Nirvana reunites with Paul McCartney in Kurt's role

[Nate DaMac]

Here's a recap:

Me: Nirvana is overrated and he sucks.
Everyone Else: FUCK YOU FUCK YOU AAAHHHHHH FUCK YOU FUCK YOU

Pretty much.

It was more like you saying a bunch of irrelevant nonsense, JGlass mopping the floor with you, Barbosa chiming in once in a while and classing up the place, and 4 or 5 other people posting unreadable garbage.

 

[D-Man]

It was more like you saying a bunch of irrelevant nonsense, JGlass mopping the floor with you, Barbosa chiming in once in a while and classing up the place, and 4 or 5 other people posting unreadable garbage.

Oh, yeah, SUUUURE. The floor was really "mopped" with me. Gee, I guess I should go hang my head in shame.

Man, you guys take this stuff too seriously. Like I already said, whatever blows your hair back.

Sorry I had to needle you, D-Man. I just had to join in with everyone else and I didn't feel like saying "FUCK YOU FUCK YOU AAAHHHHHH FUCK YOU FUCK YOU". You know what a **** I am for conformity on Internet message boards.

Of course, Sly.

 

[Alex]

It was more like you saying a bunch of irrelevant nonsense, JGlass mopping the floor with you, Barbosa chiming in once in a while and classing up the place, and 4 or 5 other people posting unreadable garbage.

Hey I posted readable garbage

 

[Natural Selection]

Hey I posted readable garbage

As did I.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Oh, yeah, SUUUURE. The floor was really "mopped" with me. Gee, I guess I should go hang my head in shame.

Man, you guys take this stuff too seriously. Like I already said, whatever blows your hair back..

You're the sole person who started the Nirvana Debate then you accused everyone else of jumping all over you. You incited it by exclusively trolling (yes, that's what trolling is) the first page of posts. You never even tried to make a real point until page 2 and then you made yourself look foolish.

It's no surprise that you act all nonchalant now. It's your go to move when you've been promptly stomped.

 

[Coco]

I'm not going to say one's opinion is any more or less valid because of their age but I think the point D-Man and Justin are trying to make is they have a different perspective because they lived through it. You can read all about something or even talk to others that lived through it and get all the facts but that's all you have. Just facts and statistics. You don't have the actual life experience or personal feelings and emotions. Again, I'm not saying that makes an opinion less valid you just don't have as much to form that opinion. I can read the same books and articles you can about a topic and we would get the exact same facts. However, I can tell you what it was like to be growing up during this time and you can not give me your perspective on that.

Crock, you can talk to your dad for hours about Malone and Stockton and that's great. You could have all the facts and stats memorized and be an expert on the subject. Your dad can tell you what it was like to go to those games and see them in their primes and you can imagine what it was like. Unfortunately that's all you can do is imagine. You can't absolutely know the feelings of excitement that your dad experienced. I could tell my son what how I felt watching Michael Jordan but he's not going to have the same appreciation. He'll never know what it was like to be in that building when you couldn't even hear his name announced. I could tell him how everyone used to get together to watch a Bulls game to see what MJ would do next but he won't know what it was like to actually be a part of it.

All I'm saying is people that actually lived though something have more on which they can base their opinion. It doesn't make anyone right or wrong as to how they feel about something but it's a perspective that someone that didn't live through it just simply can't have. It's easy to get defensive when someone seemingly brushes your opinion off because of your age but it would behoove you to actually take what that person is telling you into consideration. It's just another point of view like the other books and articles you have read.

Yeah, nothing makes a great, trustworthy point of view like emotional appeals and looking back through the rose-coloured glasses of nostalgia.

 

[jmt225]

Listen, I'm not saying bullshit like "I lived through the grunge era so I know everything and you know nothing." I'm saying I have a better understanding of it since I lived through it.

You guys get so damn extreme. I don't understand all the ********* about it all. What is difficult to understand? I lived during that era. I watched the news and spoke to my friends and heard their experiences that occurred during that time period. I listened to that music when it was the mainstream, cool, and hot thing to do. How can any of you put yourselves in my shoes with those points of view? It's impossible.

Now, when it comes to facts and figures and other people's published opinions, you can read about them all day. But you don't know from direct experience. So, once again, this isn't a pissing contest. It's just a fact that my experience with it is different than yours.

In what way has anything I've said come across as "*********" to you? You haven't seen me whine or flip out at you once in our little discussion.

