No you did'nt miss anything. It say's what it is!

Urbans back :)

I read the topic, clicked on it to see what was so awful...and it makes sense

:laughing:

Haha...good to see the festive spirit is alive and kicking ;)

wow that is some of the most talentless **** i have ever heard. the vocals are so bad you cant even tell what the **** hes saying. So with that said im sure theyll be the next korn or somethin...

Why would you bash Korn like that?

Cause KoRn are soooooooo unoriginal and no talent, and got popular.

please tell me you're kidding

I don't like Korn. But they where a very influential band that had a relativly original sound.

And they write some pretty good songs, but again, its not cool to like Korn, and its certainly not cool to say they were good at anything but sucking.

It was pure sarcasm.

No your just a waste of oxygen.

Korn really blows, seriously if your honest with yourself you gotta admit it. Freak on a leash may have had its moment, but to cover another brick in the wall and do it as horribly as they did, basically just putting theirs ****ty sound they are known for over top of a great classic song, just makes me sick. Maybe there's a reason their name is korn, because just like the corn you eat, you can't even digest it just comes out in the middle of your ****...

Ooooh some dietery knowledge, did you read that somewhere or did you just look at your own ****? Honestly though, im really suprised you learned something that didn't have to do with Classic Rock.

You claimed to be tolerant of their most commercial hit, and then bash them on a cover. A cover from a band whose seemen you chug like beer at a keg party.

How about you back up any of your statements with facts. Thier first album was a complete lone wolf on the scene at the time, got the life put a disco beat into a band that was all about anger and eing depressed, and whatever you think of it, it wasn't what was expected of Korn, Their 4th CD whose name escapes me was a huge step up in songwriting and they even threw in some synth, which complimented everything and was another progression for the band.

I don't walk around with braided hair, I don't have a peice of Korn paraphenalia, I've seen them twice on festival tours. I am by no means a Korn fan boi, but your argument is baseless and mindless. I stand by my accusation that your facination with classic rock is nothing more than a starved move for attention and I think we see it here when you only know "Another Brick in the Wall" (which was a decent cover) and their most commercial hit.

If you want to talk bad covers, lets address Scissor Sisters "comfortbly numb." But whatever we discuss Kashmir, lets use something, anything, resembling a fact to back it up.

That is not a reason, or arguement. or anything for that matter.

I agree that nu-metal is simply bad music. It is a "fusion" oh hip-hop and alt. rock that to me is not good.

Big3, Korn might have had a few "original" albums, however they've been writing the same song for the past 5 or so years. They were on the Tomb Raider 2 soundtrack. I mean it wasn't even the original!

No, I just looked at my own ****. I don't really need to post facts as to why they suck, if you think about it how do you really post facts of how a band sucks, the way I determine it is by listening to them, not just one or two songs as you think I do, I have heard a lot of korn, and it not only all sounds the same, but it simply put sucks. My liking for classic rock is anything but a move for attention, as most people my age arent into it at all like I am, I solely listen to what sounds good to me, and korn sure as hell doesnt do that. I rarely like a cover song, and that one is probably one of the worst ive ever heard in my life, its sickening.

^Ever head Screwed by Paris Hilton?

Oh, so just because it doesn't sound good to you means it sucks? Wow kashmir thats pretty low, a band can have talent and be so original but as long as you dont like it, it sucks?

What isn't original? Appearing on a soundtrack or the song. If its the former, well...no ****. If its the latter, please explain yourself, that song was really good, and it was later released on an album, they just threw TB a bone.

Kashmir, you tell the same story every other day man, if its not "I used to listen to rap" its "no one my age listens to CR, im such a loner"

Stuff it.

I was saying that they weren't even on the orignial Tomb Raider movie soundtrack, they were on the sequel. It was an ever so subtle dig.

and whose TB?

ted........bundy? and yes i do mean the serial killer

I'm guessing so. I was thinking Tuberculosis, but that works too.

Ahahha!

I really have nothing contructive to add to the Korn debate, not having heard much their their stuff (though from what I have heard I liked) but ...
I just can't get over you actually said this! I mean even for Floydd this was a weak, repetitive song. The only reason the song did at all well was because it had a memorable chorus sticking it too the big guy, the nature of which appealed to ****less 12 year olds who want to be high off drugs but are too scared to actually do so. Other than that, it literally has nothing going for it. It's bland, it's repetitive, it does nothing to grab your attention (unless you include "Oi! Teacha ....") and does even less to maintain it.

Suffice to say it's the sort of **** I'd listen to if I wanted to fall asleep.

