Quote:
Originally Posted by jacklovezhimself
I guess but this forum is built on tongue and cheek comments so it's a little easy to be ignorant towards them.
|
If the forum is
built on tongue and cheek comments, then surely that'd suggest NOT much chance of failing to recognize them?
At any rate, though it's not relevant to this thread, I agree as a general principle with your point that in evaluating bands the only important thing in the end is the music. One thing that pisses me off a lot about many British indie kids that I've spoken to is that they're OBSESSED with image to the point that it has clearly become more important to them than the music itself.
I got in a debate not so long ago with some guy who was the frontman of some really dull North London band - my claim was that the Arctic Monkeys are a better and more talented band than the Libertines ever were. The guy completely freaked out. But when he was trying to construct an argument over why I was so very heinously wrong, the result was fascinating: all he seemed ultimately to be able to come up with was that the Libs had a WAY better image than AMs, were much cooler, and spurned off a whole movement and legion of imitators - that people know all the names of the band members and dress up as Pete Doherty. So therefore, they were clearly the better band and any claim to the contrary was blasphemous.
How can somebody misguide themselves so far that they begin to evaluate music based on image of the songwriters?