I like how he assumed I was talking about them too when I wasn't

sell yourself
 

Nevermind was produced by Butch Vig and he is the one that "Butched" their original sound. Bleach is by far Nirvanas best album in the sense they did everything themselves but you cant tell me they sold out for two reasons:
1. Listen to their work with Steve Albini on In Utero

2. Cobain is dead (whether he did it himself or not).

selling out, through the musicians eye, is just like the others have said "playing music thats not from the heart and trying to be something youre not."

Whats being dead got to do with authenticity?

He sold out because he's dead?

Well thats a new one.

And RATM have been in the political arena, not before they signed for Sony but certainly after, screw the motives which you can only make blind assumptions about, the point is they have actually been doing sh*t and you give them no credit. They were active in protests to free political prisoners Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal, and individually Morrelo and La Rocha have been active in a crapload of protests, La Rocha was notably involved in supporting the Zapatista Army of National Liberation on their homeland (Chiapas)... Morello co-founded the Axis of Justice, which is a non-profit organization aiding the efforts of grassroots political groups and its political goals have included immigrant rights and the abolition of the death penalty, he's also actively participated in a handful of anti war protests and pro communist and pro urban farming rallies.

For gods sake, do a little homework.

Urban, I think if we don't say anything he may shut up about RATM.

Deal?

False pretense, in reality you just don't want to waste your time trying to prove me wrong. But go ahead and stop spouting your bullsh*t, that'll teach me.

False pretense sir, its actually cause I don't want to read about RATM anymore. It won't stop you. I know that cause Im not stupid. I know that you'll just drag it up for no f*cking reason at some undetermined time in the none too distant future but if I can get just a moments silence on the topic that moment will do me just fine.

BINGO

There's my point right there. I heard them when their debut album came out and made my choice about them then.
So they did some stuff afterwards , well good for them. But as you keep on saying it should be about the music. Do you really expect me to say 'Hmm they're doing a lot of good work on their causes these days maybe I should go back and reconsider about how good a bunch of second hand Helmet riffs and a whiney lead singer who reminds me of a spilt brat can be'.

Again, political motives mean **** compared to the causes, not to mention they got signed almost after they started, which would explain why they didn't participate in political events prior to sony, THERE WASN'T ENOUGH TIME. They were just lucky.

Again, I'll have to repeat it for you, motives mean absolutely nothing if you're benefiting a good cause. Just as long as its not world domination or causing harm to others.

For example, as Sean Hannity and any right wing nut will tell you, Al Gore is a downright hypocrite when it comes to how he personally treats the environment (private jets, electric consuming households, zinc mines, etc) and he's STILL the best choice we f*cking have for president. I'd vote for him, I don't care that he's a hypocrite, he benefits good causes, and he would be a good president, thats what matters to me.

RATM however are not hypocrites.

So you admit to your ignorance, fantastic, we have ourselves a breakthrough.

Indeed its about the music, but you havent talked jacksh*t about the music, you used their alledged hypocrisy as justification for calling them a crap band.

I don't get where you come up with the "second hand Helmet riffs" bid, you pulled that one completely out of your bum? I like Helmet, but I don't hear many similarities, and even if I did, having f*cking influences dosen't make them a bad band, nor does a whiney singer. Speaking of which, a Sex Pistols, Cure, Smiths and Joy Division fan complaining about whiney singers has LOLRONY written all over it.

Watching you two argue is funny.

Haha, the minute I saw this thread and that boo boo had the last post in it I knew he'd be saying some stupid shit about how awful Indie is and how great Prog is. The fact that he's arguing with Urban just makes it so much better!

They could have got involved before they got signed. Nobody forced them to sign with the 'great big evil corporation'. And your analogy is a bad one. With your presidentual choices you only have a couple of candidates , with bands you have thousands to choose from.Like I said it's not them signing with a major that bothers me , it's the way they did it.



How is me listening to the album & not liking it a sign of ignorance?



Well I have , did I not say before i'll like something regardless of what label it's on? And i have said plenty of times RATM music does absolutly nothing for me in the past.But if a discussion comes up about their political leanings i'll say what I think about that too, it's just another area of discussion.



