Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FireFly
I don't really get your point anyways. I suppose they have influence then. That's really nice of you to point that out. And because they've been around for a lot longer, it's also really nice that they've influenced other artists, they've had more time to do it. So because an artist isn't influential, they suck? Is that what you're saying? Or are you saying that those they've influenced are now not original as they're jsut using the work of others to make their own?
I enjoy Bach but he doesn't influnce my writing... does he suck? I enjoy Eminem but can't rap so he hasn't really influenced what I sing, does he suck? What constitutes an influence?
Basically what you're trying to say is because other bands don't want to be like Nickelback, they suck. Well do other bands want to be like Alexisonfire? Does that mean they suck? Does the talent a band have necessarily reflected in others being influenced by them?
|
WTF are you talking about??
It's really quite simple. Try to read it slowly.
1- I said Radiohead is an influencial band and will be in the future.
2- You said you disagree
3- I gave evidence to back up my claim
That is my point. THAT RADIOHEAD IS AN INFLUENCIAL BAND AND THEREFORE WILL HAVE A LASTING LEGACY.
This is actually quite a common form of debate. Make a statement, and back it up with evidence. You should try it, instead of talking about something completely irrelevent to my post.
Where did I say bands that aren't influential suck?
I didn't even mention Nickelback in that post, so I have no clue where you're coming from. Your defensiveness of Nickelback has clearly clouded your ability to read.
Even when someone is not talking about Nickelback, your response is "how does that make Nickelback suck".
If you aren't gonna respond to what I actually write, please don't quote me at all. I'd rather debate with drywall.
And FlamesAddiction, thanks for the link. Let down is one of my all time favorite songs too, so glad to cast a vote.