The Official Nirvana/Kurt Cobain Thread (lyrics, rock, genre, album)

[Urban Hat€monger ?]

Originally Posted by gottaSCREM

Dude you need a reality check. That picture is of Mother Love Bone,

Who split when the Roth lookalike dropped dead and the remaining members formed Pearl Jam.
Different bands yes but Pearl Jam`s roots , which is what you were talking about.

[gottaSCREM]

They still sort of look like that minus the long hair they still look like......Well, girls.

[sleepy jack]

Bands with different names can't be the same band, Easy Cure and the cure are different are totally different bands, same with the Pogues and Pogue Mahone.

And gottaSCREM is right again (see post above me) look at all the flannel and lack of hair care.

[boo boo]

If you think a band loses credibility because they joined a major label, you are clearly an idiot.

The whole misconcept that bands who stick to indie labels care more about music than people who don't is complete garbage, in fact its rather the opposite, if you do care about your music, and you want to share it with people, signing on to a major label would be helluva lot easier, sure theres the topic of creative controll and record companies that will try to suck you out of it, which is why its very wise to be decisive about the company you join, Nirvana and Pearl Jam clearly knew this.

Overall, like I said, if you think a bands label determines their musical quality or their overall credibility as a band, not only are you a complete moron but you also deserve to die... Modest Mouse for example, are equally horrible no matter what their record label is.

[cardboard adolescent]

Originally Posted by boo boo

If you think a band loses credibility because they joined a major label, you are clearly an idiot.

The whole misconcept that bands who stick to indie labels care more about music than people who don't is complete garbage, in fact its rather the opposite, if you do care about your music, and you want to share it with people, signing on to a major label would be helluva lot easier, sure theres the topic of creative controll and record companies that will try to suck you out of it, which is why its very wise to be decisive about the company you join, Nirvana and Pearl Jam clearly knew this.

Overall, like I said, if you think a bands label determines their musical quality or their overall credibility as a band, not only are you a complete moron but you also deserve to die... Modest Mouse for example, are equally horrible no matter what their record label is.

All major record labels care about is making money. Money means selling lots of records, selling lots of records means appealing to a wide audience, and appealing to a wide audience means writing watered down, catchy, easily digestible drivel. Generally, bands that join mainstream record labels and try to fight this don't stay on major record labels very long. Besides, caring more about the music has nothing to do with sharing it with as wide an audience as possible. Call me an elitist, but I'd rather make exactly the music I want to make and appeal only to a very small audience who seek out original music, than streamline my music so I can get it to more people.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

All major record labels care about is making money.

No sh*t, that dosen't mean you cant take advantage of major labels for more nobile causes.

Money means selling lots of records, selling lots of records means appealing to a wide audience, and appealing to a wide audience means writing watered down, catchy, easily digestible drivel.

As proven when Radiohead joined Capitol Records.

So there you go, calling every major label band crap like the indie scum that you are.

Oh well, usuaully this is where I start ranting about why all indie fans should be euthanized for the betterment of the human race but I'll cut you a little slack due to your mental condition, it's not right to mock the retarded.

Generally, bands that join mainstream record labels and try to fight this don't stay on major record labels very long. Besides, caring more about the music has nothing to do with sharing it with as wide an audience as possible. Call me an elitist, but I'd rather make exactly the music I want to make and appeal only to a very small audience who seek out original music, than streamline my music so I can get it to more people.

And look what such creative controll led to, Modest Mouse, gee, they're on a small label so they must be good, certainly better than those corperate robots The Beatles.

Record companies can be more open minded than you give them credit for, clearly from your view these labels only care about money, so the only way for them to make money is through crappy bands that no one likes?... You're mistaken, while there are quite a lot of crappy major label bands (though the amount of horrible indie bands is significantly greater) its clear that your musical taste plays a part in your vain point of view, these labels sign bands you dont like (likely because they dont suck incredible amounts of ass like the ones you do) so this automatically makes all major labels bad.

Gee, if only I could be as open minded as you.

[cardboard adolescent]

Originally Posted by boo boo

No sh*t, that dosen't mean you cant take advantage of major labels for more nobile causes.



As proven when Radiohead joined Capitol Records.

So there you go, calling every major label band crap like the indie scum that you are.

Please, Please, Please, Please, Please kill yourself, or stop being such a dumbass, whatever you can do to make the world a better place.



And look what such creative controll led to, Modest Mouse, gee, they're on a small label so they must be good, certainly better than those corperate robots The Beatles.

First of all, I didn't call all major label bands crap you ****ing dumbass. And never ever did I say that just because a band is on a small record label it is automatically better than a band on a major record label because that's just ****ing retarded, so can you please, for one moment, just drop the tired ass Modest Mouse bull****? All I said was that GENERALLY bands on major record labels have to make their music more accessible lest they get dropped. The Beatles had their more experimental moments, but most of their music was, after all, POP. As for Radiohead, they've come a long way playing the music they want to play, but they're not exactly pushing the limits of rock music. So how about you stop being a confrontational ******* and just address the argument I made, huh?

[boo boo]

You have clearly said that major labels only market bad bands, I wont call this view closed minded when considering what I have said about indie (even if it is all fact based) and that would lead to your indie scum brethern calling me a hypocrite because they have nothing better to do but I will say that its very misinformed... It only makes me wish all these crappy bands join big labels so you wont like them anymore, let alone overrate the holy crap out of them.

You rate music based on statistics and trivial things like record labels rather than just using your ears... I pity you, as far as I'm concerned you don't even like music.

[gottaSCREM]

Originally Posted by Crowquill

And gottaSCREM is right again (see post above me) look at all the flannel and lack of hair care.

I can't believe you agreed with me. I'm honored.

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by gottaSCREM

I can't believe you agreed with me. I'm honored.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm