::Grill 13 Restaurant:: NEW Pictures on the Menu!

[The King of Misery]

If I may interject,I think I agree with Bio on the music topic.Just because you like classic Rock doesn't make it undebatable on whether it is the best.I mean I like Grunge,Blues,and and Hard Rock on occasion,but I wouldn't say any of them are a superior form of music.Especially since Grunge is the b*****d son of Punk and Classical/Rock,Blues are just another way of singing Jazz,basically not entirely though,and Hard Rock is just a new-age,faster,louder,rough-around-the-edges version of Rock in general.  

[King of Paradise]

Actually, no. My opinion is not debateable lol.

No, I see what you're both trying to get at. And don't get me wrong: I said earlier I love rock, didn't I? That means I love all of its sub-genres, which means I am a fan of metal and grunge and shi* as well. But when I say classic rock is best, I'm not speaking for myself, but on behalf of the rock community (Which includes radio stations, magizines, websites, etc.) who who have repeatedly placed the classic bands at the top of nearly every greatests artists/bands of all time lists (That count, mind you), so...I wouldn't necessarily say classic rock is a superior form of music, but no other sub-genre can hold a candle to its legacy, that's for sure (At least, not YET. There is still a doubtful hope lol).

@Bio:

YES DRILL SERGEANT!!!  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Chase Me To The End

No, I see what you're both trying to get at. And don't get me wrong: I said earlier I love rock, didn't I? That means I love all of its sub-genres, which means I am a fan of metal and grunge and shi* as well. But when I say classic rock is best, I'm not speaking for myself, but on behalf of the rock community (Which includes radio stations, magizines, websites, etc.) who who have repeatedly placed the classic bands at the top of nearly every greatests artists/bands of all time lists (That count, mind you), so...I wouldn't necessarily say classic rock is a superior form of music, but no other sub-genre can hold a candle to its legacy, that's for sure (At least, not YET. There is still a doubtful hope lol).

Okay, first of all, you yourself said that your music tastes are better than most other people in the world. That statement alone says that most people in the world have inferior music tastes which ranges from good music tastes to not knowing good music if it was implanted into their brain.
So, then why do you always look to the masses when deciding what's "The Best"? Frankly, I don't think the majority of people in the world have good music tastes so whatever they decide on doesn't mean crap.

Here's how I see the situation. This was not always the case. The masses very good music tastes back in the 60's and 70's. But slowly starting with 1980's and progressively through the 1990's that went away. In other words, yes, back in the 60's and 70's, all the bands that made truly great music really got the recognition they deserve. But as time went on, the masses started preferring the generic and soulless crap. Like most new wave rock, or Nu Metal, and it's only getting progressively worse.
Now, all those other bands that came out in the 60's and 70's, the only reason they're still considered the best is because of that mantra. It's like, "They're the best. Always, no two ways about it." And if you compare them to the biggest bands of modern times, yes, they're obviously better, because these people only listen to generic, modern crap.
But, what about all those underground bands who are always making beautiful, soulful, powerful music? They never get to see the light of day because the mainstream audience doesn't bother even listening to them unless they're on TV, but they can't get ON TV if the producers don't think the masses will like it.
As a result, even the Rock fans who DON'T want something generic... They just listen to the old stuff. They don't even bother listening, and I mean REALLY listening to the newer music and giving their honest opinion. The don't listen, like their ears are imprinted. Like their brains are set to "Read Only" and don't allow for new opinions about Rock and its subgenres to form.

The one thing that really pissed me off about the concert is how many Maiden fans didn't bother showing up for the opening act. Like, why the hell wouldn't you? You already paid for it. Here's the thing, as much as I love Iron Maiden, when you really listen to the music. If you take the more Metal side of Dream Theater, and compare it to Iron Maiden... Dream Theater has better music hands down. It's more complex and sophisticated, the melodies are more creative. And yes, I know that Iron Maiden paved the way for Dream Theater, and other Progressive Metal Bands, but that doesn't change the fact that Mike Portnoy, Jordan Rudess and Mike Pettruci combined are simply better composers and musicians. That doesn't mean that I won't listen to Iron Maiden, they do have their own style that has plenty of merit. But Dream Theater had one hit song in the 90's and since have been pretty much underground. And quite frankly, I think you'll agree that since then, they made plenty of songs that were way better than Pull Me Under.

