The Third Man Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 I like this guy. He sticks to his guns and seems to know what he's talking about. Too many people just over-reacted to his first post. Let's just get over it, and let him have his opinion, no one can take away you liking the Stones or Bob Dylan, so keep liking them and fuck everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketsredglare Posted July 12, 2005 Author Share Posted July 12, 2005 exactly...thank you, it's just an opinion....take it for what its worth...as much as anyone else...that is to say, it's worth nothing...opinion are like assholes...everybody has one quoth Dirty Harry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersillyspacemonkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 you are trying to compare punk with R&R?you suck dude.they are totally different types of music.punk is shitty and horrible sounding.you were trying to say that you dont have to be good at guitar to play it basically.and punks arent. if you arent able to play insturments dont get into the music industry.god there is so many things wrong with what you said. you should get bannedno matter how complicated you explain it the fact always remains.punk=shitty R&R is talented musicians who play awesome music and compared to punk punk is poop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabre Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Dude, you have to calm down, no one is gonna take you seriously if you go ranting in a million different directions. You obviously have a lot of principles but I think they are a little warped.You seem to have a problem with bands running their business. It's gotta be done, or people get ripped off and get less than they deserve. If they didn't co-operate with the fat cats then a lot of the shows and albums wouldn't happen. This is the way of the world baby, and if you don't like it, tough. As for knighthoods, no-one would refuse that, it's just a good natured honour.As for others' taste in music, let them like what they like. You can't change someone's taste by shoving punk down their throat, just let them have their opinions, live and let live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ88 Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 i love GnR, despise his influencesthe stones (shitty corporate rock dinosaurs)Elton John (balded head bore merchant who makes a living singing bout dead blondes)Bob Dylan (as much as i like a lot of his shit, jesus he's repetitive, old hippy)grateful dead (jump off a cliff)Aerosmith (3rd rate stones)his more out of the way influences ruleny dollssex pistolsiggy pop...i guess he's a mix of it all...plus a fistful of Axl...which makes him kick ass...he's the ONLY reason corporate stadium rock is worth it.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>you're an idiot, nOOb!you also forgot Led Zeppelin and Queen, and if you bash them, id seriously hunt you down, and fight you.....thats no lie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersillyspacemonkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 i love GnR, despise his influencesthe stones (shitty corporate rock dinosaurs)Elton John (balded head bore merchant who makes a living singing bout dead blondes)Bob Dylan (as much as i like a lot of his shit, jesus he's repetitive, old hippy)grateful dead (jump off a cliff)Aerosmith (3rd rate stones)his more out of the way influences ruleny dollssex pistolsiggy pop...i guess he's a mix of it all...plus a fistful of Axl...which makes him kick ass...he's the ONLY reason corporate stadium rock is worth it.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>you're an idiot, nOOb!you also forgot Led Zeppelin and Queen, and if you bash them, id seriously hunt you down, and fight you.....thats no lie<{POST_SNAPBACK}>i agree this kids a hooray for tolerance!.i guess he thinks gnrs some shitty punk band.go to some greenday forum or something you jackass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Third Man Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 i love GnR, despise his influencesthe stones (shitty corporate rock dinosaurs)Elton John (balded head bore merchant who makes a living singing bout dead blondes)Bob Dylan (as much as i like a lot of his shit, jesus he's repetitive, old hippy)grateful dead (jump off a cliff)Aerosmith (3rd rate stones)his more out of the way influences ruleny dollssex pistolsiggy pop...i guess he's a mix of it all...plus a fistful of Axl...which makes him kick ass...he's the ONLY reason corporate stadium rock is worth it.