Re: Greatest BAND Born In The 90's (poll)

prepare thyselves.....long post coming...

>Everything I've said on the topic in
>question has been completely consistent and entirely logical.

I gave you an opportunity to argue this when I pointed out your
contradictions and hypocrisies. Where was your defense then?

>Though I
>have been forced to try and say the same thing in three or four
>different ways

You were not 'forced'. You were asked. And any reasonably intelligent
person would see that as a possible admittance of not only not
completely understanding your point, but willing to understand by
asking exactly what the point is..."in no uncertain terms".

What you are failing to understand, John, is that I DO understand what
your point is, thanks to the many different versions of it -
regardless of whether I forced you or asked you for them. But I also
see something in your wisdom that you do not...which is the lack of
sense in it.

Something else that you are not seeing is that I have been asking you
to offer a simple, easy-to-follow, and concise version of your point
for the sole purpose of helping YOU see the convoluted logic of your
own "wisdom".

>You guys on the other hand have offered absolutely NOTHING of
>substance in response to my hypothesis.

I offered many things of substance. And it was those things that you
chose to ignore. For example, the RRHOF. Why was that not substantial
enough to warrant the attention of your wisdom?

>Bottom line: It's preposterous to claim there's no objective basis on
>which one can begin to determine a band's greatness.

Oh, what a wonderful play on words we have here. Are you saying that
we can indeed judge books by their covers? Or are you simply saying
that we can somehow determine a band's greatness without ever hearing
them? And why is this news?

> To do so is to
>deprive the word "great" of all meaning. You end up making "great" and
>"personally preferred" synonymous designations.

They are "synonymous designations". And we've already been down the
road of determining what you meant by "great", which is obviously your
version of "legendary". So if we replace the word 'great' with
'legendary', you would be accusing me of depriving the word
'legendary' of all meaning. And since I have already made it clear
that today's version of 'legendary' is synonymous with 'popular', I
can safely say that it certainly was not me who deprived the word of
its meaning...it was the modern Music Industry who did that, which
just so happens to be who you are defending by saying that bottom
bands will never be "great", "legendary", or "popular".

>When you take your mentally-disabled position to its logical
>conclusion, this is what has to come out of your mouth –
>
>"Radiohead vs. Steve's uncle's garage band? It's impossible to say
>which was more likely the greater group of the last decade."

That is correct. But why is it impossible to say? Because we haven't
heard Steve's uncle's garage band, that's why. Keep that in mind for
the next paragraph...

STP vs. The Bubble Blowers. It's impossible to say which was more
likely the greater group of the last decade. (And yet you did.)

But however, since this is only logical to the "mentally-disabled"
(which by the way, does not require a hyphen), I am going to give you
the benefit of the doubt by once again replacing "great" with
"legendary"...

STP vs The Bubble Blowers. It's impossible to say which was more
likely the "most legendary" group of the last decade. (I agree with
this statement only because 'legendary' and 'popular' are synonymous
in today's Industry, And when you're finished arguing that point,
maybe you can help me to understand why Britney is slowly achieving
legendary status if you agree that she isn't "great" from a musical
perspective.)

>Here it is again Forrest - As dumbed-down as I can possible make it.

(Side note: If you can't "dumb-down" any more than this, maybe you
should question your own intelligence.)

>There is an objective threshold which a band would have to meet to
>even be in CONTENTION for title "Greatest Band Born In the 90's":
>
>1. X number of rock record buyers consider them a true great.
>2. X number of published music critics consider them a true great.
>3. X number of their musical peers consider them a true great.
>

1. Popularity.
2. Popularity.
3. Popularity.

>(This is what it means to "get on the radar".)

I don't think anyone here was/is not clear on what you meant, which
was that if you're not popular, you're not on the radar. And if you're
not on the radar, you're not a great band. But what you are missing
here is the irony of the dilemma you are creating by saying that until
you get on the radar, you are not great...but you have to be great to
get on the damn radar to begin with...and if everyone thought like you
did, John, how would ANY band be able to get on the radar if everyone
thought they weren't great because they aren't already on it?

