Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtistInTheAmbulance
to be honest.. none of you are gonna be perfectly happy with it unless its five artists which appeal to your taste. so less bitching because the whole point is that its everyones taste mixed in. blah.
plus, number one makes me happy :]
so shutup.
|
Well I don't think so. I mean I hear your argument, but I think the list is disappointing in maybe this reason.
In no particular order:
1. Black Sabbath, for all they created, we're largely one dimensional. I think that for every "changes" there were several "war pigs." not that those weren't great songs, because they were, but Sabbath seemed to like where they were (in my opinion) and stuck there.
2. As much as I think Elliott Smith makes terrible music (to date I like one song), he is well liked and I certainly respect him for bridging what I would call (and therefore not up for debate) the emo kids to singer/songwriters. I feel they have a better chance of developing good taste with smith than they would with whatever trendy, transnational fad group they liked before.*
3. The Fall seems more out of place than the rest. If smith and bright eyes were shoved in my the interest groups of the young, than the Fall got rammed in there by the old (or those who want to seem old of which we have many). I don't know how well The Fall represents MB.
4. Bright Eyes is becoming a great act outside of his insipid fan girl base, and he's losing that ridiculous "whine." I think it shows we have a degree of taste, albeit pretentious and trendy.
5. Bowie speaks for himself.
*Yes I realize that you'd like to argue with this. And the reason is because I tend to make statements based on emotional response and not "fact" (read: prevailing conventional wisdom). Because I don't march in lock step with the cool kids, it would be obvious I'm open to attack with the statements I make. Say what you want, you'll argue with yourself on this one. Welcome to Music Banter, I'm the Big3.