And nothing in that post addressed what I actually said. Just because you and Justin are the two members here to actually be teenagers during that time doesn't mean there aren't other guys in their 30's who wouldn't be saying the same shit JGlass and I have been saying, except they're not here. I guess the majority of them out-grew pro wrestling if they were ever a fan to begin with, lol.

And I'm 27. My best friend's older brother when I was a kid was a HUGE Nirvana fan, so I was around to witness the craze he and a few of his friends had for them. I personally hated it all back then, though of course I was a little douchebag who loved Vanilla Ice and Billy Ray Cyrus. Hell I still have shit taste in music, but one thing I do know is that Nirvana was not overrated.

 

[Snitsky4GM]

I saw this thread yesterday and decided to just glance over it because I don't particularly care for Nirvana or Paul McCartney all that much. I did have one thought go through my head and that was that with Sir Paul being the head of the band maybe people will stop saying that Kurt Cobain is the greatest guitarist in the world.

This thread is now up to 19 pages after one day of arguing and this is the only thing that I can think of to sum up everything:

[YOUTUBE]FONN-0uoTHI[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Sly's fart wins.

 

[The Brain]

Yeah, nothing makes a great, trustworthy point of view like emotional appeals and looking back through the rose-coloured glasses of nostalgia.

You have a point. From now on I’m going to turn my emotions and personal feelings off. I’m going to ignore my own life experiences. They mean nothing compared to what I can read in a book or on line article because those are written by robots that never let personal feelings or experiences influence their thought process. I mean life is much better when you can read about it instead of live it, right?

What’s interesting is the people that lived through Nirvana’s rise to fame are the ones saying they are overrated. It’s the younger group that is glorifying them. That doesn’t really help your point of nostalgia and rose colored glasses pertaining to this discussion. Also, you may not have noticed but I never once expressed my feelings or opinions about Nirvana so I’m not wearing my rose colored glasses at the moment.

It’s obvious what’s happening here. D-Man says his perspective is different because of his age and experience. Others look at that as D-Man automatically saying their opinion is invalid. They get defensive and instead of opening their minds to the possibility that D-Man’s experience actually does provide a different point of view they nitpick everything being said to try to discredit him as if doing so would be some kind of victory for the younger crowd. D-Man is not completely innocent either. It reads as though he does dismiss a younger group’s opinion whether he means it that way or not. He can come off as a know-it-all, as we all can and do. You can have a perfectly valid opinion on a particular event even if you didn’t live through it. You simply don’t have the same perspective as someone that did. That is undeniable and there’s no reason to take that as an insult. I think D-Man needs to understand that just because he lived through something doesn’t mean everyone that didn’t has to agree with his opinion on it and the others might want to open their minds to an experienced point of view even if they don’t end up agreeing with it.

By the way Coco, I hope for your sake that you let your emotions and personal feelings influence your opinions on things in your life. It can be pretty boring otherwise. Don’t think you’re immune from feelings of nostalgia either. If you haven’t experienced it yet, you will. You don’t think you’re somehow above that do you?

 

[Stormtrooper]

So... Hey, did anyone actually SEE the performance this whole annoying shitty-ass debate was based on?



No? Didn't think so.

[YOUTUBE]624HfkMty_8[/YOUTUBE]

This whole fucking pathetic back and forth is just a bunch of "Nirvana is amazing how dare Paul McCartney play with 3 former members;" or "Nirvana sucks how dare the 3 remaining members play with Paul McCartney." Or even worse "Nirvana is amazing" or "Nirvana sucks." Guys, who the fuck cares, they have been retired for 20 years now, they're never putting new music out ever again. If you like Nirvana, then good for you, enjoy their music. If you don't, then good for you, don't enjoy their music. Nobody should care either way. Enjoying music is about personal taste, so why should we knock people for their tastes?



And I fail to see the problem with a legendary musician like McCartney (like him or not he's a legend) playing with a group of musicians that played in an important band 20 years ago (who haven't played together since). I mean really, it was Paul McCartney playing with Dave Grohl and friends (who happened to be guys that were in Nirvana). They played an original song, not something from either groups repertoire. It was not Nirvana fronted by Paul McCartney, or the other way around, so there's no fucking problem with it.

Just like Audioslave wasn't Rage Against The Machine fronted by Chris Cornell, the performance yesterday wasn't Nirvana fronted by Paul McCartney, it was a group of musicians who decided to work together and put together something that was actually pretty decent.

