The place where everyone hangs out, chats, gossips, and argues
#335538
I like Reverand and the Makers.. not so keen on the rest, Pigeon Detectives are OK. I've only heard one Wombats song, which was OK when it was first played, but after the seven hundred thousandth time, it irritates somewhat.

I do agree with Foot-loose as well though, there's a lot of music snobbery that goes on.
#335553
Some of my mates will hate a song because the artist that wrote it / sings it has done something in the past that they didn't like. Or because the artist used to be playing small gigs but are now much bigger and play arenas rather than shoddy wee pubs.

Personally, I couldn't care less who the artist is that sings a specific song, if I hear one and I like it, then thats fine with me. If someone else doesn't like the same song as me, I would like to hope I don't judge them based on that!
#335561
StuOasis wrote:
Yudster wrote:
StuOasis wrote:............they just have a unique style, that makes them all sound similar....


Funniest post ever.


Thanks :D


Sorry. I knew what you meant, I just couldn't resist!

And as to the good indie/bad indie debate, well, lets not get bogged down in defining "indie music" - as far as I am aware "indie" is not so much a musical genre as an indication that the band in question is signed to an independant record label rather than Sony or EMI or one of the other mahoosive ones. I suppose that it is being used more as a musical genre description now because being signed to a massive record label - or any record label at all sometimes - is becoming less and less relevant to the fortunes of bands.

But for me, with a few notable exceptions, go back to whenever you first heard Razorlight, draw a line behind that and you will see a difference in musical quality in this area. A massive generalisation I am aware, but as such I think it holds up. The decline in quality has been relatively recent, and it's clone bands like Pigeon Detectives, Hoosiers, blah blah blah that have dragged it down. They all sound like student bands, and are about as musically competent too.
#335663
foot-loose wrote: from what id heard, it was pretty argumentative and abusive.


Not like here then, you idle layabout Weegie scum?
#335670
Feck off you unemployed ball-scratching drooling sweaty.
#335673
*Gets popcorn and settles down to watch a good fight.*

*Remembers he doesn't like popcorn and gets a hotdog instead.*
#335679
foot-loose wrote:
Yudster wrote:Feck off you unemployed ball-scratching drooling sweaty.

I wouldn't piss in your ear if your brain was on fire.


There'd be no point with your microscopic dick anyway.
#335700
Speaking of music snobbery, this image sums up the attitude of so many people I know...

Image
#335708
Vivienne wrote:Are you unemployed now, foots? What has happened?

Long story very very short...

Someone came sniffing about, thinking about buying the sofa business - we sold it - good times. I'm starting with RBS in a couple of weeks time so im currently taking a well earned break - better times.
#335820
Scouting For Girls? They are bobbins. Completely bobbins. That 'new' single has moved me to ask why? Just why are they getting so much airplay. This latest offering by these cheesily named chancers is the same song as their first one. And their second one. And their third, infact its the same shite every time, they just churn out a re-hash of it every time. I reckon they think they're edgy or humourous. They're not, they're just embarrassing. How much longer can these pricks get away with it. The singer comes across as a nice sort of bloke in an interview I once heard. I think that's where it stops for him.