Temper
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Commercially viable musicians are slaves to record sales and record companies don't be blind. there's a whole world of musicians who aren't corporate whores. and so what if brittney is beholden to her corporate masters? when was the last time a record company used her to convince you of the need to raise your property taxes? or sent Eminem on a mission to garner support for yet another sub-division without putting in enough roads to support it? had Lil Kim advocating the overthrow of the government of another country? or employed Ricky Martin to canvass your neighborhood trying to pass a law making it illegal for two consenting adults to do whatever they want to each other? musicians can stir up trouble. but they're not even in the same leauge as politicians . -c
As always, it's bread and circuses. And while bread is down right now, circuses are way up.
Chris Losinger wrote: there's a whole world of musicians who aren't corporate whores. That's why I said "Commercially viable musicians". If you want to believe that these songwriters wrote those lyrics as an artistic expression of their beliefs rather than a cheap, easy way to make some money without actually using talent, so be it. Chris Losinger wrote: musicians can stir up trouble. but they're not even in the same leauge as politicians . Agreed! But I don't remember saying anything at all about politicians in this thread... :confused:
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
Paul Riley wrote: ...most artists who are considered classics (Beatles, Elvis, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, etc) have been controversial at some point in time. Would you contend that all these have been talentless bums resorting to controversy to sell records? Not at all. But there is a big difference between creating a little shock and controversy to prove a point or help a cause and generating a lot of shock by insulting an entire nation. The cynic in me, sees the latter as a deperate attempt to garner attention despite a lack of talent. After reading those lyrics I would put "System of a Down" in the same league as most current rap artists - "talentless bums resorting to controversy to sell records".
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: After reading those lyrics I would put "System of a Down" in the same league as most current rap artists - "talentless bums resorting to controversy to sell records". Ahh... the old "I don't like them, therefore they are talentless" argument. Ignore the millions of people who are entertained by them. In that case I'd better say that Elvis was talentless because I don't like his stuff. :-D Paul
-
Paul Riley wrote: Attacking another nation without direct provocation is wrong unless the UN can agree that they pose a genuine threat. If the UN charter says that we must go through the UN before responding to another nation's attack on us, then its time we parted company. If the UK sent spies (or supported terrorists) to destroy a building of ours or to blow up one of our ships, I believe we have a right to defend ourselves no matter what the UN says. Iraq supported the terrorists that brought down the WTC. Note to other countries: If you want to alienate yourselves from the US, then just try to make us go through the UN when we feel we have a right to self defense.
Jason Henderson
start page
articles
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston ChurchillJason Henderson wrote: Iraq supported the terrorists that brought down the WTC. If Bush provides proof of this "fact", you'll see opinions in the UN change radically. Unfortunately this is nothing more than heresay right now. One minute it's OBL who funded the attacks, then when he goes missing it was Saddam. Jason Henderson wrote: Note to other countries: If you want to alienate yourselves from the US, then just try to make us go through the UN when we feel we have a right to self defense. And you ask why people pick on the US specifically? The US holds itself up as morally superior to its enemies and then use arguments like this when they don't get their own way. The UK and Israel are equally guilty of this. Saddam felt he was justified in attacking Kuwait because they were supposedly diagonal-drilling Iraqi oil. The rest of the world disagreed because he chose not to present a convincing case to the UN. How is this argument any different? As I said before, if we're going to fight a war on the grounds of morality then fine. Let's do it but let's hold ourselves to the highest moral standards or we've already lost. Paul
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: After reading those lyrics I would put "System of a Down" in the same league as most current rap artists - "talentless bums resorting to controversy to sell records". Ahh... the old "I don't like them, therefore they are talentless" argument. Ignore the millions of people who are entertained by them. In that case I'd better say that Elvis was talentless because I don't like his stuff. :-D Paul
Paul Riley wrote: Ahh... the old "I don't like them, therefore they are talentless" argument. Ignore the millions of people who are entertained by them. Absolutely. Judging talent is 100% purely subjective. There are no hard and fast rules. All I'm saying is that IMCO (in my cynical opinion) those lyrics were written to cause controversy in order to sell more units. If the somgwriters had talent they wouldn't have needed to use such tactics to sell their "art". I never proposed that they were wrong or illegal or should be banned or anything. They certainly have the right to write, perform and distribute their material to any audience who will listen. Likewise, I have the right to judge their talent and motivations. Agreed?
