Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
11.39pm
4 December 2010
Offline
mr. Sun king coming together said:
Edit: Something more say.
The Clash were a better band than the Sex Pistols, but culturally none of their albums had the impact of Never Mind The Bollocks.
Bull. Never Mind The Bullocks had a well-worn thread: Fuck the monarchy. Really original. Look, Bollocks, as much as the album may be great, is the Sex Pistols only real album. Body of work is important.
Yet despite the Sex Pistol's smaller, inferior body of work (one disk of songs to the Clash's eight), they're generally spoken of ahead of the Clash, at least in this country. That doesn't make sense unless they somehow had a big impact due to being in the right place at the right time. It's exactly the same as Sgt. Pepper being considered a superior album to Rubber Soul, Revolver and Abbey Road- it was just massive culturally, which the other albums weren't.
For what it's worth, "fuck the monarchy" was a pretty bold thing to say in 1977, certainly on a record.
12.10am
19 September 2010
Offline
Well, the Clash is completely more noticed on this side of the pond.
6.25am
1 May 2010
Offline
mr. Sun king coming together said:
GniknuS said:
I can't say that I agree about Nirvana, Nevermind made an impact, but ultimately you're left with what ended up happening. At the end of the day, Cobain still killed himself which surely made more of a cultural impact than anything he ever said or wrote. Looking at teenage suicide rates going up and up, I'd say their ultimate legacy is more of a negative than positive one. I'm not saying he's solely responsible for the increasing rates, but certainly he can't be discounted.
Bullshit if I ever saw any. A teen who is having depression isn't going to say, "Oh, Kurt Cobain killed himself, maybe I should." Show me a fact that suicide rates in the US spiked in 1994/5.
Come on man, that wasn't my point at all. The point of this whole thread is lasting legacy, right, the "next Beatles" and the Beatles left behind many things and will be remembered for many things. Nirvana will always be more known in mass society for Cobain's suicide than any song they ever came out with, so how could their effect on society ultimately be a positive one? Teen suicide rates have increased since then, that just is what it is, I'm not saying that kids use Cobain as a model, but it is what it is and I definitely wouldn't call it complete bullshit to draw a line from a to b, even though all I said was his suicide can't be discounted as a factor in the increasing rates. It's like saying that video games that promote violence don't cause young kids to be more violent themselves, it's certainly not the only factor, but it's effect can't be discounted. I'm not going to keep arguing because it could go on and on, but please don't misinterpret what I'm saying.
4.04am
19 September 2010
Offline
You really think you know more about MY thread then I do? Get real. You said his effect on teen suicide rates shouldn't be dismissed, and yet no proof is being submitted, so you are drawing a line (that has no basis in reality) from A to B. Cobain might be remembered for his suicide, but Nirvana as a whole, no. Smells Like Teen Spirit is a ridiculously important record in music history, and that is undeniable. But what isn't so iron-clad is that the first thing that pops into a person's mind about Nirvana is Cobain's suicide. There will be people, I don't deny that. But ask the same of the Beatles, and a similar amount of people will say, "Oh, them? They're druggies." So frankly, I feel completely within my rights to say what I have said. You can not continue this – I really don't want a fight without facts anyhow. And anyways, you still haven't made any plausible link between the rate increase of suicide of teens and Cobain – I'd love to see one, but until then, maybe quiet's best. (And by the by, I never said a bands' influence must be positive. I know of what I speak.)
Edit: Thanks Von!
5.02pm
4 December 2010
Offline
The teenage suicide rate didn't start rising until 2004 fwiw- it was actually falling for a long time before then. I think that's pretty strong evidence against Cobain's suicide inspiring young people.
5.32pm
19 September 2010
Offline
Thanks for that – I couldn't find any stats. Much obliged, Walrus!
3.59am
1 May 2010
Offline
Boy this place is really a lot of fun these days…as long as we all share the same opinion right?
http://www.suicide.org/suicide……html#2001
As you can see, there is a slight increase in the year 1994 for the age group 15-24, it's not a very big jump, but still that year has the highest rate of any year from 1990-2001. No, I don't believe Cobain is solely responsible for that slight jump, but why would this thread not be about a positive impact? You want the next Beatles to have a negative impact on society?
I really don't understand why most of your posts get so defensive when someone doesn't agree with you, you really might need to relax a little bit. As for now, I'm out of here. I leave you with this song, just close your eyes. Peace to the Middle East. 
12.37pm
19 September 2010
Offline
Look, I never said I meant/wanted/implied/fill your word in/ a negative impact was a good thing. I'll work on that if you work on criticising me unfairly, acting like you know more about a topic then the person who created it, and twisting my word to prolong something. You know I never said a negative influence was desirable. You know it's a lie. So Gnik, as long as you criticise me, be willing to take a little back.