------------

The TL;DR version of this post: Shut up and enjoy whatever music you enjoy. Don't knock others for their taste, it's unimportant to you.

 

[Slash-LN]

So... Hey, did anyone actually SEE the performance this whole annoying shitty-ass debate was based on?



No? Didn't think so.

[YOUTUBE]624HfkMty_8[/YOUTUBE]

This whole fucking pathetic back and forth is just a bunch of "Nirvana is amazing how dare Paul McCartney play with 3 former members;" or "Nirvana sucks how dare the 3 remaining members play with Paul McCartney." Or even worse "Nirvana is amazing" or "Nirvana sucks." Guys, who the fuck cares, they have been retired for 20 years now, they're never putting new music out ever again. If you like Nirvana, then good for you, enjoy their music. If you don't, then good for you, don't enjoy their music. Nobody should care either way. Enjoying music is about personal taste, so why should we knock people for their tastes?



And I fail to see the problem with a legendary musician like McCartney (like him or not he's a legend) playing with a group of musicians that played in an important band 20 years ago (who haven't played together since). I mean really, it was Paul McCartney playing with Dave Grohl and friends (who happened to be guys that were in Nirvana). They played an original song, not something from either groups repertoire. It was not Nirvana fronted by Paul McCartney, or the other way around, so there's no fucking problem with it.

Just like Audioslave wasn't Rage Against The Machine fronted by Chris Cornell, the performance yesterday wasn't Nirvana fronted by Paul McCartney, it was a group of musicians who decided to work together and put together something that was actually pretty decent.

------------

The TL;DR version of this post: Shut up and enjoy whatever music you enjoy. Don't knock others for their taste, it's unimportant to you.

Actually they played together on the last Foo Fighters album.
I actually am enjoying the debate myself. It's more interesting than everyone saying let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Danger Burger]

That song was shit. Both Nirvana and the Beatles have destroyed their legacies.

And for what? A fucking hurricane. Worst day in music history.

 

[Stormtrooper]

That song was shit. Both Nirvana and the Beatles have destroyed their legacies.

And for what? A fucking hurricane. Worst day in music history.

Again, how did they destroy their legacies? This was neither Nirvana or The Beatles. Did the Foo Fighters destroy Nirvana's legacy? No. Did Wings ruin the Beatles legacy? No. Neither will this.

Actually, they jammed together and did the song 6 months ago, long before the hurricane. They just decided to play it at the biggest concert in the past 20 years.

[YOUTUBE]s3gwYFOFGU8[/YOUTUBE]

 

[The Brain]

I think Mack was being sarcastic.

 

[Stormtrooper]

I think Mack was being sarcastic.

No he wasn't, at least not he first half. And how the fuck can you tell that? He said it was shit (OK that's a matter of taste) and they destroyed their legacies (clearly not at all as destroying the legacies would take exponentially more then a benefit concert). "And for what, a hurricane" wasn't sarcasm at all, and I explained that they didn't get together for a hurricane, they got together because they wanted to 6 months ago.

Sure, "worst day in music history" is probably sarcasm, but the first half, which is what I responded to, was no clear sarcasm what so ever.

 

[JGlass]

No he wasn't, at least not he first half. And how the fuck can you tell that? He said it was shit (OK that's a matter of taste) and they destroyed their legacies (clearly not at all as destroying the legacies would take exponentially more then a benefit concert). "And for what, a hurricane" wasn't sarcasm at all, and I explained that they didn't get together for a hurricane, they got together because they wanted to 6 months ago.

Sure, "worst day in music history" is probably sarcasm, but the first half, which is what I responded to, was no clear sarcasm what so ever.

I'm pretty sure his tongue was firmly planted in his cheek throughout the statement, that's sort of his style. If he actually meant it then it's obviously stupid, but I'd be willing to bet that he was intentionally being ridiculous.

 

[Slash-LN]

No he wasn't, at least not he first half. And how the fuck can you tell that? He said it was shit (OK that's a matter of taste) and they destroyed their legacies (clearly not at all as destroying the legacies would take exponentially more then a benefit concert). "And for what, a hurricane" wasn't sarcasm at all, and I explained that they didn't get together for a hurricane, they got together because they wanted to 6 months ago.

Sure, "worst day in music history" is probably sarcasm, but the first half, which is what I responded to, was no clear sarcasm what so ever.

I'm pretty sure he was making fun of us that have been debating in this thread. He has been neutral the whole time.

 

[The Crock]

Leave it to Stormtrooper to take a sarcastic statement to heart and write a diatribe on it.

