[grinch]

Quote:

Originally posted by taoster I wouldnt care less about Rollins sexuality but i do wonder how this nasty rumors gets spread.

typical girlfriend: wow, who is that? henry rollins? look at the build on that mofo, he's ****ing hot.
typical sub-150lb. boyfriend: he's probably gay.

i wonder.

i have a couple spoken word albums by henry rollins and i've always enjoyed them. he has some interesting things to say on those albums, and i know he was/is a really big bill hicks fan so he's cool with me in that department. lately he's been making funny cameos in movies (the new guy, jackass, etc.), which would give me the idea he doesn't take himself too seriously. plus he did guest vocals with tool and the misfits, so he seems to be fairly respected in band communities. i've never really seen any reason to hate him, unless you're a hardcore conservative or something.

i don't own any of his musical recordings though, maybe somebody could recommend something by him?



[edit]: grr, typo

 

[taoster]

Quote:

Originally posted by grinch i don't own any of his musical recordings though, maybe somebody could recommend something by him?

Definitely "End of Silence", Rollins Band.

That's Rollins Band at its finest. It's as important as nevermind was to Kurt and an important and influential album. Like I said before, not only are the songs top-notch but the whole band were just going off too. This is a classic.

GET IT! GET IT! seriously, GET IT!

 

[eastsidemetalhd]

Quote:

Originally posted by williamgoody So you're saying U2 have a sound that is derivative from others because they play "guitar rock"? The only album that really sounds like "guitar rock" to me might be the last one they released. Feel free to compare their albums to similar acts for us in order to show us what you mean.

huh? you've lost me there. if the only album of theirs that sounds like guitar rock is their last one, then what did the others sound like? they were all guitar-driven rock albums, as far as i remember. apart from Zooropa (or whatever it was called).


Quote:

Originally posted by williamgoody Stymie, I kinda agree with your assessment, but the guitar work (esp. on "Once Upon a Time") smacks of U2 from the Unforgettable Fire era to me. Take out the synths and I believe you have a dead on U2 sound.

i don't claim to have heard much of Simple Minds, but take out the synths and what do you have? guitar-driven rock (or pop or whatever). and if your main basis of comparison between the two bands is the guitar work, isn't that kinda admitting that u2 is, ultimately, a guitar rock band? especially when you've just said that Simple Minds - synth = Unforgettable Fire-era u2?

hey, i don't want to go into a detailed, band-vs-band comparison of what u2 sounds and doesn't sound like. i'll probably lose that battle because i simply don't know. but win or lose, you'd still be missing my point.

my point is that regardless of how original their ideas may be, u2 express those very ideas in your trad 4-piece guitar-bass-drums setup. which even you, a die-hard u2 fan, would be hard-pressed to say is 'original'. because it's not. as such, u2 is not original in that sense, and not in the sense that 25th-generation Ramones clone bands sound like the Ramones. my focus is on how they express those ideas, while your focus is on the ideas & content themselves. i think your love for the band has distracted you from this basic distinction, and you've taken what i said personally as a 'dis'. chill out, dude.

my 2 cents worth.

 

[gloco]

I have that album "weight" with that song "liar," you know...the one where he's painted red, lol. Wacky video. It's a pretty solid album, i haven't listened to it in a long time though.

 

[markl]

Quote:

markl...I really don't understand you bringing up Rollins' sexuality in the entire debate. Has Henry ever actively bashed gays or something?

It was just a "Henry Rollins fun fact" that I knew about. The only way I know about the rumors is that he's been asked about them for years, and large print magazines are the ones that keep printing that he's been "dogged for years" by these rumors. I have no special "inside information on this. I don't think it's a big deal, except that it underlines his poser-hood, if you ask me. If he hadn't made himself into this silly cartoon caricature of macho manhood, it wouldn't be so funny or ironic. That was my point, that's all.

Mark

 

[Zanth]

Ah!

It's all cool.

 

[redshifter]

eastsidemetalhd
you still have not named a single band that u2 "derived" it's sound from.

as for simple "guitar driven" rock band, sure they are. they do it better than most, and edge's guitar sound which he developed with micheal brook is one of the most original and often imitated styles.

almost every album u2 has put out builds on and changes what they did before. look at the difference between "joshua tree" and "achtung baby". can you name one other band that dared such a radical change in their sound at the peak of their popularity? for that matter can you name one album by any other band that came before "achtung baby" that sounded anything like "achtung baby" or "zooropa"?

as for bands that derived their sound from u2, i can think of one right away: inxs. from the pun/acronym name, to the posing lead singer, to inxs' song and guitar sound they ripped off u2 in a big way.

oh, and if you feel like masterbating in private to your pictures of bono, eastsidemetalhd, go right ahead. just leave me out of it (and for that matter, you share too much).

 

[williamgoody]

eastsidemetalhd?

Based on your analogy. your telling me that U2 and Metallica are similar bcause they both use a traditional 4 piece setup.

Do you believe that?

What I'm trying to point out is that your definition of "guitar based" is too vague. Just because groups use the same setup doesn't mean they sound the same.

If that's what you believe, OK, that's fine. But it would've helped to have some examples of what you were talking about so we could understand and try to see your point.

My "love for the band" not withstanding,

, I'm of the belief that two or more bands can all use the same instruments and sound completely different. For me, it'll always be the end result (the music) that I enjoy and compare with other bands, not the instruments used.

And you really shouldn't generalize. Just because I like the music doesn't make me a "diehard fan" who doesn't have an open mind.

 

[Matthew-Spaltro]

Rollins does not look like a nice guy. He probably is, but ya never know.

