Ratt nominated for a grammy

Necromancer · 11-30-2014, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oriphiel

Oh, yeah. Sure. I'm a fraud, but no offense, right? Just because I disagree with you guys on some issues, and am a little strange, i'm automatically a scheming troll. Very classy.

I never said you were strange?

Your sure enough are not a very good troll if your trying to be one..

Oriphiel · 11-30-2014, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necromancer

I never said you were strange?

Your sure enough are not a very good troll if your trying to be one..

Sure you did. It's called an "implication", something you made when you said that I talked to myself, was a fraud, and had multiple accounts. And please, for the love of Clapton, learn the difference between "your" and "you're".

Also, in one of your earlier posts, you said "I noticed you talking to yourself in the General Music forums too." When and where exactly did I do this? Because it seems to me that you were just throwing a random accusation at me in order to make me angry. Which is, I hope you'll note, the very definition of a "troll".

The Batlord · 11-30-2014, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oriphiel

You think Aerosmith is one of the greatest rock bands in history? Not to be rude, but... Why? Regardless of if you're judging from skill, influence, image, or even just popularity, they weren't "one of the greatest" rock bands of the 70's, let alone all of history.

And as an aside, John Lennon wrote some of his best work after recognizing how much of his life had been destroyed by his behavior, and attempting to clean up his act. The trend isn't so much that "drugs = good music", rather they destroy people's lives, which gives them a very dark and realistic point of view to write songs from. Saying that hard drugs are awesome based on that is like hearing a song written by a genocide survivor, and shouting "Wooo! Genocide's are awesome, they make for the best songs!"

And lastly, drugs were responsible for Atilla (Billy Joel's Psych/Metal band from his early years).

Sup. So, are we playing the "Take Bull**** Posts Seriously" game? DOn't be boring. You can do so much better, Dirty.

Pet_Sounds · 11-30-2014, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Sup. So, are we playing the "Take Bull**** Posts Seriously" game? DOn't be boring. You can do so much better, Dirty.

You. Are. Hammered.

Necromancer · 11-30-2014, 06:37 PM

Now you're insinuating I'm a troll and correcting my grammar Oriphiel.
Jesus God man, is there no end to your ranting and raving?

We seemed to be on the same page when you mentioned Bad Company and Aerosmith. And then you went off into the subject of southern rock for some reason.

Bad Company was the more blues rock orientated band out of the two. They were more mainstream during the early to late 70s also.

As Unknown Soldier and the Batlord like to put it, Bad Company was the Nickelback of the 70s.

Other than their earlier work, I will admit Aerosmith was more on the hard rock edge. And the better band of the two in my opinion. Steven Tyler's vocals and stage appearance/ presence alone is iconic.

At the same time I don't hold Aerosmith on the same level as one of the all time greats of blues rock like the Rolling Stones.

Were talking about a small window of time here. Around a 7 year period only. A lot of the good bands had either sold out or disappeared by 78 and 79.

Chula Vista · 11-30-2014, 08:18 PM

I was 13 when Aerosmith's first album hit. The reason why they got so big so fast and were highly regarded back then was that they were the first American ROCK band that could at least stand ringside along with all of the great British bands that had dominated here in the US from the late 60s up to that point.

Necromancer · 11-30-2014, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

I was 13 when Aerosmith's first album hit. The reason why they got so big so fast and were highly regarded back then was that they were the first American ROCK band that could at least stand ringside along with all of the great British bands that had dominated here in the US from the late 60s up to that point.

That's true, but there were other bands that held their ground like Blue Oyster Cult, Kansas, Journey, Chicago, and Styx to name a few.

Two Spirit · 12-01-2014, 03:41 AM

I didn't even know they had anything significant outside of Round and Round.

Oriphiel · 12-01-2014, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

I was 13 when Aerosmith's first album hit. The reason why they got so big so fast and were highly regarded back then was that they were the first American ROCK band that could at least stand ringside along with all of the great British bands that had dominated here in the US from the late 60s up to that point.

The Doors, Dion Dimucci, The Beach Boys, The Sonics, The Shadows of Knight, The American Breed, Tommy James and the Shondells. Pick one. They're all more influential than Aerosmith, and competed with British bands in the mid to late 60's. And believe me when I say that I have a thousand more bands like them that I can name. Now hush, before Gary US Bonds takes you to New Orleans and teaches you about real rock 'n roll.

Oriphiel · 12-01-2014, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necromancer

That's true, but there were other bands that held their ground like Blue Oyster Cult, Kansas, Journey, Chicago, and Styx to name a few.

What are you talking about? By the time those bands arrived, Britain was going through it's glam rock phase, with acts like Slade, T-Rex, The Sweet, Suzi Quatro, etc. No clashing with the British Invasion bands there. And I really don't remember BOC, Kansas, or Chicago competing over the glam sound. By the time Journey and Styx became big, glam rock was winding down into hair metal and pop-metal anyway.

Look, I get it. You like Aerosmith. But please stop this madness.

11-30-2014, 06:37 PM	#95 (permalink)
Necromancer Divination Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,655	Now you're insinuating I'm a troll and correcting my grammar Oriphiel. Jesus God man, is there no end to your ranting and raving? We seemed to be on the same page when you mentioned Bad Company and Aerosmith. And then you went off into the subject of southern rock for some reason. Bad Company was the more blues rock orientated band out of the two. They were more mainstream during the early to late 70s also. As Unknown Soldier and the Batlord like to put it, Bad Company was the Nickelback of the 70s. Other than their earlier work, I will admit Aerosmith was more on the hard rock edge. And the better band of the two in my opinion. Steven Tyler's vocals and stage appearance/ presence alone is iconic. At the same time I don't hold Aerosmith on the same level as one of the all time greats of blues rock like the Rolling Stones. Were talking about a small window of time here. Around a 7 year period only. A lot of the good bands had either sold out or disappeared by 78 and 79. Last edited by Necromancer; 11-30-2014 at 09:08 PM.

11-30-2014, 08:18 PM	#96 (permalink)
Chula Vista Toasted Poster Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: SoCal by way of Boston Posts: 11,332	I was 13 when Aerosmith's first album hit. The reason why they got so big so fast and were highly regarded back then was that they were the first American ROCK band that could at least stand ringside along with all of the great British bands that had dominated here in the US from the late 60s up to that point. __________________ “The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

12-01-2014, 03:41 AM	#98 (permalink)
Two Spirit Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 332	I didn't even know they had anything significant outside of Round and Round.