Dude, we're living in a generation where some of us (not all) actually look a decade than they really are. I'm almost 26 and I look like a 18-year-old. It helps when you don't smoke and is living a healthy lifestyle.
A girl who I used to work with looks like she's 45, but I found out she's only 3 years old than I am. :eek: 3 kids and a severe smoking habit will age you a lot older than you look.
EDIT: So I see nothing wrong with being 50 and going to concerts.
Sorry, what i meant is that in the next 20 years, the bands that I go see play live will not be touring anymore. I am only 30, I'll rock and go to concerts as ong as I can, but when PJ and other bands that I enjoy going to quit touring, for me, they'll be no one left to go see.
I don't smoke by the way, if that matters.
Cuyahoga Falls 98, Columbus 00, Cleveland 03, Columbus 03, Toledo 04, Grand Rapids 04, Kitchener 05, Cleveland 06, Cincinnati 06, Washington DC 08, Philadelphia IV 09, Columbus 10, Cleveland 10, Chicago 13, Pittsburgh 13, Cincinnati 14, Chicago (1) 16, Chicago (2) 16
Sorry, what i meant is that in the next 20 years, the bands that I go see play live will not be touring anymore. I am only 30, I'll rock and go to concerts as ong as I can, but when PJ and other bands that I enjoy going to quit touring, for me, they'll be no one left to go see.
I don't smoke by the way, if that matters.
In twenty+ years, there will a new Hannah Montana, so hopefully, I can rock out at those concerts with my GRAND KIDS! :eek:
You know, it's probably unthinkable for some now, but I wouldn't be surprised if 10-20 years from now, people are talking about how great bands like Linkin Park and My Chemical Romance were "back in the day." Some people may scoff at this, but then I think a lot of people scoffed at Pearl Jam having a lasting impact - and look at Pearl Jam now, still going strong .
Every decade has good music and bad music, even the 60s.
Personally though, although there are some absoutely mindblowing bands at the moment, the 90s will always hold a special place for me.
I disagree, I think there was a lot more good music that was easily accessible in the 90s. You didn't have to search for it, even just the stuff on the radio was good and cool. It seemed a lot easier to go into a record store and pick up something random and have it be pretty decent. I think the 90s were an excellent time for music, and I think it was just lucky for me that I turned 12 in 90 and 21 in 2000. I think the 80s are underestimated though, because so much of the good stuff in the 90s grew out of 80s college radio and underground scenes. We just think of it as 90s because that's when it became accessible.
I have to say, I don't agree with that. I think people tend to romanticise the past a bit. Whilst I do think the 90s was better than most, you still had a lot of shit (all that post grunge trying to make radiofriendly Pearl Jam/Nirvana knockoffs). Still it's all about individual experiences, and I definately agree with about underestimaing the 80s, when "indie" had real meaning.
That is the plan....nice one for your 4,000th post. Do you actually work? hehehe
Hey Gremmie, staying up on the PJ shit, playing these annoying game that everyone hates and talking LOST on AET IS work!! Don't foregt that, DON'T EVER FORGET THAT!!!noodge.
Cuyahoga Falls 98, Columbus 00, Cleveland 03, Columbus 03, Toledo 04, Grand Rapids 04, Kitchener 05, Cleveland 06, Cincinnati 06, Washington DC 08, Philadelphia IV 09, Columbus 10, Cleveland 10, Chicago 13, Pittsburgh 13, Cincinnati 14, Chicago (1) 16, Chicago (2) 16
Don't foget, Foo Fighters, Dave rohl, from th early 90's
Audioslave= Soundgarden + Rage
Beck, early 90's.
No...you can't really say that. They may have had their starts in those bands...but they are in new bands now.
You wouldn't say that about Ozzy or any of the Beatles other ventures...nor Mick Jagger's...even Jack white's...there are so many people who split from previous bands...even PJ...I don't consider any of those projects to be PJ...they simply are not.
The only thing I enjoy is having no feelings....being numb rocks!
And I won't make the same mistakes
(Because I know)
Because I know how much time that wastes
(And function)
Function is the key
No...you can't really say that. They may have had their starts in those bands...but they are in new bands now.
You wouldn't say that about Ozzy or any of the Beatles other ventures...nor Mick Jagger's...even Jack white's...there are so many people who split from previous bands...even PJ...I don't consider any of those projects to be PJ...they simply are not.
what I am saying is when you combine great musicians from great bands and mesh them together with other great musicians from other great bands, the band is bound to be awesome. It' kind of like building an all-star team. Well no shit they are going to be awesome, look who they got. I don't know, maybe I am making no sesne with this response.
Cuyahoga Falls 98, Columbus 00, Cleveland 03, Columbus 03, Toledo 04, Grand Rapids 04, Kitchener 05, Cleveland 06, Cincinnati 06, Washington DC 08, Philadelphia IV 09, Columbus 10, Cleveland 10, Chicago 13, Pittsburgh 13, Cincinnati 14, Chicago (1) 16, Chicago (2) 16
what I am saying is when you combine great musicians from great bands and mesh them together with other great musicians from other great bands, the band is bound to be awesome. It' kind of like building an all-star team. Well no shit they are going to be awesome, look who they got. I don't know, maybe I am making no sesne with this response.