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>you're an idiot, nOOb!you also forgot Led Zeppelin and Queen, and if you bash them, id seriously hunt you down, and fight you.....thats no lie<{POST_SNAPBACK}>i agree this kids a hooray for tolerance!.i guess he thinks gnrs some shitty punk band.go to some greenday forum or something you jackass <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Good 1. He's a hooray for tolerance! How long were you thinking that 1 up? You're insulting his opinion and then moaning for him insulting yours? Shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketsredglare Posted July 12, 2005 Author Share Posted July 12, 2005 (edited) green day? since when were green day punk?Led Zepplin do suck...they're part of the whole dinosaur thing, Queen, hmm, i actually kinda dig queen a little cuz they are pretty orignal but...again, aloof, stuck up...hunt me down and fight me? lol for differing with ur opinion? lol cool, knock urself out...or me, whichever comes firstrunning ur buisness is good, i agree with that, compromising something ur orignally stood for, that i don't agree with, Axl is buisness minded, so is Johnny Rotten, i respect em for it, but u don't see em doing about turns from what they stood for because of it. the way of the world is only the way it is because it is allowed to be, record companies exist to promote albums, they should work for the artist, not the other way around...and thats what The Stones's folly was really...Knighthoods? u ever been to england? live there? that queen robs working classes of their taxes to pay for tiaras and boats while theres millions of unemployed and the countries governed by a parliment, she's an obselete dinosaur who is basically a leech, livin' offa their shit, and mr. street fighting man jagger who claims to be the working classes masses man (just like ol' lennon) is accepting accolades from her? thats hypocritical man, thats selling out who u came from...im not shoving anything down anyones throat dude, i stated an opinion that really didn't warrant this kinda reaction but hey, im glad it did, maybe that says something about it's validity...u only really respond to things angrily when they question ur values, which is something each and every human being should constantly do so as not to become a hypocrite cuz that kinda thing can happen sometimes without people realising it. i totally respect everyones opinion, i just like to state my own if it conflicts and see as a result of it what i can learn from people...im not tryna convert here, i dunno where u get that interpretation...certain things r beyond the realm of opinion though, they enter into something called fact, which has a right also to be stated....R&R? i have no clue what ur talking about....R&R stands for rest and recreation where i come from dude...and i know exactly what kinda band gnr is, they're certainly not punk...although they have an amazing load of it's influences....to all the people who diss johnny thunders and love axl"seems all our heroes were Born To Lose"born to lose is johnny thunders most famous song...or one of em, whaddya think Axls sayin there? how'd u like gnr yet diss these guys? maybe the answer is that you guys (the ones critical of aforesaid punk bands/artists) actually don't know what GnR is about...and think it's some badge of honour if u do...fact is, none but the members of the band are qualified to say that so get over urselves... Edited July 12, 2005 by rocketsredglare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersillyspacemonkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 i love GnR, despise his influencesthe stones (shitty corporate rock dinosaurs)Elton John (balded head bore merchant who makes a living singing bout dead blondes)Bob Dylan (as much as i like a lot of his shit, jesus he's repetitive, old hippy)grateful dead (jump off a cliff)Aerosmith (3rd rate stones)his more out of the way influences ruleny dollssex pistolsiggy pop...i guess he's a mix of it all...plus a fistful of Axl...which makes him kick ass...he's the ONLY reason corporate stadium rock is worth it.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>you're an idiot, nOOb!you also forgot Led Zeppelin and Queen, and if you bash them, id seriously hunt you down, and fight you.....thats no lie<{POST_SNAPBACK}>i agree this kids a hooray for tolerance!.i guess he thinks gnrs some shitty punk band.go to some greenday forum or something you jackass <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Good 1. He's a hooray for tolerance! How long were you thinking that 1 up? You're insulting his opinion and then moaning for him insulting yours? Shut up.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>im obviously not the only one who thinks this kids a jackass.the majority of people on this subject are saying this you idiot.go listen to some greenday or something you retard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersillyspacemonkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 so your saying bands quality depends on how old they are?so just because somethings from 30 years ago it sucks for no reason?stupid punk.no wonder your taste in music is so horrible.its the sound that makes it good not the age.jackass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketsredglare Posted July 12, 2005 Author Share Posted July 12, 2005 (edited) woah... i fucked up lol my post is 3 posts up LMAOboooo!!!