First off, what exactly makes someone a wanker?
Second, what the fuck did you expect? “Hey, everybody, the music you like sucks, I have no respect for it, and the artists you consider great are wankers, and I’m just declaring it for no reason! Jesus Christ why are you so pissed off, what’s wrong with you?”
Just got home from a Steely Dan concert and quite frankly don’t care if anyone else likes them. I, personally, had a blast. When I start liking or disliking music based on the opinions of others, I’ll be sure and look you up. Until then, I’ll stick with my widely diverse appreciation for various genres, everything from Anne Clark through Chaka Khan and even Trent Reznor. You can like, hate, or even ignore the songs and artists I enjoy and it won’t have the slightest effect on my enjoyment.
He can’t figure out how to change the radio channel away from the golden oldies in his parents car.
A wanker is someone who is more concerned with showing off their ability than anything else, reveling in their own skill without actually playing anything interesting. For you sensitive types out there, my conception of “interesting” clearly differs from yours, so none of this bullshit about objective statements, okay?
I don’t blame people for being pissed off. The reason I declared it is because this section of the board is set aside for such declarations and I felt like having a discussion - what I didn’t expect was people to assume all kinds of things like “intolerance” on my part because I have a strong opinion about something. Definitely a difference there. I mean honestly, do you people really think I’m campaigning to have this stuff eliminated?
Now, DMC has the right idea. I’m expressing the same feelings in reverse: I don’t care how many people do like these terrible bands, I’m not obliged to like them or be at all interested in them. I don’t see why making a stupid post on a message board about it automatically means that it’s a constant obsession of mine, or that I’m even seeking a solution to it. I had an opinion and I stated it. You guys disagree, but I don’t see how that says anything about me.
Apparently our definition of interesting differs greatly, although I find some of the bands you mentioned extremely boring. I’ve always found that to be interesting songs either have to be emotional or technically difficult and catchy, which is why I’m a fan of guitar solos, particularly those of Jimi Hendrix and Eddie Hazel, who I find can do both. What do you consider interesting?
6,954,113,060 opinions on Earth as of this post.
Well, as I’ve mentioned, I think Tom Verlaine is a more interesting guitarist than any of those guys. I also think Kevin Shields is a total original - no one can play a guitar like that. Graham Coxon is another one of my heroes; and hell, Kevin Cadogan wrote some of the most interesting guitar parts this side of bubblegum.
and how did you determine that was their goal? not to mention, who the fuck crowned you the arbiter of what is and is not “interesting?”
fuck off and die. you’re obviously self-centered enough to post a screed about how anything you don’t like sucks and people who like the things you think suck are losers. Yes, we’ve all been 12 years old just like you are now. You didn’t invent anything, you aren’t presenting an original thought. your OP isn’t even worth the bytes it’s taking up on the SDMB servers.
no, we’re wondering why you think we should give a rat’s fuck what you don’t like. Nobody gives a shit, kid. Once you get out of middle school maybe you’ll realize there are more important things than worrying about which bands suck and which ones don’t.
I’m not even going to address your post bit-by-bit because it’s clear you don’t read what people are saying to you. No one said you have to like the bands that influence your faves. My point is that it’s ridiculous to try to act like those influences don’t matter, or that because you don’t like a certain band they are not talented. That is where this “tolerance” thing comes in, and behaving like an adult rather than a child throwing a tantrum becomes a handy skill to have.
Like I already stated, there is plenty of music I don’t care for, but I’m not going to sit here and say it’s crap just because it’s not my taste. That is what is immature.
You also need to get your dictionary and look up the difference between objective and subjective. Here, I’ll help:
Objective: Robert Plant had an impact on rock and roll and heavy metal that can still be heard in new music today.
Subjective: Robert Plant is a poopy pants whose voice gets on my nerves.
It’s always funny when someone starts a Pit thread and then gets histrionic when people disagree and/or explain why the basic OP is shit. It may be the area of the board where you’re free to say pretty much whatever you want, but as you saw with my recent thread, people are under no obligation to agree with you.
To each his own I suppose. Unless you don’t like Maggot Brain, because then I’m going to have to hunt you down.
This is a lame ass pit thread. Change the channel if you don’t like classic rock.
I Just saw Steely Dan in November and they were awesome. Only bad part of the show was one of those lights shining into my retina but you can’t have everything.
I didn’t know you were planning a mass extermination of classic rock fans. That seems rather extreme. I was merely assuming you were an intolerant dumbfuck blowhard with loud opinions. But certainly if you planning on carrying that through into violence, I would counsel against it.
I’d never describe Steely Dan, a band that I love, as “classic rock.” Really they are jazz-rock with some elements of prog rock, but Fagan’s lyrics are at a whole other level from 99% of rock music.