>>From that point on, the determination of THE greatest DOES involve a
>certain amount of subjectivity. In fact, I don't think there can ever
>be one "right" answer, all things considered.

Then stop looking for one. And stop trying to make YOURSELF right by
adamantly refusing to admit that you are labelling bands you've never
of as "not great". And above all, stop trying to make me wrong by
labelling me as "mentally-disabled" simply because you are not
understanding me.

I understand your point, but I don't agree with it. You, however, are
disgreeing with my point without understanding it. And in that
respect, who's more "mentally-disabled" here?

>And "the greatest" sure as hell isn't determined by the highest
>numbers in each category.  Nor did I ever say that it was!

Well, you sure as hell said the numbers are highly relevant to a
band's state of greatness (read: popularity.)

> All I ever
>said was that if I've never heard of a band (being as musically
>educated as I am – yeah, take my word for it, junior)

I'm sorry. Did I say I was a teenager that just bought my first
record?

>then there is no
>way in HELL that said band even BEGINS to meet the threshold criteria.

Let me get this straight... Are you saying that until YOU hear a
certain band, that band has no chance of ever being "great"?
Wait...lemme reread the above quotes of yours....hmm...yep, that is
exactly what you said, alright. Strangely enough, that is exactly what
started all this crap to begin with. (You DO work for ClearChannel,
don't you? I could have sworn that was a joke.)

>And with only a few exceptions, everyone who contributed to the poll
>named a band that meets the threshold requirement. (ex. AIC,
>Soundgarden, Radiohead, Tool, FNM, STP, Pearl Jam, etc.) So it would
>appear the majority of folks here are on the same page as me. That
>page being one of common sense and basic arithmetic.

Arithmetic? I thought you said that the highest numbers have nothing
to with any of this.

And it is common sense to say that these bands weren't "great" before
they were allowed to be on the radar? (Remember the Bubble Blowers,
John.)

This has nothing to do with everyone agreeing that STP or Tool or PJ
being "great" bands. This is about you saying that the "unheard" bands
are not "great" until you hear them.

>Now if Mickey or Loren had chosen to debate the exact figures
>indicated by "X Number" in my example above, we might have had a
>legitimate basis for discussion and/or disagreement.

But if the "greatest" bands aren't determined by the highest numbers,
why would that be a legitimate basis for discussion and/or
disagreement? After all, you asked us who we thought they greatest
band of the 90's is...not the most popular....or so I thought.

>But instead,
>because they started off with such venomous contempt for my position,
>they've now boxed themselves into defending their wholly subjective
>and asinine la-la land. Too bad. Though it's always entertaining
>watching perplexed and frustrated orangutans shake the branches and
>beat their chests. And throw their shit.

Dude....I know exactly what you are describing because I have been
there in many debates about a lot of things. But I assure you, you are
incorrect in applying that analogy to this particular discussion. For
you to say that I am blindly making an irrelevant point for the sole
purpose of "winning" the debate, you are doing nothing but showing
your own blindness to all the things that should be considered.

>Next month, when intelligent people start debating which team will win
>the Super Bowl, intelligent people will only be considering those
>teams that have already made the playoffs.

Well, then maybe you should have started this thread with a subject
line of, "Greatest Well-Known Band Born in the 90's"....or "Greatest
Band Born in the 90's That Have Already Achieved John's Vision of
Greatness".

The football analogy would be more appropriate had you given us a list
of bands to choose from, then asked us who we thought the greatest
band in that list was. Oh wait....that is exactly what you did, huh?
So please allow me to apologize by rephrasing what I think the subject
line should have been: "Greatest Band Born in the 90's That Have
Already Been Labelled As Great By Billboard Magazine, Or As John Likes
To Refer To It: The Radar".

>But Mickey will tell them that a team that failed to make the playoffs
>has just as much chance of being this year's champion as a team that
>made the cut.

Now you're just being plain stupid.

>Over and out - John

Then get the fuck out already. I think I've had enough of the
one-sided ignorance that you use to support your fence-jumping
philosophies.