Because thats how they sounded to me when I first heard them , maybe I was wrong I wouldn't know i've not listened to RATM in something like 12/13 years. As for Lydon & Robert Smith well they don't annoy me in the same way as the guy from RATM does.I think Thom Yorke has a whiney voice too but it doesn't bother me in the slightest either. As for Morrissey last i heard he had a deep baritone voice. I hardly think whiney describes him.

Well if memory serves me right, La Rocha had pertaken in political protests before joining rage.

Also I already explained why they would sign with the "great big evil corporation" and also why signing with the "great big evil corporation" is completely justifiable.

Actually no, we have a crapload of potential candidates being brought to the table, and so far Al Gore is the most qualified in my opinion. But of course its still a whole year until the actual election.

I see nothing wrong with the way they did it, if I wanted people to hear my sh*t, I would get signed to a big label pronto, its common logic.

Aww, forget it.

Fair enough.


Hmm, this might explain a few things.

I mean "whiney" as in "woe as me, my life sucks" kinda vocals, as opposed to high pitched vocals, being high pitched dosen't make you whiney. Jon Anderson is high pitched but he's not whiney, Bon Scott is high pitched but he's not whiney.

I don't see what difference it makes if i heard it 12 years ago or 12 minutes ago it's the same album.
Besides i've heard them played at friends houses or seen them on TV since then.

12 years ago I thought Limp Bizkit were awesome. Perceptions change after a decade has past.

But I know you won't like them now, I know they're not your kinda thing.

But Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, they're not my thing either, but I'm not going to say they are the worst thing to ever happen to music. Yeah I know its a bad comparison and they have 5 decades of influence, whatever.

No I still think they're shit.

Even after 12 years.

Hey, its not liking I'm expecting you to completely change your mind if you were to check them out again. I just think its pretty bogus to make all these (proven inaccurate) assumptions about their music, their lyrics, their activities and their motives when you haven't even heard their music in 12 years.

Hell, I can't even remember any of the bands that I haven't listened to in 12 years.

I have only mentioned prog briefly, nor did I boast about how superior it is to Indie (and it is), I simply made distinctions between the two. One is considered to be pretentious but really isn't, one is considered not to be pretentious but really is.

Math Rock>pure prog.

I never called Nirvana the biggest sellouts. I doubt you really know what I listen to since you were like l4\/\/l U lyk ghey EM0 el oh els!!!!@#!@#!!@#!!!@

Slint, Don Caballero, yeah, I dig it. Though KC still pwn everyone in both categories.

I have no real problem with emo, just the whole status it has, and the fanbase. Still a sad state of affairs when I think Fall Out Boy are more listenable than the majority of bands that get the Pitchforkian stamp of approval.

Fallout Boy isn't emo. I think the kids in the true emo scene are people worth meeting but that's just plain opinion. I looked through my computer and to find how many indie grovel albums I actually have and it was 16 out of about 200. So even though I do like the genre it doesn't make up of most of what I listen to. I respect King Crimson to no end though there are a lot of bands who I simply enjoy listening to more.

I think you didn't understand my original point because if you honestly did and you don't agree then I just don't understand. Selling out is not being on tv, in a comercial, in magazines, or all over the radio. I'm not so naive to think popular=bad. When you purposely dumb down your sound so you can be popular is selling out. When the object becomes how many records can we sell rather than how good can we make this album.

That wasn't my point, they're better than TV On the Radio.

Well for one, I consider Nevermind their best album, and I own their whole catelog. You're saying change in style and making more accessible albums than your last is automatically selling out. Thats a load of rubbish, accessible is not selling out. Nirvana sold out when they started making records and distrubuting them for profit, same as all the alt-hipster bands who shouldn't even be making them in the first place.

I half-read this thread, it seemed like a lot of circle arguing.

I pretty much agree with what Swim said. Selling out is when you start with this high quality, unique music; then later down the road you transcend into commercial music meant to just sell millions of records, not to be recognized for artistic integrity.

Nirvana's music did change from upholding artistic integrity to that more commercial sounding music. I know that disillusions many of you die-hard Kurt Cobain fans, but it is true.

Heh, no it's not.

You haven't even listened to In Utero have you? Its the most alternative and least accessible of their 3 studio albums.

Oh wait, I forgot, you're just going to give Steve Albini all the credit for that, he must have wrote the whole damn thing.

I like Nevermind more than Bleach, so Nirvana's "selling out" was a good thing for me.