And not only Dream Theater. There's plenty of bands that came out wince the late 80's, early 90's that quite franly, I think are better than the vast majority of those "timeless classics" that came out in the 60's through 80's. And even those bands that are still around. Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, in the 90's, they had some rocky times because they lost their lead singers and had to get some less than adequate replacements, but then suddenly Rob Halford and Bruce Dickinson come back to Judas Priest and Iron Maiden, and even in terms of those bands, their new albums were musically better than anything they had done in the past.
So even if you were gonna say, "Top songs" rather than "Top bands" people are always gonna say that "Run To the Hills" is like, "The best Maiden ever!" But frankly, Run To The Hills isn't even that good. And they made plenty of songs since that were much better. Especially after the year 2000.

In conclusion, yes, the masses will always say that the old stuff is the best and nothing beats it. But you know what? Unless they're speaking strictly about Mainstream music, then they're wrong. And if Pink Floyd existed today and they had released an album within the past decade, I'm sure it would be musically better than anything they've ever done.

But bottom line is, if you think you have better music tastes than most people in the world, why are you listening to what most people in the world have to say? And agreeing?  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

I didn't click that link... Do I still have AIDS?

EDIT:
Wewt! Got myself a new MP3 player. It's that NWZ-W202 by Sony, the flash MP3 player that's integrated into the headphones. 2 gigs of memory is more than I would ever need at any one given moment. Other than that, it's pretty much like a shuffle, but it's all in the headphones, so no more chords, and I don't have to have my PSP in my pocket all the time. This also means I can use all of my PSP memory stick to store more games and videos. Either way. Oh, best part? It was only $30. I guess they're not selling too well.  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

They lost me at MTV... What's a matter of opinion?  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Well, System of a Down is not that good, so avoid the Chop Suey.  

[The King of Misery]

See,that's why you guys should listen to Blues.It never disappoints.Always a catchy melodic tune,always deep meaningful lyrics,and there is always something for every situation.I'm telling you.Look up Otis Taylor.  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Well, how many Blues artists do you listen to? I'm sure that for every soulful blues musician, there's a good share out there making the same generic crap. It's the same with every single genre in the world.

And Stranger, Eminem's second album was better than his first. Either way, I never liked SOAD. It's so dry. Other than their Zelda song. That kicked a**.  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Well, overplayed or not, it was still lyrically better, more intense, and just overall more insane than his first. Which makes it more awesome. His flow was better, and it just had more awesome songs on it. I didn't really find it had any fillers. Whereas on SSLP, songs like c** On Everybody... I mean, it was pointless.

As for the link, I'd say Approved, but just barely. Obviously the electric guitar is the thing that redeems it, but still, it's like putting butter on a soggy biscuit. The butter is the only thing that's enjoyable. I'd honestly rather listen to that electric guitar against nothing at all, just a solo against silence.

Alright, here's my link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf_hKrqhtEM

This was like, my favorite song back in '99. It's still fun as hell to listen to.  

[King of Paradise]

Biohazard EXTREME

Chase Me To The End

No, I see what you're both trying to get at. And don't get me wrong: I said earlier I love rock, didn't I? That means I love all of its sub-genres, which means I am a fan of metal and grunge and shi* as well. But when I say classic rock is best, I'm not speaking for myself, but on behalf of the rock community (Which includes radio stations, magizines, websites, etc.) who who have repeatedly placed the classic bands at the top of nearly every greatests artists/bands of all time lists (That count, mind you), so...I wouldn't necessarily say classic rock is a superior form of music, but no other sub-genre can hold a candle to its legacy, that's for sure (At least, not YET. There is still a doubtful hope lol).

