Billy's Q&A on Instagram

[Kahlo]

Originally Posted by myosis

she's known he was a crybaby since 1991, imagine that

happy 6000th post Myosis. You did it in style.

[Mals Marola]

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

wait what? what comment?

also, kim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b0llcorg

sonic youth's career > smashing pumpkins', maybe, but c'mon now let's keep our teeters in our totters over here!

[FoolofaTook]

so, your saying this is like orange heavy rocks >>>> purple heavy rocks, but aileron > korosu???

[Mals Marola]

sorry, i'm unfamiliar with literally all the things you have just laid before me. heavy rocks? is that some kind of sexy joke?

[FoolofaTook]

[Mals Marola]

i don't think topley would appreciate you posting his grandma like that

[FoolofaTook]

dude that's Colonial Meow (RIP), a TOMCAT.

show some respect and do your research, pls.

[topleybird]

Colonel Meow appears to have been a magnificent beast; check out these guns



Godspeed little man; you looked like what would happen if a werewolf bit a cat

[FoolofaTook]

[Kahlo]

Thank you for your service

[slayed23]

Originally Posted by Mals Marola

sonic youth's career > smashing pumpkins', maybe, but c'mon now let's keep our teeters in our totters over here!

Smashing Pumpkins have probably made 10 times as much money as they have.

[myosis]

no shit. they are a commercial band.

[slayed23]

Originally Posted by myosis

no shit. they are a commercial band.

So you could say that you enjoy their music more or they are more talented. You can't say they have had a better career though as that implies money.

That's like saying I have had a better career than the CFO of my company because I like my job more than his. That's a ridiculous statement.

[topleybird]

You can choose not to allow capitalism to make you feel worthless, dear heart

Feel like you'd about burst into tears if your manager told you you were doing a great job right where you are

[myosis]

Originally Posted by slayed23

You can't say they have had a better career though as that implies money.

says who?

[FoolofaTook]

slayed23, duh

[Mals Marola]

by better career i meant that their fans didn't absolutely loathe them after the year 2000

[Mals Marola]

but sure, i'm sure bill could afford a bigger yacht than thurston

#WhatReallyMatters

[myosis]

so is it obvious to everyone that Joe Sakic had a better career than Wayne Gretzky then?

[smashingjj]

oh, 'good career' is measured exclusively by money. got it.

[slayed23]

Originally Posted by smashingjj

oh, 'good career' is measured exclusively by money. got it.

Really, it's measured only by the person or people making it I suppose. I couldn't objectively say that person A had a better career than person B. Because "better" is subjective in nature and what matters to one might be different than to another.

For instance, like Mars said "their fans didn't loathe them after the year 2000" is a subjective statement for several reasons. We can't measure how many fans hated SP after the year 2000. We can't measure how many fans hated Sonic Youth after the year 2000. We don't know how much fan hatred matters to either artist to make the artist feel their career was successful or not.

The only thing that is objective in music whatsoever is sales and revenue. That's the only reason I brought it up. Also, money matters to everyone to some degree, whether they admit it or not. Let's be honest there.

[run2pee]

Originally Posted by slayed23

Really, it's measured only by the person or people making it I suppose. I couldn't objectively say that person A had a better career than person B. Because "better" is subjective in nature and what matters to one might be different than to another.

For instance, like Mars said "their fans didn't loathe them after the year 2000" is a subjective statement for several reasons. We can't measure how many fans hated SP after the year 2000. We can't measure how many fans hated Sonic Youth after the year 2000. We don't know how much fan hatred matters to either artist to make the artist feel their career was successful or not.

The only thing that is objective in music whatsoever is sales and revenue. That's the only reason I brought it up. Also, money matters to everyone to some degree, whether they admit it or not. Let's be honest there.

Holy shit did u hit the gym every other time u listened to solara before u drafted that? Some sweaty rhythmic pumps of nuggets of thought drippin off the screen, yet sorta makin me sag all flaccid, all floppynono in my eyeballs, here

[Mals Marola]

Originally Posted by slayed23

Really, it's measured only by the person or people making it I suppose. I couldn't objectively say that person A had a better career than person B. Because "better" is subjective in nature and what matters to one might be different than to another.

