borntohula

yeah. like when im listenning to my mp3 player in my car and a "post-rock" band comes on, i dont usually let it play, seeing as how i dont normally spend more than 20 minutes in my car at a time.

i wish they would make another record... because as much as i like a silver mt. zion, yanqui u.x.o. blew my noggin wide open and remains one of my favorite albums of all time.

yeah no thanks, id rather not be defined something i had nothing to do with nor lived close to.

Sunset Rubdown

or i'll do it for you. i've got the ammunition for the job afterall.

i agree. with history as my witness, this isnt the first "worst of my life" that matt's gone through and that we've been around to hear about and i doubt it will be the last. it will certainly affect his music, much like anything else he goes through on a daily basis.

hey i'll even save you the trouble of looking for it, not finding it and then starting a thread asking where it is: http://www.nearfantastica.com/bored/index.php?showtopic=8349

also, i dont think harley quinn HAS to be in the film. keep in mind she wasn't in the comics at all until after her batman: the animated series debut. the picture you posted was the cover for the first comic book she was ever in, and that appearance was quite recent, as compared to the other comics that the first movie draws from (specifically frank miller's batman: year one). saying she has to be in the movie is like saying robin has to be in it as well. batman and joker are their own separate entities and have enough conflict between one another to carry a film (or my idea of streching their interaction to two films). i just don't think she's at all necessary.

i'm not going to freak out until i see the movie.

Beck - "Think I'm in Love"

Sonic Youth - "Total Trash"

or maybe they just suck?

because it was awful and campy?

damn straight. but thats the same with system and slayer, i don't see your point. the frontwoman for system could never pull off yelling "exile" and have it sound as menacing as tom araya does.

this change for tom might make more sense if we understood what took place between writing songs about girls and farts to songs about girls and war.

this just in: every 15 year old now likes my chemical romance. what's your excuse? that its a good conversation starter with 15 year old girls?

blue veins, man. blue veins. holy christ. there's another good one, definitely.

none here.

hooray for bashing system of a down! ;)

now there's a band who escaped my initial post. i guess i forgot those magicians existed. i knew i didn't like them, but if you want to know why, please listen to "lonely day" or whatever the song is that has a video with the dudes on a tour bus. that song is awful. these dudes are going to hell for that song.

i think you missed my point. I think you missed Matrix's point. That is: that Led Zep, Jimi Hendrix and other's mentioned in your guys' little bitch fight, don't deserve to be listed in the worst bands list. Obviously there are several bands that any one is entitled to dislike but you can't say a band is the worst when it is so obviously a pioneer of it's time and extremely influencial. Mabey a better statement would have been-"I hate Jimi Hendrix, but he is still one of the best artist of the 70's"? Still, everyone is entitled to their opinion, so if you REALLY honestly think that the mentioned bands are the worst bands then go ahead and say that. I just think that would be a very misguided statement considering that many of their guitar riffs and rock rythems have inspired some of the best groups today. Oh and don't forget the lyrics that had some of the best protest and meaning behind them. no, now two people didn't get my point. nowhere did i write that led zeppelin and jimi hendrix are undeserving of such titles as "most influential" ... "most important" etc etc. i personally love those artists. not only that, but i do recognize their importance as influential musicians. i thought i made that clear. but this thread isn't about the most influential musicians of our time. it's about who we think are the worst, not relating to influence whatsoever. influence and importance should not come into play when deciding what music you like and what music you don't. plain and simple. i like led zeppelin regardless of their importance. i like them because they're badass and wrote great music for their entire career. and since then, no one has been able to sound like led zeppelin, or do the things that they do within their songs that just make your jaw drop. i dont care if matt good cites them as an influence. i dont care if people have been trying to rip off led zeppelin unsuccessfully since their coming together. if someone thinks led zeppelin sucks, they can say that without having to concede that led zeppelin were important, because that's not the point.

i think you missed my point.

see this is where your idea becomes shaky. influence is not only limited to an artist's worth or "contributions" to music. bad artists influence people just as much as the good do. stop thinking of only positive influences, as the word is not just a strictly positive thing. there are negative influences as well. also, keep in mind that these things are SUBJECTIVE. there is no universal concept of what constitutes good/bad music. therefore, "good" and "bad" artists share the same contribution to music. listenning to led zeppelin simply due to their percieved critical weight is missing out on the point that people should listen to music because its what they enjoy, not because of what it means to the western world's musical canon. matt good also lists the replacements as an influence and yet i dont see you parading around when someone mentions their name. i also think that the replacements have had more influence over the past 20 years of how music sounds than led zeppelin have. also, in your example, you chose a contemporary band to compare to hendrix and zeppelin. and yet, you couldnt possibly know what kind of influence good charlotte will have. its easy to see with hendrix and zeppelin because hindsight is 20/20, but saying good charlotte won't have an influence is going to make us believe that you have a crystal ball hidden somewhere. who's to say that there won't be a bunch of copycat bands all made in good charlotte's image in ten years time? actually, it seems pretty bloody likely to me (although unfortunate).

don't forget that they did a lot of copying themselves. a lot of music they played had existed prior, specifically in page's case. i would not assert that without page and hendrix, music wouldnt be like it is today. certainly it would be different, but you're giving them a lot of credit for something that they didn't just create out of thin air. just as much as certain artists of today were inspired by those musicians, jimmy page and jimi hendrix had their own inspirations; meaning that the circumstances they were presented with in their lives that led to the creation of many-a-riff were not just exclusively their own. i imagine these circumstances would probably be presented to someone else if for some reason page and hendrix did not exist. keep in mind that what you say is not fact. you cannot travel through time, kill page and hendrix for the sake of science to see if music still turns out similar or not. therefore you yourself do not know what would happen to music without them. also, a lot of what you say is based on opinion, and not actual evidence. i realize this thread is an opinion one, however, when discussing the importance of one artist versus another, you need some sort of backup to substantiate your claims. otherwise, it's meaningless. saying that "any decent rock group" will cite page or hendrix as an influence is projecting your own opinion on something you had claimed to be fact. you can't do that.

boy you really haven't listenned to either, have you? i'm not really defending them per se, but i've listenned to both and their lyrical content can't really be encompassed in such sweeping generalizations as the one you just made.