While on a rollercoaster, hyped up on caffeine and eager on being chomatosed.

That song annoys me abit.

i preferred korn's version, personally.

Actually that is a great song, and it is meant to be heard in 3 parts really, pt.1, happiest days of our lives, and pt. 2, and when you listen to those 3 parts in their entirety its a ****ing amazing piece, one that korn would wet themselves if they could come up with on their own. To say that their cover of it is better is really, really sad. If it was a ****ty song they wouldnt have covered it anyways, but they knew it would work just because of the song's reputation. Plus think of it this way, imagine how much you would be sick of and hate korn's version if it had been played tens of thousands of times on the radio and everywhere like floyd's has. Just because you've heard a song too much doesnt mean it sucks, I'm tired of hearing the studio version of stairway to heaven, but I still don't go around badmouthing it. Go ahead and attack me big3, after all you are god right ?

uh.....duh!

It's never heard in 3 parts to be fair and to be fair again a song being played on the radio can make it hated and to be fair again alot of people don't mean sucks, they mean don't like it, just being fair. Oh, the big3 god comment was just a smart ass remark and isn't gonna help you in an arguement with him. Sorry.

Hardcore dancing is the #1 symptom of homosexuality

That's weird I always listen to it in 3 parts becuase to be honest pt. 2 is my least favorite one.

The ****? You mean it was actually yet another massively long, exasperatingly repetitive song? How does that make it any better? "I'm off to listen to another brick in the wall" "ok see you in AN HOUR. Don't let your brain bleed out your eyes from mind rotting boredom that spontaneously occurs to people listening to horrendously long and unprogressive songs".

If we apply this logic, we realise that Brittany Spears version of "Oops I Did It Again" was an absolutely AMAZING song, after all it was covered by Bodom, and we all know bands would NEVER cover a crap song or, if they did, they wouldn't be able to make it a good song. I mean, bloody good logic you've got going there. Though I never took you for a Spears fan ...

To be fair I couldn't give a damn how much it's been played on the radio, because that only every chugs out ****ty music over here hence I don't listen to it. I've certainly not listened to the song to sickening point, because I've listened to it enough times to know it sucks and then avoided it like the plague.

funny, I always assumed it was another man's penis in your mouth.

boy, I'm behind the times.

Horrendously long? Try 3:14 on pt. 1, 1:55 on HDOUL, and 4:03 on Pt. 2, which somehow equals an hour? I came up with 9:12... Unprogressive, what are you and idiot have you ever listened to all 3 parts? It is extremely progressive, part 1 has some of the greatest guitar work on the whole album of the wall, HDOUL starts off with the sound of a helicopter that sounds like its landing right ****ing in front of you, then goes off to another progressive run with some great lyrics, which leads into pt. 2 which is all you have probably ever heard which quite frankly, seems out of place when its not played with the other 2 parts before it, and again pt. 2 has some really great guitar work in it as well, something that the Korn version definetely lacked being that their guitarist doesnt know his head from his ass to come up anything great like that, let alone even be able to copy it. You really dont know what progressive rock is, do you?



Trust me, Korn would not be able to get away with covering a ****ty song, they knew damn well that another brick in the wall was a great song, and that they were basically guarenteed listeners becuase of that, which = guaranteed $$$. Bands like Korn are in it all for the money, not to share talented music to the public like music used to be back in the day.



Talk about dumb logic, you're saying you decipher how good a song is by how much it gets played on the radio?:laughing: That's just plain stupid. Most of the greater songs of the past made it to the top of the charts and were played all the time on the radio, reason being that they were great tunes. Pink Floyd's dark side of the moon stayed on the billboard for 943 weeks I think it was, is that to say it was bad music? Really, stupid logic, but why should I expect anything other than that from you?

:( i hxc dance

*sigh* what i meant was all that gets played on the radio (ive noticed) is part 2 it just gets heard more and by itself.

Nuff said ;)

I didn't say progressive rock I said progressive. If you're too much of a gobby **** to pick up the dictionary, unprogressive - their **** all sounds the same.

They've said that have they? There's absolutely no chance that they enjoy producing their music?

Just because it sounds **** to you doesn't mean the bands don't like doing it.

Learn how to read and then tell me precisely where I said that.

Actually, considering it's you I guess I'll have to dumb it down.

Radio is ****.
I do not listen to radio.
Because radio is **** and I don't listen to it, it doesn't affect me if they're playing a song 24/7 or once in a blue moon, because I won't hear it.
I base my decisions of what music I like in accordance with listening to stuff when I want to.