*ducks eggs and rotten vegetables*show me where i said that spacemonkey...i like Hank Williams too and he was around in the 40s Edited July 12, 2005 by rocketsredglare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersillyspacemonkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 then you are a hypocrit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketsredglare Posted July 12, 2005 Author Share Posted July 12, 2005 (edited) i'll say it again....show me where i said that. i gave categoric reasons why the stones sucked, not for "no reason" like u said...whyn't u try readin em cuz nada one of em said it was cuz they were 30 yrs ago Edited July 12, 2005 by rocketsredglare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Tears Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 i love GnR, despise his influencesthe stones (shitty corporate rock dinosaurs)Elton John (balded head bore merchant who makes a living singing bout dead blondes)Bob Dylan (as much as i like a lot of his shit, jesus he's repetitive, old hippy)grateful dead (jump off a cliff)Aerosmith (3rd rate stones)his more out of the way influences ruleny dollssex pistolsiggy pop...i guess he's a mix of it all...plus a fistful of Axl...which makes him kick ass...he's the ONLY reason corporate stadium rock is worth it.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>the stones : great group (listen to wild horses , paint it black, beast of burden and many more)Elton John: he wrote good music Bob Dylan: he's cool and has good music (it's all over now baby blue, KNOCKIN ON HEAVENS DOOR)Aerosmith and gratefull dead : ask other people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersillyspacemonkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Led Zepplin do suck...they're part of the whole dinosaur thingtheres an example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketsredglare Posted July 12, 2005 Author Share Posted July 12, 2005 dinosaur thing....."thing" meaning the whole concept is multi-faceted...old and obselete for the reason that they are aloof and they start believing their own hype...cocaine hags that end up looking like collies cuz they lived offa snow and red wine their whole lives, their heads so far up their asses they gotta pull down their collars to breathe thats not critical of their age at all...just what they did with the time...like when u say "he's part of that whole 70s thing" it relates to numerous facets... dinosaur was a convinient metaphor, kinda like when Axl said Immigrants was a convinient encapsulation, instead of saying Joe Schmaloo from such and such 7/11*pertaining to the immigrants and hooray for tolerance!s line in one in a million* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersillyspacemonkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 dinosaur thing....."thing" meaning the whole concept is multi-faceted...old and obselete for the reason that they are aloof and they start believing their own hype...cocaine hags that end up looking like collies cuz they lived offa snow and red wine their whole lives, their heads so far up their asses they gotta pull down their collars to breathe thats not critical of their age at all...just what they did with the time...like when u say "he's part of that whole 70s thing" it relates to numerous facets... dinosaur was a convinient metaphor, kinda like when Axl said Immigrants was a convinient encapsulation, instead of saying Joe Schmaloo from such and such 7/11*pertaining to the immigrants and hooray for tolerance!s line in one in a million*<{POST_SNAPBACK}>...........what?so thats why you dont ike good bands? it doesnthave anything to do with their music but how they lived their lives???and it doent matter how much better they sound than your punk bands for some reason....weeird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duffan Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 cocaine hags that end up looking like collies cuz they lived offa snow and red wine their whole lives, their heads so far up their asses they gotta pull down their collars to breathe thats And Punk-rockers were clean sober bible-thumpers , Not a comment that helps your cause . Peace GnR Nation B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketsredglare Posted July 12, 2005 Author Share Posted July 12, 2005 (edited) there music has an immense amount to do with it...namely, the fact is hasn't changed since the 60s, they're in a time warp, they don't progress, if u care to read some of my other posts u might know that instead of commenting on something before reading the persons opinion, they've been playin the same naff rock n roll since they started, no change...just total stalemate....diggressive crap...jumpin jack flash is great, Under My Thumb is great but....40 years of it? hmm...im sorry, but thats just scary....lol they don't move, they don't go anywhere, do something knew....like gnr, from lies, to appetite, to the illusion albums their is MONUMENTAL progression musically...lyrically, in all ways...with the stones it's like they're trapped in the 60s, scared to let go in case they fall flat on their face...the only experimentation they did was psychedelia for a littttttle while around goats head soup time...and that hardly took guts, everyone was doin it in the 60s...and the fact is, with rock n roll, u sell an image and a way of life and an ideology and if u r not consistent to it then u r exposed VERY quickly...as the stones were...nostalgia is dangerous, each generation MUST do their own thing, stop lookin up to grandad...u think the hippies sucked the rock n rollers dicks? or the punks sucked the hippies dick? or the hip hop generation sucked the punks dicks? no no and no...and u know why? cuz when u do get into that kinda "weren't the good old days great?" mentality then u end up being like this fucking generation....with nothing orignal and new, no movement, no music, no soundtrack to call its own...THAT is tragic....what are the 90s