long-standing bands who still nailed your balls during their later years

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by I'm Hardcore

Swans released their first EP in 1982 - and it sounds like NOTHING else that had been produced until that point. Absolutely no reference point, complete originality. if my calculations are correct, they're coming up 33 years of producing completely original music.


if that's pretentious, then fuck originality right?

Originality doesn't amount to quality... You should know this.

I'm sick and tired of fans praising and celebrating music strictly due to an originality factor... Who cares if it sounds like shit?

[I'm Hardcore]

"art boy wankery" as a blanket term for anything that isn't 4-chord pop punk.

[I'm Hardcore]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

Originality doesn't amount to quality... You should know this.

I'm sick and tired of fans praising and celebrating music strictly due to an originality factor... Who cares if it sounds like shit?

yes because that's the only reason i listen to Swans.

[I'm Hardcore]

i think the worst thing overall is you accusing a guy like Michael Gira of having "no passion" for his music.


make sense to do something for 35 years without having passion for it, right?

[Trotskilicious]

how does swans sound any worse than sonic youth a band he claims to like

[I'm Hardcore]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

I'm sick and tired of fans praising and celebrating music strictly due to an originality factor

YOU ARE RIDICULING BANDS STRICTLY DUE TO NAMES AND BEARDS

[I'm Hardcore]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

how does swans sound any worse than sonic youth a band he claims to like

SY is more "art boy wankery" than Swans have ever been. what the total and complete fuck is going on here?

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by I'm Hardcore

i think the worst thing overall is you accusing a guy like Michael Gira of having "no passion" for his music.


make sense to do something for 35 years without having passion for it, right?

exactly

this is why people don't think you have a right to have an opinion like this; because it has zero basis in reality and merely underscores your profound ignorance on the subject

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

why do you have a fucking opinion about swans? that's what I want to know. I don't have opinions on music i listened to 10 seconds of

I actually listened to about 4 or 5 of their records all the way thru. All I could keep thinking is: "what is the big attraction with this music to everyone"?

I simply could not get it

The one word that came to mind was pretentious. It's pretentious music directed at people who think theres something inherently wrong with liking melodic, well written music.

Swans is a wank-fest... a big boring wank fest... It's akin to those artists like Yngwie Malmsteen who just shreds his ass of the whole time... There's no context to it, no ballance to it... It's just B-O-R-I-N-G

[I'm Hardcore]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

I actually listened to about 4 or 5 of their records all the way thru. All I could keep thinking is: "what is the big attraction with this music to everyone"?

I simply could not get it

The one word that came to mind was pretentious. It's pretentious music directed at people who think theres something inherently wrong with liking melodic, well written music.

Swans is a wank-fest... a big boring wank fest... It's akin to those artists like Yngwie Malmsteen who just shreds his ass of the whole time... There's no context to it, no ballance to it... It's just B-O-R-I-N-G

so...it's completely not possible for people to ACTUALLY NOT FIND TOTAL ENJOYMENT with "melodic' music?


in your mind, anyone who doesnt submit to perfect melody and structure, is pretentious? if you actually believe this, then i have no business with you here or in any other thread.

[I'm Hardcore]

you think there is something inherently wrong with going to art school, or having no desire to churn out 4-chord punk songs.

what's the difference?

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by I'm Hardcore

SY is more "art boy wankery" than Swans have ever been. what the total and complete fuck is going on here?

Yes, but Sonic Youth executes the idea and vision a helluva lot better. It's arty music, but it's interesting and it's a grasping kind of music. It isn't a snore fest.

[I'm Hardcore]

ugh articulation is impossible right now

[I'm Hardcore]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

Yes, but Sonic Youth executes the idea and vision a helluva lot better. It's arty music, but it's interesting and it's a grasping kind of music. It isn't a snore fest.

right.

[I'm Hardcore]

how can you deride ANY other 'arty' music, if you acknowledge that SY are a good band?

[I'm Hardcore]

you have some underlying, irrational prejudice against "arty" bands, but you give Sonic Youth the time of day. really struggling, right here.

