The Mayor of Simpleton Wrote:
The duration is not indicative of greatness. Look at Yes for proof that duration doesn't equate to greatness. The fact that Rush has put out great music at 30 years old, however, IS support for what I said. Not only that, but the fact is that even critics are rating their new music very high, so it's not just die-hard fans that are claiming that they're still great.
I could make the same claim you make about Rush about the Obner-beloved Rolling Stones, and it would be equally valid. Personally, I can't stand 'em. I'd be happy if I never heard the Stones again in my life. But I won't do something as stupid and disrespectful as to dismiss them like you guys do with Rush. The fact remains that many, many millions of fans like both bands and continue to think that they are the shit, including many of you. I don't think anyone has any right to discredit any band that continues to write and record new music after that much time - at some point, you just have to assume that you don't get it, but that those bands are perfectly valid, talented, and great.
Sometimes it's like talking to 12 year olds here on Obner. "Your band sucks." "Nuh-uh, my band rules, yours sucks." "No way, my band is the best, yours sucks donkey balls." "Liar! . . . "
Who dismissed them or discredited them in this thread? You're making a qualitative statement that they've put out "great" music for a given temporal period. You seem to think that because they've been around for a number of years that we MUST respect them and any band that's put out a recent album is completely open for denigration, which is ridiculous.
Also, at what point was there a statement questioning their validity as musicians? I'm sure they're fine musicians and put out perfectly acceptable and reliable records for their fans, of which you are clearly one, but I couldn't give shit if they're talented as four dozen Mozarts. I hate their goddamn music.
.gif)
