Because it makes not a lick of difference to the history of popular music if some pudwapper on ILM makes a strong and interesting cases for the reassessment of the Beatles, Nirvana etc. NONE ZERO ZILCH NADA.
― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 30 September 2004 18:55 (nineteen years ago) link
― Forksclovetofu (Forksclovetofu), Thursday, 30 September 2004 19:09 (nineteen years ago) link
― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 30 September 2004 19:15 (nineteen years ago) link
True, that.
― Nowell, Thursday, 30 September 2004 20:27 (nineteen years ago) link
― m. (mitchlnw), Thursday, 30 September 2004 20:32 (nineteen years ago) link
― Nowell, Thursday, 30 September 2004 20:33 (nineteen years ago) link
― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 30 September 2004 20:34 (nineteen years ago) link
― Nowell, Thursday, 30 September 2004 20:37 (nineteen years ago) link
― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 30 September 2004 20:39 (nineteen years ago) link
― Nowell, Thursday, 30 September 2004 20:40 (nineteen years ago) link
― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 30 September 2004 20:46 (nineteen years ago) link
― n/a (Nick A.), Thursday, 30 September 2004 20:48 (nineteen years ago) link
― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 30 September 2004 20:49 (nineteen years ago) link
I assume you enjoy the company of pudwappers, Aaron, else why bother coming here?
History isn't a series of established facts, it's a series of changing responses to stuff that mightn't've happened the way people want to remember it.
Also, "people just pretend to not like the same things as me cos they think it makes them cool" isn't really a strong or interesting argument about anything, is it?
― noodle vague (noodle vague), Thursday, 30 September 2004 21:27 (nineteen years ago) link
If you think I'm about to have the same debate I had with Alex last night with you, you're crazy. Read that discussion again. I'm not gonna deal with this again.
― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 30 September 2004 21:42 (nineteen years ago) link
― noodle vague (noodle vague), Thursday, 30 September 2004 21:44 (nineteen years ago) link
― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 30 September 2004 21:48 (nineteen years ago) link
― noodle vague (noodle vague), Thursday, 30 September 2004 21:50 (nineteen years ago) link
but has it occurred to you that not everybody thinks, say, The Beatles or Nirvana are that interesting?
The Beatles and Nirvana changed ideas about popular music in their respective decades. If that at the very least is not interesting to you, what are you doing following pop music in the first place??????
― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 30 September 2004 21:51 (nineteen years ago) link
― Forksclovetofu (Forksclovetofu), Thursday, 30 September 2004 21:54 (nineteen years ago) link
― Nowell, Thursday, 30 September 2004 21:56 (nineteen years ago) link
Listening to stuff I like.
And wapping my pud to it.
― noodle vague (noodle vague), Thursday, 30 September 2004 21:57 (nineteen years ago) link
― Nowell, Thursday, 30 September 2004 21:58 (nineteen years ago) link
― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 30 September 2004 21:58 (nineteen years ago) link
― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:00 (nineteen years ago) link
x-post
― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:01 (nineteen years ago) link
― Nowell, Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:02 (nineteen years ago) link
Once AGAIN: I'm talking about media perceptions and subjective hipster (READ: KNEEJERK) reactions to them here.
This is not about you, but it will be if you keep pushing it...Fuck it, give me 5 non-media/success overexposure related reasons you actually like Mudhoney better than Nirvana. I'm seriously interested in knowing why. Be sure to be strong and interesting about it.
― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:07 (nineteen years ago) link
― noodle vague (noodle vague), Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:08 (nineteen years ago) link
Oh for cryin' out loud. NIRVANA DIDN'T "CHANGE IDEAS ABOUT POPULAR MUSIC". They merely co-opted someone else's formula and went to the bank with it. They did it well, yes, but in NO WAY IMAGINABLE was their impact comparable to the Beatles'.
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:09 (nineteen years ago) link
― Nowell, Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:09 (nineteen years ago) link
― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:10 (nineteen years ago) link
― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:11 (nineteen years ago) link
:::sigh:::
Aaron, you've got to be more careful, then, as your generalizations certainly create that impression.
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:11 (nineteen years ago) link
― Nowell, Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:12 (nineteen years ago) link
― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:12 (nineteen years ago) link
― Forksclovetofu (Forksclovetofu), Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:13 (nineteen years ago) link
― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:14 (nineteen years ago) link
― Nowell, Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:15 (nineteen years ago) link
Hey, let's just agree that we're all full of shit, eh?
― noodle vague (noodle vague), Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:15 (nineteen years ago) link
― Nowell, Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:16 (nineteen years ago) link
The Beatles were genuinely trailblazing, though, whereas Nirvana were merely staying within an already formally established style. Again, there's no real comparison here.
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:16 (nineteen years ago) link
― Nowell, Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:17 (nineteen years ago) link
the nightspirit will come, bringing cold, black northern darkness to the lands
― Vas Djifrens, Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:19 (nineteen years ago) link
― Nowell, Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:21 (nineteen years ago) link
But yeah just to make it clear for Alex's generalization concerns. I just thought anyone who knows their stuff would assume I was referring to the "British Invasion" thing and the "Alterna-revolution thing" when making Beatles/Nirvana comparisons. I never meant to imply Nirvana was anywhere near as big or that the Alterna-nonsense was as influential as the British Invasion. However, the Alterna-nonsense's influence HAS already carried on into the next decade, albeit in the form of stale boring MOR faux-grunge bullshit like Nickelback.
The British Invasion obviously bore a greater fruit to anyone paying attention.
― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:22 (nineteen years ago) link
― Nowell, Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:23 (nineteen years ago) link
― The Bitter Tears Of Little Lord Travolta (nordicskilla), Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:24 (nineteen years ago) link
-- Alex in NYC (vassife...), September 30th, 2004.
well yeah but IN THE CONTEXT OF 90'S MAINSTREAM POP/ROCK (which is what Aaron was talking about), their success turned people on to that sort of music who never would have been into it otherwise. that is why nirvana are considered "important". Obviously they never revolutionized rock and roll itself, that wasn't the argument. And yeah sure some people might believe that but some people think Star Wars is the pinnacle of cinema.
― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 30 September 2004 22:25 (nineteen years ago) link