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
Chris Losinger wrote: there's a whole world of musicians who aren't corporate whores. That's why I said "Commercially viable musicians". If you want to believe that these songwriters wrote those lyrics as an artistic expression of their beliefs rather than a cheap, easy way to make some money without actually using talent, so be it. Chris Losinger wrote: musicians can stir up trouble. but they're not even in the same leauge as politicians . Agreed! But I don't remember saying anything at all about politicians in this thread... :confused:
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
Paul Riley wrote: Ahh... the old "I don't like them, therefore they are talentless" argument. Ignore the millions of people who are entertained by them. Absolutely. Judging talent is 100% purely subjective. There are no hard and fast rules. All I'm saying is that IMCO (in my cynical opinion) those lyrics were written to cause controversy in order to sell more units. If the somgwriters had talent they wouldn't have needed to use such tactics to sell their "art". I never proposed that they were wrong or illegal or should be banned or anything. They certainly have the right to write, perform and distribute their material to any audience who will listen. Likewise, I have the right to judge their talent and motivations. Agreed?
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: Absolutely. Judging talent is 100% purely subjective. Not true. Talent can be judged on whether one achieves the goals of the given discipline. In terms of a professional singer, that is to entertain. As a singer I would fail to entertain anyone, I have no musical talent. Elvis Presley entertained millions, still does. Just because he fails to entertain me doesn't remove anything from his musical talent. Britney Spears is a brean-dead bimbo whose voice grates on my nerves but I couldn't claim that she is talentless. Mike Mullikin wrote: Likewise, I have the right to judge their talent and motivations. Agreed? You may judge their motivations and I wouldn't argue with you. I do think that the shock value has a lot to do with hitting a target market and making lots of money. That doesn't render them talentless. Paul
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Absolutely. Judging talent is 100% purely subjective. Not true. Talent can be judged on whether one achieves the goals of the given discipline. In terms of a professional singer, that is to entertain. As a singer I would fail to entertain anyone, I have no musical talent. Elvis Presley entertained millions, still does. Just because he fails to entertain me doesn't remove anything from his musical talent. Britney Spears is a brean-dead bimbo whose voice grates on my nerves but I couldn't claim that she is talentless. Mike Mullikin wrote: Likewise, I have the right to judge their talent and motivations. Agreed? You may judge their motivations and I wouldn't argue with you. I do think that the shock value has a lot to do with hitting a target market and making lots of money. That doesn't render them talentless. Paul
Paul Riley wrote: Talent can be judged on whether one achieves the goals of the given discipline. In terms of a professional singer, that is to entertain. So if I could find enough people who would be entertained by seeing me bash my head with a hammer does that automatically mean that I posess some talent at bashing myself in the head? Not at all. It simply means I've found a bunch of people that want to be shocked by seeing some idiot bash himself in the head. Maybe SOAD's true talent is in finding a target audience and supplying something that audience wants. In other words, my original point. Paul Riley wrote: Britney Spears is a brean-dead bimbo whose voice grates on my nerves but I couldn't claim that she is talentless. As a singer, I would say she is talentless. As a dancer and pin-up girl I would say she is fairly talented. ;P Paul Riley wrote: I do think that the shock value has a lot to do with hitting a target market and making lots of money. That doesn't render them talentless. Maybe not but I actually found an MP3 of the song. X| X| X| Exactly which part shows any talent?
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
You can believe a nut but I won't. :)
Jason Henderson
start page
articles
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston ChurchillNuts need bolts. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Paul Riley wrote: Talent can be judged on whether one achieves the goals of the given discipline. In terms of a professional singer, that is to entertain. So if I could find enough people who would be entertained by seeing me bash my head with a hammer does that automatically mean that I posess some talent at bashing myself in the head? Not at all. It simply means I've found a bunch of people that want to be shocked by seeing some idiot bash himself in the head. Maybe SOAD's true talent is in finding a target audience and supplying something that audience wants. In other words, my original point. Paul Riley wrote: Britney Spears is a brean-dead bimbo whose voice grates on my nerves but I couldn't claim that she is talentless. As a singer, I would say she is talentless. As a dancer and pin-up girl I would say she is fairly talented. ;P Paul Riley wrote: I do think that the shock value has a lot to do with hitting a target market and making lots of money. That doesn't render them talentless. Maybe not but I actually found an MP3 of the song. X| X| X| Exactly which part shows any talent?
