Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:the understatement of the year.
and using the words "relevant" or "irrelevant" when describing a band is unfortunate
rolling stones take the cake, icing, and all the shit in
Originally posted by Bags:it is sticky … and i would certainly consider beyonce and usher "relevant" because they're accepted by and drive the mass pop-culture machine
Is a band that sells 20,000 overpriced tickets relevant? Whether I want to think so or not, probably…. Relevant, popular, it's a sticky argument. Is Beyonce relevant? Is Usher relevant? They can sell the hell out of a concert, though.
the stones will sell out 20,000 insanely overpriced tickets, but they're not "driving the bus", they're treading water and cashing in on the time when they were one of the most "relevant" bands of their era
i agree, the term "relevant" is sticky and kind of sucks, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:you said a whole slew of crap. i disagreed with some of it, most of it was useless information.
that's cute … so you disagree with what i said?
Originally posted by sonickteam3:man, you must be really angry on a constant basis when wading through popular culture … it's not like calling the rolling stones irrelevant is some kind of a leap of logic or original idea
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:the understatement of the year.
and using the words "relevant" or "irrelevant" when describing a band is unfortunate
That a boy Caufield! ;)
Originally posted by Bags:hell yeah! i'm pissed off i didn't go see that show
Better example, I paid close to $200 (I think…) to see Simon and Garfunkle. NO WAY they are still 'relevant,' whatever that means, but damn if they're not icons and I'd never seen them before.
and i paid way too much to see the stones in 98, and am very happy i did so.
Look at "relevant" this way:
Twenty years from now, it is highly unlikely that any band will cite "Bridges to Babylon" or "Voodoo Lounge" as major influences.
Twenty years from now, it is highly unlikely that any band will cite "Bridges to Babylon" or "Voodoo Lounge" as major influences.
Originally posted by abulum:holden was a naive bastard =) it's a cruel, cruel world …
That a boy Caufield! ;)
random thought: i did a book report on 'catcher in the rye' in 6th grade, and my teacher refused to accept it because she had no idea what the book was … isn't that insane??
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:and, on the other hand, you have 1972's "exile on main street" whose structure, songs, and spirit have influenced countless artists, even liz phair
Look at "relevant" this way:
Twenty years from now, it is highly unlikely that any band will cite "Bridges to Babylon" or "Voodoo Lounge" as major influences.
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:the album cover photo should be in the dictionary next to the definition for: OVERRATED
"exile on main street"
Originally posted by The Artist Formerly Known As grotty:You mean replace Thom Yorke's photo??
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:the album cover photo should be in the dictionary next the definition of OVERRATED
"exile on main street"
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:I like Thom. You don't?
Originally posted by The Artist Formerly Known As grotty:You mean replace Thom Yorke's photo??
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:the album cover photo should be in the dictionary next the definition of OVERRATED
"exile on main street"
I think he's relevant.
Exile isn't even one of the Rolling Stones best records…forget about an all-time classic.
Bettered by:
Sticky Fingers
Beggars Banquet
Let It Bleed
Some Girls
An excellent "relevant" essay appears in Kill Your Idols:
Keith Moerer, in a much-needed screed against the Rolling Stones' bloated Exile on Main Street, fearlessly says what has needed to be said for so long–that Exile isn't the culmination of a four-album run of classics but the beginning of a "songwriting and musical decline,"
<img src="http://www.drudgereport.com/mick.jpg" alt=" - " />
look up "relevant" in the dictionary, and this is what you get
=)
look up "relevant" in the dictionary, and this is what you get
=)
wow . . . mick, mick, mick?! and here i thought making fun of the way cher looks, was an amusing passage of time at parties. i see this new victim will do just fine, by me. but still not worth four hundred. mci is not the place to shoot for the cheap seats.
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:trust me, i would never mistake any of your posts as that.
logic or original idea
Originally posted by sonickteam3:burn!!!
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:trust me, i would never mistake any of your posts as that.
logic or original idea
you know we're not so different, you and i
Originally posted by Jonas Grumby:i think this is the bigger bargain
What a bargain!!!!
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:you're scaring me!! :)
you know we're not so different, you and i
lots of stones bashing here, but how many of you would pay 50$ to see them in a club. They did that in the last tour, and they're doing it again…it might even be this club… Tickets don't seem so overpriced now do they?