and 00's gonna be remembered for? EXACTLY...lol 90s at least electronica and techno and rave made waves in certain circles, liking it is a matter of opinion but at least it was orignal and their own...what have we got? nothing, exactly...and stale digressive mentalities just encourage that.bible thumpers? lol cocaine is a rich mans drug....punks took speed and heroin and the ones that were dedicated to it like the so called so called Toxic Twins & keith and Prick, excuse me, Mick, died taking it....not to say that thats an accolade but....they didn't know any better, they were real street people, real working class people...they didn't have that sensible switch that those with "something to lose" have where they go, ohmigod, i gotta get into rehab, i might actually be putting myself on the line for an ideology that im pedalling, theres too much invested in this whole circus...there was an innocence (plus idiocy? childlike quality) to punk where they went for it, full steam ahead...they were what they were, straight ahead...im not saying Keith and Mick'd be better off dead offa ODing but it's just one example outta many...i mean, they celebrate the keiths micks and ozzys of this world now as if all their drinkin and drug taking was waaay cool and totally rock n roll....they didn't at the time? why's that? cuz media wants to sell basically, they don't give a second fuck about their lives or any of this shit, they want publicity...mick and keith were clever enough to shake it off and get on with their buisnessmen lives....what about kids like sid vicious and johnny thunders who grew up believing that junkie shit and died for it...died for something that the keiths and micks of this world proliferating...ur responsible for a lot more than u think as a rock star...u can say, well then johnny and sid were stupid then, haha, well, maybe they believed a little in what rock n roll was pushing, the ideology...maybe they're casualities with a childlike innocence that was destroyed by rock n roll...to quote George Plimpton (he was talking about Muhammad Ali in this instance, pertaining to his parkinsons but i think it's relevant here "they say u destroy the thing u love, well it works the other way, because it destroys you too". spare a thought for the casualties of rock n roll... Edited July 12, 2005 by rocketsredglare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duffan Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 music has an immense amount to do with it...namely, the fact is hasn't changed since the 60s, they're in a time warp, they don't progress, if u care to read some of my other posts u might know that instead of commenting on something before reading the persons opinion, they've been playin the same naff rock n roll since they started, no change...just total stalemate....diggressive crap...jumpin jack flash is great, Under My Thumb is great but....40 years of it? hmm...im sorry, but thats just scary....lol they don't move, they don't go anywhere, do something knew....like gnr, from lies, to appetite, to the illusion albums their is MONUMENTAL progression musically...lyrically, in all ways...with the stones it's like they're trapped in the 60s, scared to let go in case they fall flat on their face...the only experimentation they did was psychedelia for a littttttle while around goats head soup time...and that hardly took guts, everyone was doin it in the 60s...and the fact is, with rock n roll, u sell an image and a way of life and an ideology and if u r not consistent to it then u r exposed VERY quickly...as the stones were...nostalgia is dangerous, each generation MUST do their own thing, stop lookin up to grandad...u think the hippies sucked the rock n rollers dicks? or the punks sucked the hippies dick? or the hip hop generation sucked the punks dicks? no no and no...and u know why? cuz when u do get into that kinda "weren't the good old days great?" mentality then u end up being like this fucking generation....with nothing orignal and new, no movement, no music, no soundtrack to call its own...THAT is tragic....what are the 90s and 00's gonna be remembered for? EXACTLY...lol 90s at least electronica and techno and rave made waves in certain circles, liking it is a matter of opinion but at least it was orignal and their own...what have we got? nothing, exactly...and stale digressive mentalities just encourage that.Well I'm guessing you don't like AC/DC , too bad then since they keep kickin' ass for 30yrs now with the same style as in '75 , proving you don't always have to "progress" to be great . I mean could you imagine the uprorar if they had a keyborad part in a song or a sypmhony . Peace GnR Nation B) Peace GnR Nation B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabre Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 music has an immense amount to do with it...namely, the fact is hasn't changed since the 60s, they're in a time warp, they don't progress, if u care to read some of my other posts u might know that instead of commenting on something before reading the persons opinion, they've been playin the same naff rock n roll since they started, no change...just total stalemate....diggressive crap...jumpin jack flash is great, Under My Thumb is great but....40 years of it? hmm...im sorry, but thats just scary....lol they don't move, they