Sneer

This is a pretty patronizing, elitist article, and you're never going to engage readers positively by adopting such angles. You approach the whole thing with this 'I'm better than you' tone, and nobody will take kindly to that.

I sense that the arrogance intrinsic in your article is an attempt to mark yourself out as an identifiable writer?

It's like anything in life, if you treat others with respect, you're likely to receive respect. Instead writing as if you're here to free people from their musical ignorance, why don't you just write about what YOU like, and why you like what YOU like. Your passion for the subject is more likely to entice readers. Just don't go insulting the intelligence of others. You need to build on your points better too, there are instances where you seem to be blindly ranting with apparently little understanding for the subject you're ranting about. I'm not saying this is actually the case, that's just how it comes across.

My honest opinion: if I went to your school and read this, I'd think you're a cock. From what I've seen of you around here, you're not, so why don't you just use these articles as an extension of your self - as opposed to some platform for asinine bleating and elitist rhetoric?

__________________
Fright Team radio show

Unknown Soldier

Are you fucking serious about the Smiths, Radiohead and the Smashing Pumpkins not being mainstream? For starters the Smiths are pretty much a British musical institution and anybody that was around in the 1980s and into music, normally had a Smiths song embedded into their mind and the indie crowd that used to walk around wearing tight black trousers, were 99% of the time into the Smiths as well. As for Radiohead, they led the post brit-pop era here in the UK and were/still are one of the biggest bands of the time, I mean I can`t think of another British band since the heydays of Pink Floyd that played such complex music and still appealed to large sections of the music public. Also, the Smashing Pumpkins were probably one of the biggest bands of the 1990s.

I admit I find it amusing how you criticize certain elements of music and then have the audacity to say Coldplay are a good band.

Salami

It's also pretty funny that he cites Coldplay as being a good band, but then criticises OneRepublic for using the same chord sequence in every song. If you don't get me, listen to "Clocks" and then "Speed of Sound" and try to tell me that they aren't identical in absolutely every single way.
YorkeDaddy, you are hilarious and I love you.

Argento

But "normal" people subscribe to a music forum?

__________________
Here is my thread on Argentine music.

Le hizo un par de promesas imprudentes y así fue que de ella se aburrió.

Howard the Duck

i read somewhere in MOJO magazine that even garbage collectors in the UK can hum a Radiohaed tune

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Unknown Soldier

Part of the reason why that band lost all credibilty years ago.

Salami

I believe that here in England, they prefer to be called "Refuse Rellocation Officers".

And does the fact that you are able to hum the tune mean that it is necessarily bad?
Or am I just a plebian, hopelessly shackled to the concept of memorable tunes?

Paedantic Basterd

That's an absurd statement. Do tell how credibility is directly related to being an unknown artist?

Salami

I'd go further: the fact that people are humming their tunes mean that they ARE credible.

I think bin men are people too, and they are allowed to have their own tastes as much as you are.

Zer0

The thing is where do you draw the line between what is mainstream and what isn't? A person who listens to a lot of obscure music is of course going to see those bands as mainstream but if you were to ask a musically oblivious person on the street who is only exposed to what is played on daytime radio what they think about those bands they probably won't be able to give you an answer.

__________________