After seeing your last.fm playlistI most certainly do.
ALls I'm saying is that poo-pooing something just because it's popular is not good.
Take it from a recovering music snob.
(ALls I'm saying is that poo-pooing something just because it's popular is not good.
Take it from a recovering music snob.
Scoopzilla http://www.slapwatch.com now get to fuck,
Wed 11 Feb 2009, 1:00,
archived)
I don't dislike it because it's popular - the fact I love Nirvana throws that argument out the window.I dislike it because it's bad.
As I said before, it's all subjective.
(As I said before, it's all subjective.
Ttssattsr,
Wed 11 Feb 2009, 1:03,
archived)
haha. Nirvana were fucking shite.It's only the fact that they became popular that allows me to be able to make that technical critique from an honest viewpoint rather than slag them off because it was de riguer at the time.
:)
(:)
Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Wed 11 Feb 2009, 1:09,
archived)
In Utero and their early stuff was fantastic. It verged on noise-rock, which is brilliant!Considering how big they were it's really not hard at all to find people who dislike them. Musicfun.
( Ttssattsr,
Wed 11 Feb 2009, 1:10,
archived)
You should know better than to try and have asensible conversation with me in this area. I'm liable to be pulling your chain plus there are things I DO NOT WANT and they involve terms like Nirvana, Eminem, America, etcetera. ;)
( Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Wed 11 Feb 2009, 1:13,
archived)
Haha. I'M HAPPY TO HAVE A SLAG MATCH, YOU UTTER BITCH.:D
( Ttssattsr,
Wed 11 Feb 2009, 1:16,
archived)
Many things are badI don't disagree that they're bad.
I'm saying it has merit.
P.S. Nirvana was very good indeed. In Utero rocked so very much.
(I'm saying it has merit.
P.S. Nirvana was very good indeed. In Utero rocked so very much.
Scoopzilla http://www.slapwatch.com now get to fuck,
Wed 11 Feb 2009, 1:13,
archived)