For instance, like Mars said "their fans didn't loathe them after the year 2000" is a subjective statement for several reasons. We can't measure how many fans hated SP after the year 2000. We can't measure how many fans hated Sonic Youth after the year 2000. We don't know how much fan hatred matters to either artist to make the artist feel their career was successful or not.

The only thing that is objective in music whatsoever is sales and revenue. That's the only reason I brought it up. Also, money matters to everyone to some degree, whether they admit it or not. Let's be honest there.

that's fine & all but how can i trust a damn word you say when you just called me "Mars" ?????!?!?

[emilem]

lets compare

sonic youth: highly respected band, still being a reference point as THE alternative rock band, always adventerous and weird but accesible enough to not get thrown out of DGC. i don't follow anyone from SY and yet i know kim gordon has a new album out. and not throu ads. people just really care.

smashing pumpkins: a band general pubic stopped caring about in 1999, that spent 20 years trying to re-gain any sort of mainstream relevance, turning into a joke along the way with corgan comparing a transwoman to a shapeshifter, supporting infowars and spewing conspiracy theories and constantly being asshole to people who point out they're a nostalgia act.


but corgan has mad moeny tho so it all levels out.

[Cool As Ice Cream]

Originally Posted by slayed23

Really, it's measured only by the person or people making it I suppose. I couldn't objectively say that person A had a better career than person B. Because "better" is subjective in nature and what matters to one might be different than to another.

For instance, like Mars said "their fans didn't loathe them after the year 2000" is a subjective statement for several reasons. We can't measure how many fans hated SP after the year 2000. We can't measure how many fans hated Sonic Youth after the year 2000. We don't know how much fan hatred matters to either artist to make the artist feel their career was successful or not.

The only thing that is objective in music whatsoever is sales and revenue. That's the only reason I brought it up. Also, money matters to everyone to some degree, whether they admit it or not. Let's be honest there.

ok, fuzzy.

[slayed23]

Originally Posted by Mals Marola

that's fine & all but how can i trust a damn word you say when you just called me "Mars" ?????!?!?

Haha, my bad.

[FoolofaTook]

mars malola

[slayed23]

Originally Posted by emilem

lets compare

sonic youth: highly respected band, still being a reference point as THE alternative rock band, always adventerous and weird but accesible enough to not get thrown out of DGC. i don't follow anyone from SY and yet i know kim gordon has a new album out. and not throu ads. people just really care.

smashing pumpkins: a band general pubic stopped caring about in 1999, that spent 20 years trying to re-gain any sort of mainstream relevance, turning into a joke along the way with corgan comparing a transwoman to a shapeshifter, supporting infowars and spewing conspiracy theories and constantly being asshole to people who point out they're a nostalgia act.


but corgan has mad moeny tho so it all levels out.

And let me give you my take:

Sonic Youth: An obscure band that few people in the general public know. Those that do know them though tend to like them. You can never start a conversation with some person you just met and start talking about Sonic Youth because they probably will assume you are talking about Sonic the Hedgehog.

Smashing Pumpkins: During their peak, became one the biggest bands in the world and critically acclaimed. Then then had probably the 2nd most publicized break up in the last 30 years behind GNR. They came back to lukewarm success but were never able to stay as relevant as the likes of Foo Fighters, Pearl Jam or the legacy of Nirvana. Although they still have the ability to attract 5-20K at a concert depending on the location... just not 20-30K like those bands above... or 50-70K like Metallica.

If you wanna ask who has had more bad publicity and a fallout of fans, ofcourse SP has. The thing is though that you actually have to have that to lose it. And what they have now is still better than anything Sonic Youth ever had.

Come at me.

[Kahlo]

The flaw in your argument is that

1. The general public are fucking terrible
2. Who cares what they think
3. Who starts a conversation with someone they just met about The Smashing Pumkins? What is wrong with you?

[slayed23]

Originally Posted by Kahlo

The flaw in your argument is that

1. The general public are fucking terrible
2. Who cares what they think
3. Who starts a conversation with someone they just met about The Smashing Pumkins? What is wrong with you?

Well then if you think the general public is terrible, stop talking about Billy losing relevancy because that directly involves the general public.