 

[The Brain]

No he wasn't, at least not he first half. And how the fuck can you tell that? He said it was shit (OK that's a matter of taste) and they destroyed their legacies (clearly not at all as destroying the legacies would take exponentially more then a benefit concert). "And for what, a hurricane" wasn't sarcasm at all, and I explained that they didn't get together for a hurricane, they got together because they wanted to 6 months ago.

Sure, "worst day in music history" is probably sarcasm, but the first half, which is what I responded to, was no clear sarcasm what so ever.

The comment about them destroying their legacies was so ridiculous I just assumed it was sarcasm. I don't know for sure but that's how I read it.

 

[Nate DaMac]

It was. Mack's not an idiot.

 

[Coco]

You have a point. From now on I’m going to turn my emotions and personal feelings off. I’m going to ignore my own life experiences. They mean nothing compared to what I can read in a book or on line article because those are written by robots that never let personal feelings or experiences influence their thought process. I mean life is much better when you can read about it instead of live it, right?

Emotion and feelings have their place. But when someone is going to try and pretend that their perspective on a matter carries more weight than mine, I want a case that's a little more solid than "I lived through it, so you couldn't possibly understand it like I do!" I'm not a robot. I feel things very strongly. But I don't argue from that place. It's poor form.

What’s interesting is the people that lived through Nirvana’s rise to fame are the ones saying they are overrated. It’s the younger group that is glorifying them. That doesn’t really help your point of nostalgia and rose colored glasses pertaining to this discussion. Also, you may not have noticed but I never once expressed my feelings or opinions about Nirvana so I’m not wearing my rose colored glasses at the moment.

I haven't said a thing about Nirvana either. I couldn't give less of a fuck about them. This is about the "I lived through it!" guys putting their perspective on a pedestal.

It’s obvious what’s happening here. D-Man says his perspective is different because of his age and experience. Others look at that as D-Man automatically saying their opinion is invalid.

Correct. D-Man's attitude and demeanour have valued his experience and "wisdom" above all else.

They get defensive and instead of opening their minds to the possibility that D-Man’s experience actually does provide a different point of view they nitpick everything being said to try to discredit him as if doing so would be some kind of victory for the younger crowd.

D-Man's point of view is different. That doesn't make it as valuable as he'd like to think it is.

And I don't think proving that is a victory for the younger crowd. It just knocks some of you old farts down a peg or two. Something which you frankly deserve considering how some of you carry yourselves around here.

D-Man is not completely innocent either. It reads as though he does dismiss a younger group’s opinion whether he means it that way or not.

Good. We both see it. Glad we're on the same page.

You can have a perfectly valid opinion on a particular event even if you didn’t live through it. You simply don’t have the same perspective as someone that did.

It's a shame D-Man has trouble saying THIS in an amicable way.

By the way Coco, I hope for your sake that you let your emotions and personal feelings influence your opinions on things in your life. It can be pretty boring otherwise. Don’t think you’re immune from feelings of nostalgia either. If you haven’t experienced it yet, you will. You don’t think you’re somehow above that do you?

Nope. I feel strongly, love hard, and get more enjoyment out of life than 95% of the people you'll ever meet. I'm no robot. But if I wanted to discredit somebody else, I'd definitely avoid bringing those feelings into it.

 

[Stormtrooper]

Leave it to Stormtrooper to take a sarcastic statement to heart and write a diatribe on it.

What sarcastic comment? None was made. One person made a stupid remark that had no clarity as to whether it was sarcastic or not.

The comment about them destroying their legacies was so ridiculous I just assumed it was sarcasm. I don't know for sure but that's how I read it.

Oh it was so ridiculous no doubt, but there are so many fucking dumbasses in this place (hell, in this thread alone, too) that it is impossible to assume sarcasm. You will undoubtedly be wrong.

Besides, it's plain old text. No way to determine sarcasm. No indicator of sarcasm.

 

[Nate DaMac]

What sarcastic comment? None was made. One person made a stupid remark that had no clarity as to whether it was sarcastic or not.


Oh it was so ridiculous no doubt, but there are so many fucking dumbasses in this place (hell, in this thread alone, too) that it is impossible to assume sarcasm. You will undoubtedly be wrong.

Besides, it's plain old text. No way to determine sarcasm. No indicator of sarcasm.

He made fun of a Hurricane. Who legitimately hates Hurricane victims? Pretty good indicator right there.

 

[dman1373]

i like turtles