Then we're agreed on Oasis then?
Apart from the delusion and idiocy bit.
Then we're agreed on Oasis then?
Apart from the delusion and idiocy bit.
That way of thinking is just retarded. If critics base their reviews on lame stereotypes of what all musicians in a certain genre are like then they don't deserve to be taken seriously. Besides, many great artists throughout history were pricks.
I judge music by judging the music, not the people making it.
Joshua Tree was a good album, who's gunna deny that?!
I'm curious and I often wondered why Americans spell then 'than'.
It can't be a spelling error...it happens a lot...why?
you can't compare them to U2 or sting. They were just doing their thing man.
^ Pretentious statement.
I find it pretentious that you find that pretentious.
Parce qu'il est tres pr
Nirvana was pretty unpretentious, Kurt Cobain called the hysteria surrounding them a load of shit and then said there were 15 banRAB who were just as good if not better than them that deserved equal/more attention. As well as Elliott for reasons listed above.
I'd say Angels and Airwaves is extremely pretentious because Tom has said things like they're saving rock and roll and are the best band out right now and even said his album was one of the best of 2007.
Glad that's sorted!
Right then, my nomination for pretentiousness goes to a man I admire.
David Byrne.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Bookmarks