.:.:.:.:RTTP.Mobile:.:.:.:.
[<--back] [Home][Pics][News][Ads][Events][Forum][Band][Search]
full forum | bottom

jump pages:[all|1|2]
jump pages:[all|1|2]

---

Reply
[login ]
SPAM Filter: re-type this (values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to what.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="what:1365130"][QUOTE="arilliusbm:1365128"]No, you are over thinking it. Bands evolve over time, as does music. Mayhem, at one point, was more relevant to the progression of the genre, and as a band. They are no longer as relevant in that regard, as are a number of other bands which were at one time. They are still making albums, though, and if you enjoy them then no one is going to stop you. It's all subjective. But relevancy here is more than taking it at face value, it has to do with what they represent in the artistic medium they present themselves in. Metallica could serve as an example; extremely relevant in their hey day to the progression of thrash, yet now they are old geezers who no longer contribute to the genre the way they used to. Things change over time, and Mayhem has changed when they are compared to their former selves. You're looking at this from a standpoint that I cannot agree with, sorry. [/QUOTE] That's fair. I think the case you lay out applies to a very small amount of people though. Mostly the current concept of relevance is a product of blogs. The later/latest albums from formerly great bands like Immortal, Morbid Angel, Burzum, the list goes on.. but consider Judas Priest's Painkiller, an awesome album that was very late in the game for them, changed it up and slayed 99% of the current crop of bands who were trying to push extremes. At that point, according to todays standards, JP was irrelevant. But regardless, Painkiller is great. The relevance issue is such a non-argument and again, smacks of false standards.[/QUOTE]

top [Vers. 0.12][ 0.005 secs/8 queries][refresh][