Getting "called-out" for not wearing the Beats

[sailorman]

 
Quote:

Wait that guy in the lower right hand corner looks terrible. How is that cool?

If that guy was the corner wino, who he resembles more than anyone, it wouldn't be cool and the kids would harass him and beat him up for being a retard.
But, since it's millionaire athlete Labron, he's cool.

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

 
If that guy was the corner wino, who he resembles more than anyone, it wouldn't be cool and the kids would harass him and beat him up for being a retard.
But, since it's millionaire athlete Labron, he's cool.

I never got the whole praising famous people idea. It seems worthless to care about rich/famous people. It keep people occupied from whats really happening in the world.
 

 

[metalsonata]

So, wait. They're both 'hugely overrated' but they made a 'huge impact' on music? If you don't like them, that's fine and all, but you can't say that they are 'hugely overrated' then acknowledge their 'huge impact' on music in the next sentence.
 
Also, why must modern rock be anything like the rock of the past? Can't evolution be a good thing? And who is saying that Nirvana was one of the last greats? You? Have you listened to:
 
Radiohead
Neutral Milk Hotel
Sigur Ros
Arcade Fire
Godspeed You! Black Emperor
Wilco
Interpol
 
...just to name a few of the well-known bands (let's go ahead and ignore the real underdogs for now) who have put out statement albums that equal or exceed Nirvana's work since the early 90's? There is a lot of great stuff out there--no need to sell modern rock short just yet.
 
Quote:

I never denied there influence but i still feel the same regarding the two bands. They are both hugely overrated. At the time of the beatles the rolling stones were way better. And nirvana may have had a huge impact on modern music but name modern rock music nowadays which is anywhere close to rock music of the past. Nirvana was one of the last so called greats and they weren't even that good.

 

 

[liamstrain]

" They're both 'hugely overrated' but they made a 'huge impact' on music?"
 
It's like Oprah picking a book club book. Does wonders for the publishing industry, and moves literature forward both in the public eye, and as a viable artform. But doesn't necessarily mean it's a good book. 

 

[Astrozombie]

Ok i tried them.........lol, well first i couldn't try them with my music because they were busted or something, so i could only use the booth where you select what type of music sample you want to hear. "Rock, RnB, Jazz" such n such............BASS, a bit much IMO but they sounded ok besides that, bit heavy and bulky, no way are they worth $300.
What was funny were the Skullcandy Aviators

Awful, they actually want $150 for those? Wow
 
As for getting a pair for free??? Sure! Love it! I'd sell them and try a $300 DAC-AMP combo, if it isn't worth it then a $300 pair of Grado's!

 

[Rebel975]

Oops.

 

[CatboyMac]

This thread just got insanely pretentious.

 

[liamstrain]

On this forum? Never.

 

[sailorman]

 
Quote:

" They're both 'hugely overrated' but they made a 'huge impact' on music?"
 
It's like Oprah picking a book club book. Does wonders for the publishing industry, and moves literature forward both in the public eye, and as a viable artform. But doesn't necessarily mean it's a good book. 

Bad analogy.  Oprah doesn't write.  Though she influences their bank accounts, Oprah doesn't influence the creative output of the people who create literature, not to be confused with the publishing industry.
 
Particularly regarding the Beatles, most people who rate them highly do so on the strength of their impact, not the merit of their individual songs.  After all, they had their own influences. They may not have been that great musically, but they were great in their influence on those who came afterward.
 
It's not a perfect analogy because the Beatles didn't invent rock 'n roll, but to say they were overrated is almost like saying Edison was overrated because his light bulb had an ugly color of light, it was noisy and it didn't last very long.  It's kind of missing the point.
 

 

[liamstrain]

Fair enough - I was just trying to show how something could be overrated and yet still have a huge impact. I could have said JK Rowling instead...
 
Ultimately, I have no dog in this fight. I like the Beatles. 

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

 
Bad analogy.  Oprah doesn't write.  Though she influences their bank accounts, Oprah doesn't influence the creative output of the people who create literature, not to be confused with the publishing industry.
 
Particularly regarding the Beatles, most people who rate them highly do so on the strength of their impact, not the merit of their individual songs.  After all, they had their own influences. They may not have been that great musically, but they were great in their influence on those who came afterward.
 