 

[SumB]

I don't care for Rollins Band, but there's no hate for the man himself. Actually, he comes off as a down to earth and humble guy from the tv interviews I've seen, and his movie cameos are always good for a laugh.

 

[eastsidemetalhd]

Quote:

Originally posted by redshifter eastsidemetalhd you still have not named a single band that u2 "derived" it's sound from.

like i said earlier, that's not my point.

Quote:

Originally posted by redshifter as for simple "guitar driven" rock band, sure they are.

now that's my point.

Quote:

Originally posted by williamgoody What I'm trying to point out is that your definition of "guitar based" is too vague. Just because groups use the same setup doesn't mean they sound the same.

williamgoody, i'm afraid you insist on making the issue a lot more complicated than it is. what i'm trying to point out is simply that it's not whether band A SOUNDS like band B, it's that they both play guitar-based rock, which in itself, is not original. your insistence on arguing on what they sound like is really quite pointless, because it's a totally different tangent.

ok, if u2 are (as you insist) NOT a guitar-rock band, then how would you describe them?

Quote:

Originally posted by williamgoody And you really shouldn't generalize. Just because I like the music doesn't make me a "diehard fan" who doesn't have an open mind.

seriously? the confrontational and dismissive attitude that emanates from your posts sure makes you come across that way. what you've called an 'old and tired nonsense' cop-out sure seems to ring true in this case.

 

[Matthew-Spaltro]

U2 a guitar rock band. When?

 

[williamgoody]

Quote:

your insistence on arguing on what they sound like is really quite pointless, because it's a totally different tangent.

Kinda like saying bands are unoriginal because they play the same instruments. Hey, it's your point of view, so be it.

Quote:

seriously? the confrontational and dismissive attitude that emanates from your posts sure makes you come across that way. what you've called an 'old and tired nonsense' cop-out sure seems to ring true in this case.

I call em as I see em. I sound dismissive for a reason. All I asked for was an example as a point of reference so I could try to understand your point of view, because without that, this whole notion of bands not being original because they use the same instument setups to me is pretty much nonsense. You weren't giving one, rather just pointing out how "blind" I might be to your point because of my "love" for the band.

I do tend to get dismissive of others viewpoints when they can't necessarily illustrate what they say and throw out rediculous generalizations as an answer for a request to back up what they're saying. Call me crazy.

I didn't know that bands, in addition to writing what could be pereived as "original" songs had to invent the instruments to play them with as well.

I learn something new everyday.

 

[eastsidemetalhd]

Quote:

Originally posted by williamgoody I didn't know that bands, in addition to writing what could be pereived as "original" songs had to invent the instruments to play them with as well. [/B]

... once again, you insist on arguing a point that isn't being disputed.

if you think that the notion of bands not being original just because they use the same instrument setups is 'pretty much nonsense', that's fine with me. that's your opinion, and as you said, 'so be it'.

what i find puzzling is that even though you know full well that we've been arguing at cross purposes all this while, you refuse to come out and say so. you could have just stated your opinion at the start, and this could have gone a whole different way. instead, you've insisted on meeting my opinion on one thing with an argument about another, and then pointing out how blind I have been to your point instead. what did you hope to achieve with that? apart from attempting to make yourself look clever, i have no idea.

things cut both ways. i call em as i see em too. and i'm calling u2 unoriginal on that very basic level. if you find that a trite point, or if you don't agree, then say it UP FRONT. instead of arguing a totally different point, and then calling me a ****-talker who can't back up what he's said. that's uncalled for, not to mention downright insulting. i don't see the necessity for me to back up an argument that i haven't made. what would be the purpose in that?

i don't see any point in continuing this, since we both know that there's nowhere to go with it when our starting points are different. my point of view is pretty clear in what i've already said. you clearly don't agree, though you've chosen to go the long, roundabout route in saying it. we'll let it rest. if any neutral 3rd party has anything to add to this, go ahead. otherwise, i think it's time we go back to the point of this thread, which was Henry Rollins. and his sexuality. i don't care if he's gay, but i'll still take Black Flag over the Rollins Band.

 

[williamgoody]

Quote:

what i find puzzling is that even though you know full well that we've been arguing at cross purposes all this while, you refuse to come out and say so. you could have just stated your opinion at the start, and this could have gone a whole different way.

Again, all I asked for was an example so I could understand your point better. I much prefer to educate myself on what someone else thinks and how they come to do so. This will help me determine whether or not I do agree or not with them. I just don't react blindly to something if I don't understand it.

Get it?

Quote:

things cut both ways. i call em as i see em too. and i'm calling u2 unoriginal on that very basic level. if you find that a trite point, or if you don't agree, then say it UP FRONT. instead of arguing a totally different point, and then calling me a ****-talker who can't back up what he's said. that's uncalled for, not to mention downright insulting. i don't see the necessity for me to back up an argument that i haven't made. what would be the purpose in that?

I believe this was the statement that you made which I asked for an example of:

Quote:

i just don't see how u2 is all that original. they play guitar rock. lots of bands have before them, and lots of bands will after them. musically, they aren't doing anything that hasn't been done before.

...and then you threw out a generaliation about how if people like the band they won't blah, blah, blah.

Which is when I asked for an example because I really didn't understand what you REALLY were getting at here. And I did not appreciate that generalization you threw out there to boot. Now I've seen others make points that counter what they perceive you meant, and you didn't correct them.

How I could state my opinion from the start when I didn't know what you were talking about is still beyond me. And I took the "long roundabout way" to finally get from you that you were referring to the instruments, which at this point I disagreed and counterpointed etc, etc.

Sorry man, I can't read your mind. But again if you can't back up something you say, or refuse to, it's not a point worth taking seriously for me.

We agree to disagree.