I can't be bothered reading the whole thing, but what exactly do you regard as "selling out", Boo Boo?

i dont think anyone is going to argue that. But if you listen to bleach, or early nirvana demo's...its pretty lazy. Yes, it was more included in the scene or "artistic integrity", but i think them as artists branched out and grew up more on in utero, and nevermind.
Kurt himself even admitted to wanting to write more pop songs.

ya know, there are bands that do hold up their artistic integrity and still sell millions of records.

Selling out is something a bunch of want to be artists created to make it appear as if they had more credibility. It stems from idiot flower children rejecting the "man."

I prefer my artists to sell out, that way I don't have to listen to over pretentious stage rants or fan banter. Say what you will about green day but I don't think their pretending to be very punk rock.

Kurt wasn't trying to be more accepted, he genuinely loved pop songs. Devo and KISS were among his favorite bands for f*cks sake.

By the time of Nevermind they just had a real knack for good pop songs, thats why they became popular. This whole "manufactured for fame" stuff you're saying is bull**** Swim, you can't manufacture popularity, people either like you or they don't.

The best thing Ive ever heard about selling out was something Nicky Wire said. When some journalist accussed the Manics of selling out he said something like "we always said we wanted to sell millions of records and we didnt care how we did it. We always said we were whores."

You can't argue with that.

Yeah.

I hate Nicky Wire with a passion however, for getting such a thrill out of insulting pretty much any musician with actual talent.

He is a c*nt for sure but he has said the odd thing thats hard to argue with.

The best thing you can do basically is just tell everybody you've got no principles and then you can do what you want. Youre totally free. Thats punk rock.

I think Avenged Sevenfold sold out....I mean with the song Seize The Day and the worst album City Of Evil......Not to mention playing with Green Day and Good Charlotte, I miss the old AV7X :(

Playing with Good Charlotte dosen't make you a sellout, it's just a very poor business decision.

The old Avenged Sevenfold would've never of though to do that.....And the City Of Evil compared to Sounding The Seventh Trumpet way different....Where were the screams in City Of Evil?

If I understand Boo Boo's various arguments right there is one thing he has said that I will agree with and thats when he talks about indie being pretentious at times.

All too often the Pitchfork Media crowd will defend bad song writing by claiming that its 'difficult' or 'artistically uncompromising' and that because of this only the truly enlightened will get it. When you see an album described as difficult it basically means that the guitars are probably out of tune, the singer can't sing a sh*tsworth and the lyrics are extremely bad. Sewn to the Sky is difficult. "Juicy Juicy Juice" and "The Banana Question" are difficult. The Godz are difficult. They arent unlistenable trash. No, thats what you thought but we the enlightened know that they are merely too 'difficult' for such cultural philistines such as you the listener to understand. Basically what this does is create an elite of listenership in order to make the enlightened feel better about themselves because they can listen to extremely obscure records with no commercial potential whatsoever and so are 'the true alternative.' Personally I just call it bad musicianship, bad songwriting and bad recording and labelling it as 'difficult' doesnt change that.

Its the same sh*t estate agents pull. Its not small and cramped. No its cosy.

Its a f*cking cupboard mate.

Although I do think thats true in some ways I don't think always the case.
I don't see good or bad musicianship as the be all & end all of everything.I enjoy a bit of difficulty. I'm more likely to listen to a song more if I can't decide if I like it or not because every listen of it is a challenge.

For example people always go on about how much of a great guitarist Dave Gilmour is. Now that may well be true but when he plays stuff from the Syd Barrett era to me it just sounds all wrong. Syd Barrett might not have been a great guitarist but when he played those songs he gave them character , to me when Gilmour plays them he just sounds like some session musician trying his best to get the right sound but totally missing the point.

I think the same about Eric Clapton playing the blues.
This comment of mine should really belong in the 'Unpopular Music Opinion' thread, but on reading your opinion of Gilmour, which I agree with, I felt I had to comment.

Yeah Claptons work has always left me cold too apart from a couple of Cream albums.
To me his music always seemed slick , over produced & soulless.

Which to me is the total opposite of what blues should be about.

I think I've said this before on these boards (ages ago) that Clapton lacked the natural feel for the blues that someone like SRV (for example) oozed.
Your comment about Gilmour and Barrett is similar, in that I don't think it's possible for Gilmour to feel Barrett's music in the same way.
All great guitarists, but if you don't make it your own, it remains a technical zero.