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: So if I could find enough people who would be entertained by seeing me bash my head with a hammer does that automatically mean that I posess some talent at bashing myself in the head? Sure... if you could do it as well as Johnny Knoxville or Tom Green, you would be talented. A bizarre talent indeed, but look at the difference in reaction between people (who like that sort of thing) watching the Tom Green Show and people watching WWE's Tommy Dreamer doing basically the same thing. One is a talented entertainer for a niche market, the other clearly is a barely talented wrestler with a gimmick which has failed dismally (hence the gimmick is being dropped). Don't ask me to explain why people are entertained (although Jackass has its moments for me), that isn't the point. Mike Mullikin wrote: Maybe not but I actually found an MP3 of the song. Exactly which part shows any talent? You're looking for opinion here, you're asking me why I like it, which isn't the point. The ability to entertain is a talent in itself and is not something one person can define. But, in my opinion... I don't know Temper specifically, I only know the tracks from Toxicity and even then it's hardly on my regular play-list. But they write quality lyrics, whether you agree with the content or not. The very fact that this one song has sparked such a debate only shows that they know how to get their message over, a talent lacked by many artists. Serj Tankian has a fantastic voice, powerful and versatile, able to switch from hard-rock to a powerful ballad style mid-song (Toxicity, the song, is a good example). The guitars are impressive from an analytical point of view, again you don't have to like the style to see that - I hated Level 42 but Mark King was still one of the best bass players in history. And the drummer moves like a demon on acid. Plus they do some pretty damned cool videos. I can't be more specific than that, I'm afraid. I just like it and I make no apologies for that. :) Paul
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: So if I could find enough people who would be entertained by seeing me bash my head with a hammer does that automatically mean that I posess some talent at bashing myself in the head? Sure... if you could do it as well as Johnny Knoxville or Tom Green, you would be talented. A bizarre talent indeed, but look at the difference in reaction between people (who like that sort of thing) watching the Tom Green Show and people watching WWE's Tommy Dreamer doing basically the same thing. One is a talented entertainer for a niche market, the other clearly is a barely talented wrestler with a gimmick which has failed dismally (hence the gimmick is being dropped). Don't ask me to explain why people are entertained (although Jackass has its moments for me), that isn't the point. Mike Mullikin wrote: Maybe not but I actually found an MP3 of the song. Exactly which part shows any talent? You're looking for opinion here, you're asking me why I like it, which isn't the point. The ability to entertain is a talent in itself and is not something one person can define. But, in my opinion... I don't know Temper specifically, I only know the tracks from Toxicity and even then it's hardly on my regular play-list. But they write quality lyrics, whether you agree with the content or not. The very fact that this one song has sparked such a debate only shows that they know how to get their message over, a talent lacked by many artists. Serj Tankian has a fantastic voice, powerful and versatile, able to switch from hard-rock to a powerful ballad style mid-song (Toxicity, the song, is a good example). The guitars are impressive from an analytical point of view, again you don't have to like the style to see that - I hated Level 42 but Mark King was still one of the best bass players in history. And the drummer moves like a demon on acid. Plus they do some pretty damned cool videos. I can't be more specific than that, I'm afraid. I just like it and I make no apologies for that. :) Paul
Paul Riley wrote: I can't be more specific than that, I'm afraid. I just like it and I make no apologies for that. Sounds like my explaination to my mother (25 years ago) while discussing Frank Zappa.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
Paul Riley wrote: I can't be more specific than that, I'm afraid. I just like it and I make no apologies for that. Sounds like my explaination to my mother (25 years ago) while discussing Frank Zappa.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: Sounds like my explaination to my mother (25 years ago) while discussing Frank Zappa. And mine (more like 15 years ago) concerning Pink Floyd, Led Zep, Black Sabbath, Metallica, Beastie Boys and pretty much everything else I listened to :laugh: Paul
-
David Wulff wrote: what I meant is that it hurts to be told that America isn't holier than my arse I don't think America is holier than your arse. It has problems just like the rest of the world. Why then, do people pick on America?!
Jason Henderson
start page
articles
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston ChurchillJason Henderson wrote: Why then, do people pick on America?! they donts ir is a globls thing and is true for all countrys
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
TOTD: Doubleclicking a personalised menu will remove the personalisation.
-
We want peace without Patriot missiles, Blown to bits are civilian targets, Parade! Laugh! Rejoice! Sing! We are the victors of...nothing, Spend more money on a war, Your people starving, turned to whores, Slaves of the chosen one paying millions for each bomb, Country without a race , Formed from people you disgrace , White right conservative might , Killers of Kennedy's with no fright , The American way! Freedom cried the marching man, Flags ripped out of their black hands , Beaten! Slain! Tortured! Killed! Their only mistake was being born here , Invade countries just for oil , Send your troops all down to boil , Iraq! Grenada! Nam and Chile! Truman doctrine our own way , Country without a race , Formed from people you disgrace , White right conservative might , Killers of Kennedy's with no fright , The American way! The Government here can suck my balls , Policing the world in overalls , Armed rebellion minority , Disrespected race, colored mind , Crazed loonies all walk the streets , Missing children on milk cartons , Mother selling child for crack , Mr. President check you back , Country without a race , Formed from people you disgrace, White right conservative might , Killers of Kennedy's with no fright , The American way! The American way! The American way! Temper, System Of A Down Talk.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
TOTD: Doubleclicking a personalised menu will remove the personalisation.
