MB's greatest common factor (house, rock, album, Radiohead, Nirvana) - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > General Music
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-03-2008, 08:49 PM   #1 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
[MERIT]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 4,823
Default

Nirvana'a "Nevermind" has got to be the greatest common factor. I can't think of any other album more people would have in common.
[MERIT] is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2008, 08:57 PM   #2 (permalink)
isfckingdead
 
sleepy jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 18,789
Default

With the exception of Built to Spill I'd say those are all pretty safe guesses.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by METALLICA89 View Post
Ive seen you on muiltipul forums saying Metallica and slayer are the worst **** you kid go suck your **** while you listen to your ****ing emo **** I bet you do listen to emo music
sleepy jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2008, 08:57 PM   #3 (permalink)
dontcareaboutyou
 
swim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 5,145
Default

I was making suggestions for people to comment on. A lot of people here like those albums. I don't think this is a board where most people turn on the radio so I don't think this certain album has to be chart topper. Nevermind is a watered down album compared to their previous output.
__________________
http://nakednaps.bandcamp.com/
swim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2008, 09:07 PM   #4 (permalink)
Whatever
 
Predator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 344
Default

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your examples, other than that they are not common links. I don't own a single one, nor have I even heard them. I still don't think there is even a remote chance of a common link album.
__________________
Jack be nimble
Jack be quick

I be a lunatic

The answer is hidden in plain view.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Predator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2008, 09:09 PM   #5 (permalink)
I'm a figure of forgotten
 
lucylamppost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: canada
Posts: 349
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator View Post
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your examples, other than that they are not common links. I don't own a single one, nor have I even heard them. I still don't think there is even a remote chance of a common link album.
I am sure your mom and any other 30 plus women would strongly disagree
__________________

lucylamppost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 09:18 AM   #6 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 11,246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator View Post
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your examples, other than that they are not common links. I don't own a single one, nor have I even heard them. I still don't think there is even a remote chance of a common link album.
That was exactly my point. And it came off like posturing. Age has a few things to do with it.

I was born in 1982. I don't own many (if any) albums from that year, or the years around it, and have no desire to, regardless of how solid the album is, go back a lay down a slick $20 to grab up something I can get whenever. I think at a young age you aren't open to most things that have long since past and given the way CD run up against your wallet, i'd say that dropping $20 on a nirvana cd is a little much to ask.

And despite whatever arguments may arise, the album is great and because of that those wanting to distance themselves from the unwashed masses will deny to no end their love for it. Look back through these pages to see exactly what I mean.

If you seriously are suggesting that its a watered down album, then what you're going to end up doing to save face is conclude that these are all opinions that cannot be argued. But we've been down that road and I think if we're being reasonable, Nevermind is not your cup of tea, but is, by and large, a great album. Solid at the very least.

And I can't even blame swim alone for this, the money hungry journalists who are starved for something to write about brought up the carnage-fetish, B-side of Tattoo You loving heathens to write a contrary article to fill the pages of many a shill magazine (I'm looking at you Spin). When the "Ten years since Nevermind" hype ended and they needed to blow Nirvana some more i remamber one article being titled:

"Bollacks to Nevermind, Here's In Utero"

You can imagine that how the column went after a title like that. I certainly think there are some missteps on Nevermind, and I'd never say its perfect, nor do I listen to it on any sort of a regular basis, but I don't think its fair to say its sub par and above all else, it stands to be a heavy contender for oojay's original question.
__________________
I've moved to a new address
TheBig3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 02:10 PM   #7 (permalink)
dontcareaboutyou
 
swim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 5,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog View Post
That was exactly my point. And it came off like posturing. Age has a few things to do with it.

I was born in 1982. I don't own many (if any) albums from that year, or the years around it, and have no desire to, regardless of how solid the album is, go back a lay down a slick $20 to grab up something I can get whenever. I think at a young age you aren't open to most things that have long since past and given the way CD run up against your wallet, i'd say that dropping $20 on a nirvana cd is a little much to ask.

And despite whatever arguments may arise, the album is great and because of that those wanting to distance themselves from the unwashed masses will deny to no end their love for it. Look back through these pages to see exactly what I mean.

If you seriously are suggesting that its a watered down album, then what you're going to end up doing to save face is conclude that these are all opinions that cannot be argued. But we've been down that road and I think if we're being reasonable, Nevermind is not your cup of tea, but is, by and large, a great album. Solid at the very least.

And I can't even blame swim alone for this, the money hungry journalists who are starved for something to write about brought up the carnage-fetish, B-side of Tattoo You loving heathens to write a contrary article to fill the pages of many a shill magazine (I'm looking at you Spin). When the "Ten years since Nevermind" hype ended and they needed to blow Nirvana some more i remamber one article being titled:

"Bollacks to Nevermind, Here's In Utero"

You can imagine that how the column went after a title like that. I certainly think there are some missteps on Nevermind, and I'd never say its perfect, nor do I listen to it on any sort of a regular basis, but I don't think its fair to say its sub par and above all else, it stands to be a heavy contender for oojay's original question.
Maybe I'm an exception but I know more about the 90s than about the pass 8 years when comes to music. 1996 is the best year ever for music by the way. Nevermind is full pop songs. Bleach is hardcore album. You have to able to see the dissapoint of going from only hearing Bleach to listening to Nevermind. It is a wimpy album in comparrison to the raw gritty energy on Bleach. In Utero is good by fact that everything Albini touches turns to gold. I mean the man made good Bush and Chevelle albums. I'm not trying to play into or against popular opinions. I just listen to music and communicate how I feel about.
__________________
http://nakednaps.bandcamp.com/
swim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 02:28 AM   #8 (permalink)
I'm sorry, is this Can?
 
Comus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,989
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swim View Post
1996 is the best year ever for music by the way.
What?

96 is dwarfed by 95 AND 97, but there is not even a close contender for the best year ever anywhere near the 90's. 1969-1975 are the golden years, and somewhere in that huge goliath of brilliant albums you will find the best year.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy jack
Quote:
Originally Posted by antonio
classical music isn't exactly religious, you know?
um
last.fm
Comus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 04:33 PM   #9 (permalink)
Fish in the percolator!
 
Seltzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hobbit Land NZ
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Comus View Post
What?

96 is dwarfed by 95 AND 97, but there is not even a close contender for the best year ever anywhere near the 90's. 1969-1975 are the golden years, and somewhere in that huge goliath of brilliant albums you will find the best year.
Ah, that's definitely my favourite era - so much psychedelia, prog, jazz, classic rock and good music in general in that period. But I'm not sure what my favourite year of music is overall... it might not even be from that era.
__________________
Seltzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2008, 09:08 PM   #10 (permalink)
dontcareaboutyou
 
swim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 5,145
Default

You've never listened to OK Computer???
__________________
http://nakednaps.bandcamp.com/
swim is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.