2.13pm
1 May 2011
Offline
mr. Sun king coming together said:
Look, I never said I meant/wanted/implied/fill your word in/ a negative impact was a good thing. I'll work on that if you work on criticising me unfairly, acting like you know more about a topic then the person who created it, and twisting my word to prolong something. You know I never said a negative influence was desirable. You know it's a lie. So Gnik, as long as you criticise me, be willing to take a little back.
What do you mean by "like you know more about a topic then the person who created it"?
Also not sure why there is so much irritation being traded about a subject which is based entirely on personal opinion. Wont be that enticing to any visitors who come on the site and read some of the posts.
7.50pm
12 March 2010
Offline
meanmistermustard said:
Also not sure why there is so much irritation being traded about a subject which is based entirely on personal opinion. Wont be that enticing to any visitors who come on the site and read some of the posts.
Agreed. Mr. Sun King, you STILL have a lot to learn about "netiquette".
1.) Watch your general language.
2.) This is very much NOT the first time you acted rude towards another user, then got an irritated reply and THEN called the other one rude! If you pi** off people, don't be surprised when they're pi**d off! (just happened in the Ocean's Kingdom thread)
3.) Don't behave as if you're the elder statesman of the board. Just posting more than twice as much (!) as anyone else here (meaning more than twice as much as the second poster, but already about five (!) times as much as the third! That's ridiculous, man!) doesn't make you wiser or smarter or older than anyone.
4.) Saying "I know more about this thread than anyone cause I started it" is soooooo childish…
Btw, on topic:
I think Clash and Sex Pistols and Ramones etc. are TOTALLY overrated (I know, calling bands overrated is overrated).
None of them come even close to The Beatles.
Nirvana had at least some things in common: Being the right band at the right time, changing general direction of music (in a bad way, imo), being huge icons.
So in that way I agree more with you, Mr. Sun King.
But of course they lacked the grandness and style and mass appeal and message of The Beatles. And I agree with GnikNus that Cobain ruined a lot of his musical legacy with his suicide. Damn coward.
For the 70s I think Bee Gees were an excellent choice (don't remember who came up with it).
Later, maybe U2, or Madonna. Lots and lots of hits and mass appeal and influence.
Regarding the "all killer no filler" department I always thought Police came very close to them. Just a few excellent albums (they also had their rushed "Police for sale" album) and quitting while being at the top.
And of course Michael Jackson. If he just had stopped after "Dangerous" or didn't have the legal problems… But for sure the biggest icon since The Beatles.
In England "Take That" is the most successful boygroup, but I know it seems disrespectful to name a group especially created to reload the Beatles` formula… " N'Sync being another one…
So, AGAIN we learned that no group will ever match the greatness of the Fab Four. It's impossible. And no none came ever close to them.
8.07pm
19 September 2010
Offline
And when did I say I was the elder statesman? (And don't forget, the Top Poster list is off because Mods, who have many more posts then second place, can't be included). And just to be fair, I did say closest. Because yes, no one did come that close to being the next Beatles. Something always happened. (And Paulsbass, in the future, I'd rather you lecture me in private rather then publicly berate me.)
8.43pm
12 March 2010
Offline
mr. Sun king coming together said:
And when did I say I was the elder statesman? (And don't forget, the Top Poster list is off because Mods, who have many more posts then second place, can't be included). And just to be fair, I did say closest. Because yes, no one did come that close to being the next Beatles. Something always happened. (And Paulsbass, in the future, I'd rather you lecture me in private rather then publicly berate me.)
I think the highest number of postings any moderator has is around MMM's. And, as you said – they're moderators!
But times change, and posters come and go. We never heard of Mr. Big again (who surprisingly is still in the top 5!) and there will come a time when you will find other things in your life more fulfilling.
And since you're everywhere on the board I think in this case it's ok to adress you directly and publicly.
I have no problem with your thread title, which was perfectly well put.
11.45am
14 April 2010
Offline
Some excellent points in this thread. I'm glad it has not been reduced to name calling.
meanmistermustard said:
…not sure why there is so much irritation being traded about a subject which is based entirely on personal opinion. Wont be that enticing to any visitors who come on the site and read some of the posts.
Very well put. Thank you. 
I think we can do a better job of disagreeing without being disagreeable. I've been guilty of it myself in the past. We are better than this.
&
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, Let it roll for all its worth.
2295 6972
4.28pm
1 May 2011
Offline
The problem i have with Nirvana is they only had 3 studio albums so they have nowhere near the cannon of music required to be hailed 'the next beatles', even if Nevermind is consistantly rated as one of the best albums ever. There has to be a greater amount of work produced to qualify.
