Fame or being seen as cool. Many of the people I like have never won anything and/or have had little media attention, like Johnnie Taylor. But I heard his records all the time when I was little, from my mom and at different relatives homes.

I DO read reviews, and I HAVE OFTEn listened, bought, or watched something because of one. I ALSO have my own eyes and ears, of course--reviews (and other press--and what people say around here, for that matter) can bring things to my attention that I otherwise might be unaware of. It's a big old world, and while you might have naturally heard Johnnie Taylor, someone might find him through a small comment by you (or by a critic, God forbid) and have a different bit of joy in their life than what they might have without that comment. Or they might give a listen and decide, "Meh."
Heck, I wasn't born until 1970, and have lived in primarily white, mostly country (to be honest) and some rock areas pretty much my whole life--even yet, beyond the top of the top 40, you don't hear anything outside of those genres here unless you look for it specifically. Without listening to other people, I'd have a really hard time learning about a lot of stuff--music, movies, books, and other cultural artifacts--that really matter to me. I don't depend on critics for my opinion--I make up my own mind. But I certainly use critics to find things to make up my own mind about--and good critics, whether I agree with their opinions, can help me understand my own opinions.

As to Last December's comment about the ubiquity of opinions--doesn't mean they're unimportant (either opinions or the other). And no one's opinion is formed in a vacuum, and the art we value so much (or we wouldn't be here) is at least in part an expression of the artist's opinion about the art that already exists. And I'm more than willing to make a recommendation--it might reflect my opinion of the person I'm recommending to as much as my opinion of the work I'm recommending--but I do so with the assumption that whoever I'm talking about is more than capable of making up their own mind about value, once they've heard it (or seen it, or whatever). But I like trying to defend my opinions, most of the time. It's fun. But for me it's not a matter of changing someone else's mind--just exploring my own (and, if they play along, exploring theirs).

novabrkr said:

RodeoSchro said:

Well then, neither was Nirvana.

I'm hardly a fan of their music myself, but it's safe to say that Nirvana have secured their status as one of those rock groups that are widely considered real art (along with the likes of Sonic Youth, The Pixies, Television, Velvet Underground and so on).

I don't want to be unnecessarily rude towards you, but not everything qualifies as art just because you don't understand the use of the word "art" yourself. The lines are of course blurry, but that's no excuse for applying the word on everything.

OK then, please define "art" and explain how Sugar Ray does not fit the definition of it but Nirvana does.

NDRU said:

It's funny you bring it up, because i have been hearing Someday in stores recently and thinking "this sucked then and it sucks now!"

I am sure a lot of people think that of the 80s music I love, but I am hyper critical of the 90s.