IRONIC!

Yet you still fail horribly at reading comprehension, good job. All people need to do is look at my last post to see you do make stuff up. The most pathetic part is I'd pointed out their various chart topping songs to you before.

EDIT: lols forget reading my last post, lets just read the part below me!

*sigh* they've broken into the top 100 a dozen times in various countries. But that's completely irrelevant you said "they arent a chart monster." yet here you acknowledge they had a number 1. Weird.

What people don't realise is that however awful it is, most bands do enjoy the music they're making. Let me put it this way: music gets put on the radio because people enjoy listening to it, therefore it is enjoyable, so bands that make this music will invariably be the people that like the music that's on the radio to begin with. Therefore these bands cannot have sold out. Very few bands do sell out, it's basically just used to say that you liked a band before but don't know because you realised they were ****e.

Now talentless nobodies is an easy one just look here: indie tag – Music at Last.fm

probably but I really don't feel like going to a Panic At The Disco thread because I'm afraid of retards.

Then you came to the wrong forum alltogether.

Yeah there is a difference between *appearing* on the chart and consistently dominating it. Look at Pink Floyd. The dark side of the moon was on the Billboard 200 for 14 years!! It went platinum 15 times. THAT is a chart MONSTER, not appearing on the German charts from time to time and getting a number 1, one time.

Turn that s*** up.



You can't hear it that well live but they are amazing with the synth, every time I listen to one of thier songs I find a new layer of sound.

Wait so you have to be on the billboard 200 for over a dozen years to be a chart-monster? Well very few people actually are chart-monsters than.

wow. it's like that kick of poppy industrial stuff (orgy / econoline crush / stabbing westward / god lives underwater etc.) that you couldn't escape around 1998-2000 just after the mainstream clued into NIN and ministry.

does anyone else find that frontman looks like an industrial version of george michael?

i wouldn't call them talentless 'or' sell outs. i'd just call them boring to my ears.

I have I told you how cool you are? I agree with the above post completely, except I'd call them crap as opposed to boring to my ears but I'm more snobby than mr dave.

well thanks i guess hehe. i wasn't trying to score cool points, just posting my thoughts on the topic at hand. just in this case we're on the same page (unlike that nirvana thread a few days ago hehehe)

OH MY LORD! DID he just say that they are TOO "GOOD" to be on an indie label?

Cripes! Oomph, have you got any idea where the line is between indie and major? It has nothing to do with the artistic value of the music!

It's only a question of whether or not the band is writing music that is commercially viable enough to be sufficiently marketable and thus of potential market value to a major conglomeration like Sony or Universal etc. Hence, all your favourites (Akon, 50 Cent, Christina Aguilera etc.) are on major labels, because they can make the labels a TON of money, while many bands I like are on small labels due to the opposite: either their music or image is not commercially-oriented enough for them to realistically garner mainstream attention.

Bands like Oomph and Godsmack attract a large portion of the mainstream because A:, yes, the music is in a (relatively) popular format, and B:, like it or not, their image (all the skulls and shiz etc.) is very marketable too and appeals to another large part of the population - the morbid, depressive, morose pseudo-intellectual morons who feel outcast from society. The same sorts of people who listen to worthless rubbish like Slipknot.