Okay, first of all, you yourself said that your music tastes are better than most other people in the world. That statement alone says that most people in the world have inferior music tastes which ranges from good music tastes to not knowing good music if it was implanted into their brain.
So, then why do you always look to the masses when deciding what's "The Best"? Frankly, I don't think the majority of people in the world have good music tastes so whatever they decide on doesn't mean crap.

Here's how I see the situation. This was not always the case. The masses very good music tastes back in the 60's and 70's. But slowly starting with 1980's and progressively through the 1990's that went away. In other words, yes, back in the 60's and 70's, all the bands that made truly great music really got the recognition they deserve. But as time went on, the masses started preferring the generic and soulless crap. Like most new wave rock, or Nu Metal, and it's only getting progressively worse.
Now, all those other bands that came out in the 60's and 70's, the only reason they're still considered the best is because of that mantra. It's like, "They're the best. Always, no two ways about it." And if you compare them to the biggest bands of modern times, yes, they're obviously better, because these people only listen to generic, modern crap.
But, what about all those underground bands who are always making beautiful, soulful, powerful music? They never get to see the light of day because the mainstream audience doesn't bother even listening to them unless they're on TV, but they can't get ON TV if the producers don't think the masses will like it.
As a result, even the Rock fans who DON'T want something generic... They just listen to the old stuff. They don't even bother listening, and I mean REALLY listening to the newer music and giving their honest opinion. The don't listen, like their ears are imprinted. Like their brains are set to "Read Only" and don't allow for new opinions about Rock and its subgenres to form.

The one thing that really pissed me off about the concert is how many Maiden fans didn't bother showing up for the opening act. Like, why the hell wouldn't you? You already paid for it. Here's the thing, as much as I love Iron Maiden, when you really listen to the music. If you take the more Metal side of Dream Theater, and compare it to Iron Maiden... Dream Theater has better music hands down. It's more complex and sophisticated, the melodies are more creative. And yes, I know that Iron Maiden paved the way for Dream Theater, and other Progressive Metal Bands, but that doesn't change the fact that Mike Portnoy, Jordan Rudess and Mike Pettruci combined are simply better composers and musicians. That doesn't mean that I won't listen to Iron Maiden, they do have their own style that has plenty of merit. But Dream Theater had one hit song in the 90's and since have been pretty much underground. And quite frankly, I think you'll agree that since then, they made plenty of songs that were way better than Pull Me Under.

And not only Dream Theater. There's plenty of bands that came out wince the late 80's, early 90's that quite franly, I think are better than the vast majority of those "timeless classics" that came out in the 60's through 80's. And even those bands that are still around. Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, in the 90's, they had some rocky times because they lost their lead singers and had to get some less than adequate replacements, but then suddenly Rob Halford and Bruce Dickinson come back to Judas Priest and Iron Maiden, and even in terms of those bands, their new albums were musically better than anything they had done in the past.
So even if you were gonna say, "Top songs" rather than "Top bands" people are always gonna say that "Run To the Hills" is like, "The best Maiden ever!" But frankly, Run To The Hills isn't even that good. And they made plenty of songs since that were much better. Especially after the year 2000.

In conclusion, yes, the masses will always say that the old stuff is the best and nothing beats it. But you know what? Unless they're speaking strictly about Mainstream music, then they're wrong. And if Pink Floyd existed today and they had released an album within the past decade, I'm sure it would be musically better than anything they've ever done.

But bottom line is, if you think you have better music tastes than most people in the world, why are you listening to what most people in the world have to say? And agreeing?

There's a lot I can say, but I don't have the patience (The irony) to engage in an epic rock conversation. So I'll just say this: Album sales dictate greatness (Which is that which appeals to the fabled "masses"). If you want to use the argument that classic rock bands have sold more albums because they have been around longer than newer bands, shove it up your arse. Yes, shi* like Nickleback have sold over 30 million albums in their 15 year existence. But The Beatles sold over 300 million units of it's discography in only 6 years since their debut.

There's more I want to say, but like I said, I have no patience. You may have patience Bio, but I don't. So don't give me flak.

@Thee Stranger: So, didja beat Super Mario Galaxy 2 yet?