There are a few ways I could approach this...
1) Funny thing, it seems as though everyone that is rich and famous in the music industry right now, you two feel like flaming as though you know more than everyone else.
Heh just took a look at this and wanted to point out, I play more instruments than probably anyone on this site, and have been playing most of them longer than most on this site, and have more talent at said instruments than anyone else. Therefore that would mean I do know more than everyone else. An we don't flame every successful person just the ones who have no talent.
I couldn't care less if a band is underground or not I will listen and like them if there good.
Here is a list of bands that are\were famous that I enjoy.
Aerosmith
Alice in chains
Anthrax
Bon Jovi
Boston
Bryan Adams
Bullet for my valentine
Children of bodom
Disturbed
Eric Clapton w\ w\o the yardbirds
Goo goo dolls
Greenday
Incubus
Iron maiden
Lynyrd Skynyrd
Matchbox twenty
Megadeth
Metallica
Mudvayne
Nirvana
oasis
ozzy w\ and w\o sabbath
Pantera
Pat Benetar
Pearl jam
Radiohead
Rage against the machine
Red hot chili peppers
REO Speedwagon
Saliva
Shinedown
Stone temple pilots
The smashing pumpkins
Tom Petty
Weezer
- That is just the bands on my lap top That were\are famous and successful. I could name off tons more.
I didn't want to think you two thought this way, but the way you two are arguing, it seems like you are the kind of people that love underground, and stuff that is not mainstream, which is not bad, but then you take it to the point where you flame others for liking the big bands, and you flame the bands once they become popular.
I'm not flaming people I am flaming the bands and voicing my opinion. If you don't like my opinion simply don't ask.
I am sure, that if Slipknot was not as popular as they are, you two would love them. It's the fact that everyone loves them, so you two want to be different, and pretend you know more about music, so you flame the popular ones.
Slipknot was no where near as popular as they are when they first came out. An I had got word of the band basically as soon as they came out. they are talentless trash.
As far as talent goes, I have seen no factual evidence from either of you that proves Eric Clapton is more talented than Slipknot. All I have seen are opinion based arguments. Deadzone's of "these songs are way more complicated" is not proof. That is solely his opinion that those songs are more complicated and thus more intricate, thus, making Eric Clapton magically more talented.
Ask any person who plays they will tell you the same, if Every person agrees that is absolute therefore my opinion is fact and will remain, prove that slipknot is talented.
Complicated songs != talent. Granted, you need talent to make and preform complicated riffs, but that does not mean that if one artist has a more complicated song than another, that they automatically have more talent.
Take "Smoke On the Water" for example. That song is very simple, yet, it is still a cool song that many like.
Slipknot has no emotion to there music either, all together they fail.They talk about shit that means nothing to there lives they just sell what ignorant people will buy.
Smoke on the water isn't exactly an easy song a couple riffs in the song are but thats it. and if you're trying to compare Deep purple to slipknot you're a joke with songs like soldier of fortune, smoke on the water etc. they have much more talent and emotion and time put into there songs than slipknot. Don't even attempt to compare the 2.
I could easily pick up a guitar, write and play a very complicated made up song, that maybe no one else could do. Now, does that mean I have talent? No. The song could sound like shit, but hey, if it is complicated, then it must mean I have talent, doesn't it? (According to your logic).
Wrong Playing something complicated does not mean it has talent if you do not play the instrument correctly.
3) Are you saying that all of America enjoys talentless music? That's a pretty big statement to say that billions of people like and listen to shitty talentless music.
You're saying record labels like Universal Music and Roadrunner sign people that have no talent? "Fuck yes! You are the least talented band to come in here yet! Take our money, and we'll sponsor someone that is talentless! Fuck, if we wanted talent, we would go to the Sythe forums and consult deadzone and Tyson, because they know talent. We don't!"
RRR and UR have some of my favorite bands signed to them, but the fact is they sign bands that will sell records that they can exploit for there own gain just as all companies do.
Also don't get so full of you're favorite little band there isn't "billions" of people who listen to them. I will say that the majority of the people who listen to them listen because other people in there "group" or people they look up to because they think it makes them cool. An I would take a bet that you're one of these people which is why you feel the need to defend the band so much without posting significant evidence to prove that they have talent.