don't go anywhere, do something knew....like gnr, from lies, to appetite, to the illusion albums their is MONUMENTAL progression musically...lyrically, in all ways...with the stones it's like they're trapped in the 60s, scared to let go in case they fall flat on their face...the only experimentation they did was psychedelia for a littttttle while around goats head soup time...and that hardly took guts, everyone was doin it in the 60s...and the fact is, with rock n roll, u sell an image and a way of life and an ideology and if u r not consistent to it then u r exposed VERY quickly...as the stones were...nostalgia is dangerous, each generation MUST do their own thing, stop lookin up to grandad...u think the hippies sucked the rock n rollers dicks? or the punks sucked the hippies dick? or the hip hop generation sucked the punks dicks? no no and no...and u know why? cuz when u do get into that kinda "weren't the good old days great?" mentality then u end up being like this fucking generation....with nothing orignal and new, no movement, no music, no soundtrack to call its own...THAT is tragic....what are the 90s and 00's gonna be remembered for? EXACTLY...lol 90s at least electronica and techno and rave made waves in certain circles, liking it is a matter of opinion but at least it was orignal and their own...what have we got? nothing, exactly...and stale digressive mentalities just encourage that.Well I'm guessing you don't like AC/DC , too bad then since they keep kickin' ass for 30yrs now with the same style as in '75 , proving you don't always have to "progress" to be great . I mean could you imagine the uprorar if they had a keyborad part in a song or a sypmhony . Peace GnR Nation B) Peace GnR Nation B)<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I was gonna bring up ACDC. They have kept the same style and are still great. Same with crue, clapton, santana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketsredglare Posted July 12, 2005 Author Share Posted July 12, 2005 theres a big difference between continuing to sell and being great ok? Britney Spears sells too, how many of your "legends" lists would she make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersillyspacemonkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 ok so as you said before it doesnt matter how good it sounds but if its been around for long it sucks.you know why its liked for so long? because its GOOD!so what youre telling me is that i should stop liking good music and go along with every fad that comes around no matter how gay it is, like punk because rock and roll doesnt change.... hm... well look at that one rock band..... oh yeah... GUNS N' ROSES!and why go out of your way to change something when its been perfected?well thanks for the shitty advice, im gonna go listen to avril lavigne now.(that was sarcasm)idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Third Man Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 i love GnR, despise his influencesthe stones (shitty corporate rock dinosaurs)Elton John (balded head bore merchant who makes a living singing bout dead blondes)Bob Dylan (as much as i like a lot of his shit, jesus he's repetitive, old hippy)grateful dead (jump off a cliff)Aerosmith (3rd rate stones)his more out of the way influences ruleny dollssex pistolsiggy pop...i guess he's a mix of it all...plus a fistful of Axl...which makes him kick ass...he's the ONLY reason corporate stadium rock is worth it.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>you're an idiot, nOOb!you also forgot Led Zeppelin and Queen, and if you bash them, id seriously hunt you down, and fight you.....thats no lie<{POST_SNAPBACK}>i agree this kids a hooray for tolerance!.i guess he thinks gnrs some shitty punk band.go to some greenday forum or something you jackass <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Good 1. He's a hooray for tolerance! How long were you thinking that 1 up? You're insulting his opinion and then moaning for him insulting yours? Shut up.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>im obviously not the only one who thinks this kids a jackass.the majority of people on this subject are saying this you idiot.go listen to some greenday or something you retard<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I don't even like Green Day dipshit. I like Elton, Aerosmith and the Stones, not too ig on Dylan but he's cool. I could say "G'n'R suck ass" and it wouldn't mean anything, it's just an opinion dickwad. Same as when you said "go listen to some greenday or something you retard". Yes, because only "retards" can listen to Greenday. Grow up fuck muffin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersillyspacemonkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 theres a big difference between continuing to sell and being great ok? Britney Spears sells too, how many of your "legends" lists would she make?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>brittany spears doesnt play her ownn insturments and has her voice computerised most of the time to make it sound good.shes only selled well cause shes 100% commerciallism while acdc sold because they kicked ass.and at least britney spears sounds better than your screaming fag punk bands, even though shes f-in horrible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts