Greenday is awsome! IS WINS!

[whitestazn88]

Let's talk parmesan.

How about PepperJack? I'm sure he'll get bored and lurk over this way sooner or later....

so i was stalking you in live chat, figured i'd try to find the post you mentioned... and here it is

[PepperJack]

Let's talk parmesan.

How about PepperJack? I'm sure he'll get bored and lurk over this way sooner or later....

so i was stalking you in live chat, figured i'd try to find the post you mentioned... and here it is

Ditto, but the T(NY)R forum scares me.

[InsomniaRed]

Let's talk parmesan.

How about PepperJack? I'm sure he'll get bored and lurk over this way sooner or later....

so i was stalking you in live chat, figured i'd try to find the post you mentioned... and here it is

Ditto, but the N(Y)R forum scares me.

Yes, but I had to say something...the topic was CHEESE. Well not really. Did I just threadjack?


Oopsies. Sorry. Greenday?

[whitestazn88]

lol, yeah, i like pepper jack cheese too.... its pretty good, and i like the spicyness

greenday on the other hand... not so much

[PepperJack]

I was in like 7th or 8th grade when Dookie dropped (pun completely intended). I will always have a soft spot in my heart for the secret song.

No one was loooooking....
I was thinking of you

PepperJack obviously rules. Obviously.

[InsomniaRed]

I was in like 7th or 8th grade when Dookie dropped (pun completely intended). I will always have a soft spot in my heart for the secret song.

No one was loooooking....
I was thinking of you

PepperJack obviously rules. Obviously.

I'm just an American Idiot.

See that? See what I did there? I reference Greenday AND cheese. I got double win for that
Wait..it's Greenday. Nevermind....

[jonesthecurl]

Aha:
But if someone asks "What is you favourite band?" can it be grammatically correct to answer with a plural?

[pancakemix]

Aha:
But if someone asks "What is you favourite band?" can it be grammatically correct to answer with a plural?

That's not that important. The subject of the sentence "My favorite band is The Beatles" is "My favorite band". However, it could also be put "The Beatles are my favorite band". This is because The Beatles are a band, not bands (well, now the two surviving Beatles are independent artists in their own right, but that's a topic for another thread).

[Juan_Bottom]

Hold up, I've been listening to the Day for a long time now. 10,000 slappy hrs was like my first album ever, it was a gift. And I loved it.

After that I bought each of their albums and they always had at least a pair of good songs on each. Though the rest of the albums usually felt like filler.

But let's not pretend that American Idiot was not a marvalous album. I realize that it must be "so yesterday," but still, it's argue-ably work of art.

In short; Green Day sucks (as does most music that people try to pass off as rock now-a-days) as does some people's grammar.

The question (as it pertains to art rather than "music") has to do with actually connecting and moving people. They have to actually be moved by a song. Green Day will be played on "golden oldy" radio one day. It's easier to say old rock is all great because it's already been sifted through and been pushed for decades.

But! the reason the classic musicians aren't still making hits? They failed to progress. Green Day has been on the map since the early 90's. Prolly sooner depending on if you seeked out independant music or not. You don't have to enjoy their music, but they do deserve a fair amount of respect. I know I couldn't right one hit song, let alone 30.

[Neoteny]

Hold up, I've been listening to the Day for a long time now. 10,000 slappy hrs was like my first album ever, it was a gift. And I loved it.

After that I bought each of their albums and they always had at least a pair of good songs on each. Though the rest of the albums usually felt like filler.

But let's not pretend that American Idiot was not a marvalous album. I realize that it must be "so yesterday," but still, it's argue-ably work of art.

In short; Green Day sucks (as does most music that people try to pass off as rock now-a-days) as does some people's grammar.

The question (as it pertains to art rather than "music") has to do with actually connecting and moving people. They have to actually be moved by a song. Green Day will be played on "golden oldy" radio one day. It's easier to say old rock is all great because it's already been sifted through and been pushed for decades.

But! the reason the classic musicians aren't still making hits? They failed to progress. Green Day has been on the map since the early 90's. Prolly sooner depending on if you seeked out independant music or not. You don't have to enjoy their music, but they do deserve a fair amount of respect. I know I couldn't right one hit song, let alone 30.

Fo' sho'.

[Ditocoaf]

But let's not pretend that American Idiot was not a marvalous album. I realize that it must be "so yesterday," but still, it's argue-ably work of art.

In short; Green Day sucks (as does most music that people try to pass off as rock now-a-days) as does some people's grammar.

The question (as it pertains to art rather than "music") has to do with actually connecting and moving people. They have to actually be moved by a song.

So you would say that art must be easily accessible to the average person, then. Regardless of actual depth of content. Because while I'd say that, while the songs may be moving, if you actually try to look into them very far, they're pretty simplistic and empty. With songs I consider to be art, the more I listen to them, the more detail I notice in the music, and the more detail I notice in the themes. Some really good stuff, I actually notice very subtle and interesting correlation between variation in the instrumental parts and the lyrics. But the songs of American Idiot, while it may be considered "political," pretty much represents a very dumbed-down version of a "revolutionary" liberal PoV. Add to that, the fact that "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" was played seventy times more often than was prudent, and you've got why I consider that album worthless. I liked it quite a lot when I first gave it a listen through, but unlike most good music I've heard, I found less and less to like with each listen.

[Juan_Bottom]

So you would say that art must be easily accessible to the average person, then. Regardless of actual depth of content. Because while I'd say that, while the songs may be moving, if you actually try to look into them very far, they're pretty simplistic and empty. With songs I consider to be art, the more I listen to them, the more detail I notice in the music, and the more detail I notice in the themes. Some really good stuff, I actually notice very subtle and interesting correlation between variation in the instrumental parts and the lyrics. But the songs of American Idiot, while it may be considered "political," pretty much represents a very dumbed-down version of a "revolutionary" liberal PoV. Add to that, the fact that "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" was played seventy times more often than was prudent, and you've got why I consider that album worthless. I liked it quite a lot when I first gave it a listen through, but unlike most good music I've heard, I found less and less to like with each listen.

What you're saying is actually exactly what I'm saying. It doesn't matter who the music touches. Though I suppose I could see the argument that it cannot be "art" if no one gets it, ever. Like Mozart, a lot of his stuff wen't over people's heads. But years later it was rediscovered. And so, it can be considered art.
For the record, I liked the Chris Gaines album but there is no way that can be considered art.