![]() |
Quote:
Now I am not targeting this just towards you, but towards people that judge music while using the bias of taste. Why can't music be judged on a more universal standard such as skill and originality? IDK maybe because people don't care about that anymore. So without using taste, I will judge your bands. 1. Danzig 7/10 2. Nirvana 3/10 (They ripped the Melvins, what did you expect?) 3. Alice in Chains 6/10 (Umm what exactly did they do for music that was so special?) 4. Screaming Trees 6/10 (Same as above) 5. Static Grim (No clue who they are.) See now instead of arguing how cool these bands are, we can argue on a much easier base like talent. |
The only good band you named was Danzig. Even then, old Misfits are much better. Either way, none of those bands are punk, so why is this in the punk forum?
I listen to good music, and so can you! Go here and download everything. Then listen to it. Congratulations, you now listen to good music. I'm mostly joking, you can listen to whatever music you want. But if you go around attacking others' musical preference, you should expect to get some ****. |
David Bowie beats them all!
EASILY. (I do like AIC though) |
Quote:
|
Tool
TMV CTTS Bayside Co&Ca Dillinger |
combined overall/right now:
Funeral Diner Spirit of Versailles Envy Et tu Brute Blood Brothers |
The Fall of Troy
The Mars Volta Elliott Smith Portugal.The Man Weezer |
Quote:
yea nirvana ripped the melvins, and the pixies. and as for doing something for music, since when do you have to do something amazing to be a good rock band? what did metallica do? what did led zeppelin do? so while you are right about basing things on talent ,your wrong in your assumption that you have to be amazingly influencal to be good. |
Metallica, lost Newstead.
then again, they have spider fingers now so meh |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:02 PM. |
© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.