So maybe U2 as they do have the cannon, have reinvented their sound a number of times, have written tracks and compiled albums that are considered to be classics, and have been around for so long and continue to sell out stadiums on a major level. But they dont really have the social impact. And not many people would be able to name all 4 members.
Recently saw a newspaper cutting of a public poll the sun compiled, i think in 1999 but possibly earlier (it was kind of like a world cup where 2 artists were put up against each other, the public votes, and the winner moves into the next round). Anyway the final was between The Spice Girls (i dont know when they split or when everyone got bored of their zany girl power anticsso it could be before 1999) and The Beatles. Needless to say The Beatles won with 68% of the vote. If anyone seriously suggested The Spice Girls nowadays as the main contender they would be laughed at.
Over time bands come and go. The Beatles are the yardstick and will continue to remain so for the next 50 years. No one has yet come close to laying a breath on their legacy. They still sit comfortably on the throne. Just think of the barrage of celebrations in the media over the next few years with the 50th anniversary of their first single & album, first us concert, the release of pepper/revolver/rubber soul/abbey road. You will need a helmet and fallout shelter.
11.18pm
16 February 2011
Offline
mr. Sun king coming together said:
You really think you know more about MY thread then I do? Get real. You said his effect on teen suicide rates shouldn't be dismissed, and yet no proof is being submitted, so you are drawing a line (that has no basis in reality) from A to B. Cobain might be remembered for his suicide, but Nirvana as a whole, no. Smells Like Teen Spirit is a ridiculously important record in music history, and that is undeniable. But what isn't so iron-clad is that the first thing that pops into a person's mind about Nirvana is Cobain's suicide. There will be people, I don't deny that. But ask the same of the Beatles, and a similar amount of people will say, "Oh, them? They're druggies." So frankly, I feel completely within my rights to say what I have said. You can not continue this – I really don't want a fight without facts anyhow. And anyways, you still haven't made any plausible link between the rate increase of suicide of teens and Cobain – I'd love to see one, but until then, maybe quiet's best. (And by the by, I never said a bands' influence must be positive. I know of what I speak.)
Edit: Thanks Von!
OT. Just came to my mind that if somebody had asked me five years ago what the Beatles were, I would have answered, "You mean the hippies with the ugly flower shirts?" 
But anyway, suicide isn't what first comes to my mind when I think of Nirvana. And Beatles still stands as the only Band whose members I can all recall. I know, pathetic.
3.43am
1 May 2010
Offline
meanmistermustard said:
So maybe U2 as they do have the cannon, have reinvented their sound a number of times, have written tracks and compiled albums that are considered to be classics, and have been around for so long and continue to sell out stadiums on a major level. But they dont really have the social impact. And not many people would be able to name all 4 members.
That goes my speech of why U2 could be considered the new Beatles. 
Regarding their music, they have done more than people want to admit.
8.52pm
14 November 2010
Offline
mr. Sun king coming together said:
1. Effect on the music industry.
2. Effect on society
3. Talent
4. Timelessness.
I'm honestly going to go with Bob Marley on this one. He can be given credit for spreading the Rastafari and Jamaican music movement worldwide, which went on to influence a ton of other music stemming from the Reggae style.
Everyone knows who he is, everyone could recognize his music, and most people tend to enjoy at least one or two of his songs. He was influenced by and gave voice to a lot of political and social issues in his homeland, and heck, the reggae atmosphere was one reason I went to Jamaica myself.
Talent-wise, the music makes me feel good so that speaks for itself. Obviously he's not Robert Frost or anything but there are good melodies and a good feel.
Like I said, everyone knows him. Tons of my friends these days love him. Timeless? of course.
I agree with the MJ and U2 suggestions too. This is mine. this is my message to you-u-u 
9.04pm
4 December 2010
Offline
Marley is a great shout.
1.09am
14 November 2010
Offline
Why thank you!
400 posts wooooo
4.26am
1 May 2010
Offline
Hey that deserves an apple!!
The rooftop is quite crowded I must say.
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Online: HeyTrud
4 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6972
meanmistermustard: 3427
MeanMrsMustard: 2794
Egroeg Evoli: 1528
vonbontee: 1427
Von Bontee: 1369
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 87
Members: 1683
Moderators: 5
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 33
Topics: 2396
Posts: 73282
Newest Members: fartoons, RIGBY, WilliamCampbell, JQ, Juliana Melo
Moderators: Joe (2702), skye (2295), Ellie (1), Zig (2752), mithveaen (4675)
Administrators: Joe (2702)
