please... Purple was simplistic hard rock/metal music that anyone could come up with... no one can even match or come up with what Floyd came out with... Smoke on the Water though a classic and great song doesn't even come close to being genius...
contraversial musical opinions
- Thread starter ohiogrinder
- Start date
Hatebreeder
Pizzicato Heartstrings
I never liked Deep Purple. I think they, while influential to the overall progression of hard rock, were a terrible band.
So let me get this straight: record sales indicate the quality of music. Except when a poor quality album like Turbo or St. Anger sells a lot of albums, in which case it doesn't. So high record sales indicate that an album is quality, unless it isn't quality, in which case they don't. Also there is no such thing as quality since it's all opinion. So high record sales indicate a high quality album, unless the album is of low quality in which case they don't, and quality is a matter of opinion anyway so your position becomes a big circle of muddled nothingness.
let me put it in simple terms since you still have a hard on for me from the past... quality is opinion... you think a album is great quality and someone else can think the opposite... sales are not a indication of quality per say but when a album sells poorly overall (can sell alot on it's debut week but weaken after that because of word of mouth of it being a bad quality album) you can accurately assume it's a shitty album without even listening to it... St. Anger sold great at first because people at the time would buy any Metallica album blindly without getting opinions of it from other people... but after that first week or two it crashed and burned... by then everyone knew it was a shitty album by other people's opinions... do you want to continue debating a issue that is opinion and not fact and run around in circles like in the past? ... besides thought you were going to ignore my posts from now on... now that is a lie which is fact and not opinion.... :Smug:So let me get this straight: record sales indicate the quality of music. Except when a poor quality album like Turbo or St. Anger sells a lot of albums, in which case it doesn't. So high record sales indicate that an album is quality, unless it isn't quality, in which case they don't. Also there is no such thing as quality since it's all opinion. So high record sales indicate a high quality album, unless the album is of low quality in which case they don't, and quality is a matter of opinion anyway so your position becomes a big circle of muddled nothingness.
Son of Evil
Member
- Feb 10, 2007
- 260
- 2
- 18
They are my favorite Hard Rock band.
Machine Head, Perfect Strangers, The Battle Rages On are all classics.
username345
Member
No rock band will ever match the greatness of King Crimson
Agreed.
And Deep Purple kick ass.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
No they weren't. Defenders Of The Faith had crap record sales in comparison to Screaming For Vengeance and the band was very disappointed. They capitalized on the latest trends on Turbo, and that's why it sold well.
You're misunderstanding what I mean by 'memorable,' apparently purposely, just to piss me off. I'm not talking about REMEMBERING a fucking song, I'm talking about it as an actual trait in the music, which is not all that common in Metal, especially the more extreme you get and the less reliance there is on populist musical characteristics, the standard verse/chorus format, etc. Memorability has nothing directly to do with quality. Whether or not one person thinks that memorable songs are super duper cool doesn't alter the reality of what I've said. And if you don't get what I'm saying now, I would appreciate it if you just not respond and let it die, because I don't feel like replying anymore.
Do you not even understand the idiocy of saying that record sales indicate quality (sometimes), but that quality is subjective? How can you say "...music in general went into a decline and is evidenced by the decrease in CD sale's" if you think quality is subjective? (I can't believe I had to insert an ellipsis into one of your quotes, but there it is
) Why would you think that? I seem to recall our last "debate" ended when you disappeared after making some assertions about Bathory that you couldn't back up. I thought you were ignoring me. We'll Screaming for Vengeance is a difficult album to outdue... it was that good...
And out of curiosity on what facts (and not your opinion) do you base quality on? ... if you care to respond... if not.. no problem... I'll stick to my assertion that whatever you say on this topic is strictly opinion...
Do you not even understand the idiocy of saying that record sales indicate quality (sometimes), but that quality is subjective? How can you say "...music in general went into a decline and is evidenced by the decrease in CD sale's" if you think quality is subjective? (I can't believe I had to insert an ellipsis into one of your quotes, but there it is
Then Mr. Know it all and I'm always right because im think im a psuedo intellectual... explain the decline of CD sales overall in the music industry and not any particular music genre if not for bad quality... pre Internet/download and Ipod era... After the decline of Grunge music...
And the last debate at one point ended when you yourself stated that the debate was pointless because I wouldn't see things your way and that you would not continue with it and will ignore my future posts... you can backlog and find it yourself what you said...
- Mar 15, 2006
- 5,392
- 13
- 0
- Mar 15, 2006
- 5,392
- 13
- 0
I'm just sick of every GMD poster bashing grindcore. it gets old.
I really don't bash any genre... I'll just politely say if I don't like a genre... everyone has different ears...
goddamn it, will you stop this asinine argument?
there is no correlation whatsoever between musical quality and CD sales, I can't believe anybody would even attempt to make this argument.
the reason that CD sales have gone down is because of napster/morpheus etc... people are much more likely to download music than purchase
Again everyone keeps talking about napster/downloading/internet and again I am saying in the 90's when Grunge finally died down and before the internet (it even says that in the my post that you quoted me: "pre-internet/download and Ipod era.. I assume you know what PRE means)... that is my argument... I am not saying anything after the Internet revolution... downloadable music obviously killed it when Napster etc. came along... but not before since it didn't exist..that is my argument... if your going to go off on me at least read what I originally said completely... and it was not me who continued this argument but people who insist on arguing with me... besides Doden and Formitacable responded to me and i responded back to them... didn't know posts are allowed to be only one sided replies... why don't u attack them then if you do not want this argument to continue?.... Anyways don't respond and let the argument die since obviously it's a totalitarian environment here... but music sales were down in the 90's before the internet/napster/ipod regardless of what you say due to bad quality as opposed to years prior to the decline...
I can vouch for this actually. I remember reading 1997-98 about how CD sales had been in the toilet for 3-4 years. I don't remember much about what journalists were attributing it to, but two things they brought up were :1) no successor to the grunge thrown and 2) a drop in quality resulting from the strong economy of the Clinton administration.
I can vouch for this actually. I remember reading 1997-98 about how CD sales had been in the toilet for 3-4 years. I don't remember much about what journalists were attributing it to, but two things they brought up were :1) no successor to the grunge thrown and 2) a drop in quality resulting from the strong economy of the Clinton administration.
Yes it was Clinton's fault because he got a Hummer in the Oral office!!!
hey i liked Clinton... i voted for him twice... but anyways I guess unless you were old enough in the 90's to read such things about the decline of CD sales then you can only make assumptions since you didn't live it... i worked two record stores back then and saw it first hand plus read about it (I probably read it in the Wall Street Journal or some other financial publication back then, can't remember) yet people who were just children & weren't interested in such things back then and did whatever children did at their ages back then are arguing with me & telling me I'm wrong and imagined such things... it's like if i told a hippie about the 60's even though I didn't grow up in that era but anyways it was Clinton's fault!!!! but i'll vote for him again if he was allowed to run again.... 
P.S. let the argument die... can't change people's minds... they didn't grow up in era's but they know best then anyone else...
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
I never said you didn't read the fucking article, I said that the article is bullshit. CD sales declined because the big current trend of the time died and the record companies had nothing in line to replace it with. It has nothing to do with quality, but popularity.
Similar threads