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by I'm Hardcore

you think there is something inherently wrong with going to art school, or having no desire to churn out 4-chord punk songs.

what's the difference?

I'm not saying that. Hell, I'm a huge Sonic Youth fan.

I've just always thought that Swans sucks. I don't like the music, it's boring, it's fundamentally lacking, doesn't seem to be any concept or message behind it.

But hey, that's just my evaluation on it. If you take something out of that music- all the power to you.

I don't know why people get so butt-hurt any time anyone dares to criticize one of these Pitchfork Media darling bands.

[I'm Hardcore]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

I don't know why people get so butt-hurt any time anyone dares to criticize one of these Pitchfork Media darling bands.

see this is what im saying

[I'm Hardcore]

forget it.

[I'm Hardcore]

it is not simply that you don't like their music. it's your prejudices, so fucking obvious.

[I'm Hardcore]

some of us don't read Pitchfork. MIND BLOWN??

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by I'm Hardcore

how can you deride ANY other 'arty' music, if you acknowledge that SY are a good band?

Theres different strokes to the shade man.

It's like saying that someone must hate rock music because they don't like something like AC/DC or the foo-fighters.

Just because one "arty" band is pretentious and lame doesn't mean they all are.

[I'm Hardcore]

here's a slice of reality for you - IF YOU TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT, AND CRITICIZE THE THINGS THAT OTHER PEOPLE LIKE, THEN IN THE REAL WORLD PEOPLE GET "BUTTHURT"

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by I'm Hardcore

it is not simply that you don't like their music. it's your prejudices, so fucking obvious.

It has literally NOTHING to do with that.

Pavements one of my favorite bands and Pitchfork Medias always sloberring all over their knobs.

I just think Swans is a crappy band. Why is that so hard to fathom?

[I'm Hardcore]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

Theres different strokes to the shade man.

It's like saying that someone must hate rock music because they don't like something like AC/DC or the foo-fighters.

Just because one "arty" band is pretentious and lame doesn't mean they all are.

the fact that you can't see that Swans and SY are the same strokes of the same shade really means that i can't reply to this nonsense anymore.

[Trotskilicious]

because you question our genuineness fuzzy, that's why. because you suggest i'm slavishly devoted to choking down everything pitchfork likes and i'm stupid for liking it, then you put on this fonzie grin and pretend like you don't give a fuck and everything is subjective (but you're still a stupid pretentious fool btw)

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by I'm Hardcore

here's a slice of reality for you - IF YOU TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT, AND CRITICIZE THE THINGS THAT OTHER PEOPLE LIKE, THEN IN THE REAL WORLD PEOPLE GET "BUTTHURT"

See, you're assuming that I have no idea about Swans. I listened to 5 of their albums all the way thru more than once... Is that not a good measuring stick to determining the quality of a bands output?

[I'm Hardcore]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

It has literally NOTHING to do with that.

Pavements one of my favorite bands and Pitchfork Medias always sloberring all over their knobs.

I just think Swans is a crappy band. Why is that so hard to fathom?

no, you think that the Swans are crappy. and pretentious. and all of their fans are pretentious. and that they have no passion for what they are doing. and that if people have beards then they have no valid opinion. and 'hipsters'.


so, yes. it has literally EVERYTHING to do with that

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by Sonic Johnny

yeah but like, someone is trying to bring the debate on which pixies albums are best to an end by saying let's just agree the pixies are a great band and you're all like i agree except just the albums i like.

do you get how that is dumb and obnoxious man?

I wasn't in on any kind of debate, I didn't argue with anyone, just stated my opinion admitting that it's an unpopular one.

Then Mals and Trots disagreed with me and Poots called my opinion "heresy".

So I deemed it necessary to agree to an extent that Pixies are a really fucking good band. One of the best for sure.

I feel like I was being pretty diplomatic while I had my opinion shit on (Not that I'm someone who gets offended by that)

[Trotskilicious]

you say something like "swans is for people who think there's something wrong with being melodic etc"

except that i like all kinds of stuff