Meh. Tom Verlaine was slagged as a guitar wanker once upon a time too. Vocals aside, “Marquee Moon”–a ten-minute jam with multiple solos and “neo-psychedelic” touches–is closer to classic rock than much of the music in my collection. A generation later, similarly narrow-eared “punks” thought Tom DeLonge suddenly started sucking when he formed Angels & Airwaves.
Why aren’t you people listening to me? I never debated that these bands are talented or influential. Never. Not once. You’re looking at a good opportunity to talk down to me, so instead of actually looking at the substance of what I’m saying you’re rehashing each other’s statements based on a set of false assumptions.
How influential something is, or what something has been influenced by, DOESN’T MATTER in terms of whether I should like it or not. I never said it didn’t matter at all, because to say so would be obviously ridiculous. Besides, who’s getting histrionic? I haven’t even used an exclamation point yet. Christ.
I’ve responded to those people who’ve asked me to explain myself; I’ve made it clear I’m not speaking for anyone other than myself. Why is it people continue to make the same arguments after I’ve proven them false? To say that a band is shitty and to say that I think they’re shitty amount to the same thing - I can’t help but be surprised that most of the responders have been more interested in asserting their superiority through condescension than taking their own advice and moving on if they’re not interested in the thread. It’s obvious no one is actually taking the time to read my responses, as Indygrrl makes clear: “people are under no obligation to agree with you.” You don’t say? Did you happen to notice the several times I made that point, including once in the OP?
I don’t know if the people who are assuming I’m in middle school are trying to bait me or what, but don’t make me laugh. If you’re still pissed at me for saying “it sucks” rather than “I think it sucks” then just let this thread die.
I tried to get through this thread but had to give up.
It has to be the most stupid OP of all time.
Mozart sucked, Stravinsky sucked, Billy Holiday sucked, Louis Armstrong was a fraud, Buddy Guy sucks, Count Basie didn’t know the first thing about music, Buddy Holly sucked, Elvis was a fraud, Motown totally sucked, The Beatles and the Stones, how awful, there was nobody that came out of San Francisco that could play a note, and on and on and on.
Everything that is being done by whatever and whoever the OP is, and likes, has all been invented by them and has not been borrowed from somebody that preceded them.
Yea, I got it.
Thanks for enlightening us with you profound understanding of music, asshat.
Don’t go away mad, just go away and get some semblance of an education. Aside from that you are a troll.
In principle I agree with you, but I think the guitar parts in that song are just so great, and the groove in the verse is killer. It’s a long solo, but I love that it’s climactic and that section at the end with the bird calls is gutwrenching. I can honestly see why he’d be called a wanker - a lot of his post-Television work was pretty wanky anyway, but I think that album is pretty much perfect.
For the record, I don’t think Tom ever started “sucking” per se, but I think he needs Mark and Travis (and Jerry Finn, for that matter; RIP) to make really great stuff. Angels and Airwaves are, sadly, pretty lame.
Firstly you totally miss my point. I understand all musical preferences are subjective. However, my comment that you quote was that the OP makes objective statements about other people’s subjective views.
“I do not like the Rolling Stones’ music” is subjective and cannot be proved invalid.
“No one likes the Rolling Stones’ music” is objectively disprovable. The OP has made several incorrect statements along these lines.
Secondly, people fail to preface their opinion on music with qualifiers that make it clear they are merely offering their subjective opinion deliberately, for a rhetorical purpose. “This music is not good” has more impact than “In my opinion this music is not good”. People don’t fail to qualify their subjective statements because they are lazy typists but because they like the rhetorical impact of not doing so.
If I wanted to prove how enlightened I was, I wouldn’t have posted a “rant” in the “rant” section. Again with the fallacy: people see something they disagree with, and assume they’re being patronized. This, however, does not make me uneducated - your assessment of me as such, however, makes you judgmental.
You also make it clear that you haven’t been reading my responses, which makes me wonder why you want to throw in your two cents in the first place. I’ve already said that the bands I like were obviously influenced by bands I don’t. I don’t even consider that a concession. My point was that those facts have no bearing on whether I “should” like the influential music in question - the idea that I “should” like anything is itself ridiculous.
You also mention a bunch of artists that haven’t come up yet. I actually quite like Buddy Holly.
So let’s see: you’ve misread the original post, and either ignored or misconstrued every subsequent reply. To my mind, that says you haven’t “gotten” anything.
There is a difference between “classic rock” and classic rock. Radio stations with a limited playlist of only the most popular 60s/70s rock do suck, but I don’t know how anyone in their right mind could knock Cream. Clapton is amazing on Badge, White Room, and Crossroads. Once he gets into Cocaine (the song) he has jumped the shark, but that is the song with heavy airplay on “Classic Rock” stations. And not liking Stevie Ray Vaughn? Really?