It's not a perfect analogy because the Beatles didn't invent rock 'n roll, but to say they were overrated is almost like saying Edison was overrated because his light bulb had an ugly color of light, it was noisy and it didn't last very long.  It's kind of missing the point.

 

They aren't even rock they are pop. The rolling stones are much better then the beatles and actually are rock.

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

So, wait. They're both 'hugely overrated' but they made a 'huge impact' on music? If you don't like them, that's fine and all, but you can't say that they are 'hugely overrated' then acknowledge their 'huge impact' on music in the next sentence.
 
Also, why must modern rock be anything like the rock of the past? Can't evolution be a good thing? And who is saying that Nirvana was one of the last greats? You? Have you listened to:
 
Radiohead
Neutral Milk Hotel
Sigur Ros
Arcade Fire
Godspeed You! Black Emperor
Wilco
Interpol
 
...just to name a few of the well-known bands (let's go ahead and ignore the real underdogs for now) who have put out statement albums that equal or exceed Nirvana's work since the early 90's? There is a lot of great stuff out there--no need to sell modern rock short just yet. 
 

I bet in the future most of those bands will be forgotten. Fact i have never heard of them means quite a bit. Though i know who radiohead is. But then again i am not a big rock fan i prefer the likes of hard rock and heavy metal.

 

[DigitalFreak]

Quote:

I bet in the future most of those bands will be forgotten. Fact i have never heard of them means quite a bit. Though i know who radiohead is. But then again i am not a big rock fan i prefer the likes of hard rock and heavy metal.

I think you best reign in your horses my young friend. It doesn't matter what you heard or even like no more then it matters what I like or the guy two doors down the street likes. Whether you're into a scene or not give the people who made the scene the credit they deserve. By the way before someone corrects you in a rude fashion hard rock and rock are sister sub genres of the same vein which got it's teeth from blues. As for the Stones the Stones also owe everything they did to the blues as does early progressive which early doom owes a lot to. Oh an by the way modern metal owes everything to NWOBHM and the early thrashers which later split into the death metal scene which owes a lot to early doom who owes a lot to early progressive who owes a lot to blues and on and on and on. Where am I going with this and whats my point? Simple, the genres and it's corresponding sub genre's all in one way or another all owe something to one another due to the direct or indirect influence be it musically or cultural impact. The music you love wouldn't be the music it is now if it wasn't for what the other music scenes have done and the musical or cultural impact they had. Considering you call yourself a metal head, which I have been since 1982, and considering so much of the mainstream see us in a very negative light you really should know better then to judge and slam on another scene. I've chatted with you enough in the past bcasey25raptor to know you're a fairly intelligent person you know better then to be making comments like the ones above.
 
Think about it
Bless \m/\m/

 

[LizardKing1]

Quote:

I bet in the future most of those bands will be forgotten. Fact i have never heard of them means quite a bit. Though i know who radiohead is. But then again i am not a big rock fan i prefer the likes of hard rock and heavy metal.

 
Well I wasn't going to perpetuate this argument, but this invalidates your point. If you don't knot those bands, you really shouldn't be talking about who improved or helped create Rock. If you don't know Radiohead, your opinion on Rock probably won't matter to many. These aren't some obscure bands, Arcade Fire are actually very famous and I will bet you a headphone of your choice as to how people in 10 years will still know either them or Interpol.

 

[MorbidToaster]

Did you actually listen to them...? I frequently recommend them to newcomers around here looking for a good looking bassy headphone because I found them to be decent for 150...IMO portables don't hit the sweet spot until 200 USD, and until them it's a good option.
 
Quote:

Ok i tried them.........lol, well first i couldn't try them with my music because they were busted or something, so i could only use the booth where you select what type of music sample you want to hear. "Rock, RnB, Jazz" such n such............BASS, a bit much IMO but they sounded ok besides that, bit heavy and bulky, no way are they worth $300.
What was funny were the Skullcandy Aviators

Awful, they actually want $150 for those? Wow
 
As for getting a pair for free??? Sure! Love it! I'd sell them and try a $300 DAC-AMP combo, if it isn't worth it then a $300 pair of Grado's!