:laugh: It's amazing how one instance of racism/elitism can condemn another. -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Racism: A problem everywhere. Fortunately, a majority of white people don't practice it anymore so why lump all of America into the racist stereotype I can't believe you just said that - racism is NOT all about White v's Black, and whatever has happened in your nation's two hundred years of history doesn't change that. Jason Henderson wrote: War: Every country has a right to self defense. Iraq invaded Kuwait, so we helped them. In Grenada, American medical students where being held, so we freed them. So? So? Jason Henderson wrote: "Crazed loonies all walk the streets" - another generalization which isn't true everywhere in America. What part of that said everyone on the streets is a crazed loony as you seem to be suggesting? Ditto for the others. You've missed the point by a very large margin. Jason Henderson wrote: We have problems but its nothing the rest of the world doesn't experience That's not what I emant, what I meant is that it hurts to be told that America isn't holier than my arse. Not to all people you must understand - I do not pretend to believe that for a moment - but to some. Personally I don't give a damn what my country (Britain) does or does not do but I damned well expect them to look further than our own shores when so much of what they do has global consequences.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
TOTD: Doubleclicking a personalised menu will remove the personalisation.
David Wulff wrote: Jason Henderson wrote: Racism: A problem everywhere. Fortunately, a majority of white people don't practice it anymore so why lump all of America into the racist stereotype I can't believe you just said that - racism is NOT all about White v's Black, and whatever has happened in your nation's two hundred years of history doesn't change that. And I can't believe that you just said that. Jason's comments were obviously directed towards the lines in the song that specifically targeted white americans as being racist. You knew that, and knew what Jason was referring to when he replied. And he also never mentioned 'White vs. Black', he implied 'White vs *'. David Wulff wrote: So? So? So he was attempting to justify the wars mentioned in the song in order to combat the song's obvious implication that America is the big Evil for getting into such wars. David Wulff wrote: What part of that said everyone on the streets is a crazed loony as you seem to be suggesting? Ditto for the others. You've missed the point by a very large margin. While I agree that statement is a bit ambigious, it's pretty safe to say that it was intended in the least favorable light possible, no matter how accurate. David Wulff wrote: Personally I don't give a damn what my country (Britain) does or does not do but I damned well expect them to look further than our own shores when so much of what they do has global consequences. ? The latter part of your statement explictly says that you do care. And I'm more than willing to bet that you do. Why would you say that you don't give a damn what your country does? Here's a zinger - guarunteed to start a nasty flame thread: How is an action justified? By the things that go into deciding to take the action, or by the expected effect of the action? Or, God forbid, by the outcome of the action? In fact, I think I'll start a thread on the lounge about this...:cool: -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"
-
Paul Riley wrote: Attacking another nation without direct provocation is wrong unless the UN can agree that they pose a genuine threat. If the UN charter says that we must go through the UN before responding to another nation's attack on us, then its time we parted company. If the UK sent spies (or supported terrorists) to destroy a building of ours or to blow up one of our ships, I believe we have a right to defend ourselves no matter what the UN says. Iraq supported the terrorists that brought down the WTC. Note to other countries: If you want to alienate yourselves from the US, then just try to make us go through the UN when we feel we have a right to self defense.
Jason Henderson
start page
articles
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston ChurchillJason-- I'm not an American, but I agree with you all the way. Since when does an American President have to apologize for acting in the interest of America? America's problem is not that it is belligerent, but that it has bent over backwards to try and accomodate the wishes and interests of its friends and allies. People have short memories. It is ridiculous to assert in song that America was somehow "invading" Grenada or Panama. The people of Grenada were deliriously happy that American soldiers removed that particular menace. When people bitch about the aggressive, belligerent nature of America, they ought to think about things more realistically. America is so belligerent that its northern neighbour, full of valuable natural resources (including a huge amount of oil), has pretty much unilaterally disarmed itself, so great is its fear of America. Two, the first thing a foreign regime in a skirmish with America does is to move its miltary installations into civilian areas. Why? Because it knows that Americans value innocent life and will take great pains not to unnecessarily harm it. If you were in a fight with Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein and their like, would you move your military targets into civilian areas? Not %$%$# likely! Given the military power of the U.S... and given the deadly nature of the assualt they endured... they have shown absolutely incredible restraint so far. I can't blame the world for wanting to promote multilaterism... what is that except a wish to control a power that is 50 times greater than your own. And because Americans are by nature friendly, cooperative, and peace loving... they go along with it, even though the UN is total mess. But make no mistake... GWB will act according to American interests... and if that means invading Iraq (which I don't think it will)... then that is what he will do. Western Europeans are the worst. How soon they forget. They should wake up every morning and thank God that it was the U.S. who liberated them in WWII and not the USSR. What other power in history sent its soldiers thousands of miles away to die by the tens of thousands on foreign soil, only to defeat the enemy, then go home... go home... restoring the freedom of those people. It wasn't the UN that won WWII... it was the Americans and the Brits (with a little help from Canada, Australia, South Africa, and the rest of the minor players involved). America is a great nation... and its people are among the most generous on earth. Long live America!! JM