I don't completely agree with you on this one. Velvet revolver? not so much.
You may not have SAID velvet revolver but you post ASSUMED that if you take great musicians from great bands you will have a great band. I am simply stating a group that does not fall into this generalization. Also, I would not include Audioslave in this discussion. They came out with one decent album that had two or three great songs......
You may not have SAID velvet revolver but you post ASSUMED that if you take great musicians from great bands you will have a great band. I am simply stating a group that does not fall into this generalization. Also, I would not include Audioslave in this discussion. They came out with one decent album that had two or three great songs......
VR may have been good if Scoot Weiland could have put down the crack pipe.
I bet Creed adopting Justin Timberlake would be fucking sweet!!
Cuyahoga Falls 98, Columbus 00, Cleveland 03, Columbus 03, Toledo 04, Grand Rapids 04, Kitchener 05, Cleveland 06, Cincinnati 06, Washington DC 08, Philadelphia IV 09, Columbus 10, Cleveland 10, Chicago 13, Pittsburgh 13, Cincinnati 14, Chicago (1) 16, Chicago (2) 16
I'm open to lots of music but nothing seems to have the impact on me in quite the same way as PJ, Soundgarden, AIC, Nirvana, Counting Crows etc have on me.....
There are a few exceptions :
Sigur Ros
Radiohead
Delays
but yeah ultimately im stuck in the 90s.....
'The more I studied religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself.' - Sir Richard Francis Burton
It is my own personal belief that us lucky people who were growing up in the early 90's, were apart of the second best ever musical era in history. My Opinion. It's hard to touch what was going on when the Stones, and Zeppelin, Beatles, Doors, Floyd, Hendrix, Joplin, Clapton, Dylan, etc and etc. were out and young. But inthe 90's looking back, we had great shit, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, AIC, Soundgarden, Pumpkins, Sublime, Blind Melon, Rage, NIN, STP, ETC and ETC. Several other bands I have left off that I feel had a great album or 2, but you get my drift. IMO, besides just a couple bands that have come out in the past few years, I can't get into to anything new. In fact, if I want to listen to something new and fresh, I end up listneing to shit from the 90's that I never gave a fair chance.
Anyone else have the same, stuck in my musical youth disease that I have?
I agree with you. I find myself going back to other stuff from around that period that I never had a chance to listen to as opposed to finding newer stuff. One reason is the audio quality has severly degraded nowadays.
Also, ETC and ETC have to be, like, totally my favorite band of all time!
I agree with you. I find myself going back to other stuff from around that period that I never had a chance to listen to as opposed to finding newer stuff. One reason is the audio quality has severly degraded nowadays.
Also, ETC and ETC have to be, like, totally my favorite band of all time!
that's right, ETC and ETC kick my ass.
Cuyahoga Falls 98, Columbus 00, Cleveland 03, Columbus 03, Toledo 04, Grand Rapids 04, Kitchener 05, Cleveland 06, Cincinnati 06, Washington DC 08, Philadelphia IV 09, Columbus 10, Cleveland 10, Chicago 13, Pittsburgh 13, Cincinnati 14, Chicago (1) 16, Chicago (2) 16
Comments
I don't smoke by the way, if that matters.
EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
Great way to look at it. Hell in 20 years, my son will be taking to shows of bands I have never heard of!
That is the plan....nice one for your 4,000th post. Do you actually work? hehehe
Every decade has good music and bad music, even the 60s.
Personally though, although there are some absoutely mindblowing bands at the moment, the 90s will always hold a special place for me.
I have to say, I don't agree with that. I think people tend to romanticise the past a bit. Whilst I do think the 90s was better than most, you still had a lot of shit (all that post grunge trying to make radiofriendly Pearl Jam/Nirvana knockoffs). Still it's all about individual experiences, and I definately agree with about underestimaing the 80s, when "indie" had real meaning.
No...you can't really say that. They may have had their starts in those bands...but they are in new bands now.
You wouldn't say that about Ozzy or any of the Beatles other ventures...nor Mick Jagger's...even Jack white's...there are so many people who split from previous bands...even PJ...I don't consider any of those projects to be PJ...they simply are not.
And I won't make the same mistakes
(Because I know)
Because I know how much time that wastes
(And function)
Function is the key
I don't completely agree with you on this one. Velvet revolver? not so much.
Audioslave
Foo Fighters
Beck
details Gremmie, details!!
You may not have SAID velvet revolver but you post ASSUMED that if you take great musicians from great bands you will have a great band. I am simply stating a group that does not fall into this generalization. Also, I would not include Audioslave in this discussion. They came out with one decent album that had two or three great songs......
I bet Creed adopting Justin Timberlake would be fucking sweet!!
There are a few exceptions :
Sigur Ros
Radiohead
Delays
but yeah ultimately im stuck in the 90s.....
I agree with you. I find myself going back to other stuff from around that period that I never had a chance to listen to as opposed to finding newer stuff. One reason is the audio quality has severly degraded nowadays.
Also, ETC and ETC have to be, like, totally my favorite band of all time!