Viewing Thread:
"There you go..."

After weeks of arguing with my good friend over "Who's music taste is better? "

I deceided to end it up by an agreement of swapping CDs and listening to them for a week and well...

I gave him Manics and Radiohead
He gave me Nirvana and Red Hot Chillis

I now like Nirvana and Chillis and he likes Manica and Radiohead...

Strange things happen

In Utero is better than Nevermind :P

Chilis = Only white men who can funk.

Radiohead = Used to be great, lost their way a bit.

Manics = Became everything they were against.

Nirvana = Greatest band of the 90's by far.

"I now like Nirvana and Chillis and he likes Manica and Radiohead...

Strange things happen"

Yes, they do. His taste has gone downhill :)

I am the Tarrant wrote:

Nirvana, Manic street preachers and Radiohead:

bunch of whining gimps with not even an ounce of talent between them.


Let me guess, you like Linkin Park?
You have just named some of the most talented song writers around and called them whining gimps with no talent.

i dont think you understand the music and what it stands for

Stryke wrote:
Need any more evidence that Radiohead suck?


Not really sure how you can say that?
I dont really like them much but I certainly don't think they suck. Their lyrics are some of the most inspired and debatable around.

Just coz the guy has comunication problems and spells his name different does not mean they suck. Like me, they are probably just not your thing.

Before I say anything else, I'm not one of those people who think Nirvana were the second coming, I just like them. Though I have to disagree that they were simply around at the right time. When they were around, the 'popular rock' world was a mixture of trad metal (already dying at that point), poodle rock, and thrash. There were other genres around obviously, such as hardcore, though I think the above were the most popular. Nirvana had something fresh to add at the time, whilst consolidating on some of their influences (such as Killing Joke) and that's what moves music onwards. If they were just in the right place at the right time, why are there still bands copying their sound, and still coming off second best? Simple tunes don't necessarily mean music isn't good. It's how it speaks to you and affects you that matters. Conversely some complex music can be inspirational, giving the listener different things to find on repeated listens. But then some is just too self indulgent for it's own good.

Personally I preferred other bands from that era (the more metallic Soundgarden and Alice in Chains), but Nirvana are an important part of popular music history. Kurt Cobain's death did no harm to the aura surrounding the band. Though it's a pity that we won't know what he would have gone on to do. And also we won't know how the band would have been perceived if he was still around. Also would Dave Grohl have gone on to form the Foo Fighters?

I'm not saying people should like them, but they made a difference. And that's something music needs right now.

All music sucks. Full stop.

Try sitting and listening to the silence crescendo. Then try to understand the paradox of that happening. If we could hear nothing, the world would be a more musical place.

*Takes a second drag on cigarette containing a less-than-legal substance*

All that sort of music sucks.

You should start to listen to some proper stuff.

I saw Manics Live in Germany once...on tele. They were playing Motorcycle Emptiness for probably the 15millionth time and they looked bored and fat. They should have quit after that Richie Edwards bloke scarpered - they haven't and will never make an album better than 'The Holy Bible'. Fact!

His name is Thomas... shorted to Thom...

Thomas is pronounced Tomas... as Thom is pronounced Tom... my mates called Thomas you see....

Libraries gave us power
Then work came and made us free

See I rule first full listens of Nevermind and In Utero and I can judge like that, I rule.

Hehehehe...

Thom.

Need any more evidence that Radiohead suck?