[Everyneurotic]

Originally Posted by jetengine

Does anyone participating in this forum have anything positive, non-paradoxical or demonstratively intelligent to say? I'm beginning to get the feeling that this is not a thinking person's stop on the internet--nor is it a place for true fans of Sonic Youth;

you aree right, we're all stupid, can't string two words together and we only listen to kool thing

but rather just a place where a few people with low self-esteems, chips on their shoulders the size of menhirs, and pathetic deficits in talent and original thought get together to incite disharmony (for all the wrong reasons) and compensate for their shortcomings by castigating those whom they secretly perceive of as their "intellectual superiors."

hahahahahahahahahahaha, fuck man, more like comedic superiors...by the way, can you be any more pretentious?

It's not quite as laughably moronic as some of the other forums out there (a la "Rate Your Music", where responses exceeding 3 words might get you labelled a "show-off Ph.D. candidate"), but sometimes it appears to be on the verge.

we try our best.

now, you say we're not as smart or as loyal sy fans because we don't want to label ourselves into a dumb name like "deadheads". i rather think that sy fans are thinking individuals who can appreciate various aspects from the band without turning into a dumb mass of people, like the deadheads who are just into being a seemless mass of identical beings herded into a stable (grateful dead concerts), smoke pot and be retarded while listening to 3 or four hours of talentless solos that most sound hypergroovy while being wasted. is it more "intellectual" to listen to someone jack off for half an hour with scales while being amongst a sea of people who dress, act and talk the same or to be a person who enjoys the music of a band and can have different opinions and likes from other fans?

Having said that, I think King_Buzzo is quite possibly right: Mudhoney probably was--and continues to be--the best of the "classic grunge" bands.(Time flies, doesn't it? When I was attending university in the early 90's, I thought "classic punk" sounded kind of idiosyncratic and anachronistic or premature.) I think they defined grunge musically, lyrically, visually and ideologically more so than any other group to come out of that era.

sorry to break it to you, but a) classic grunge, for there to be classic grunge there needs to be contemporary grunge, who the hell is playing contemporary grunge? and tell me, who of these bands that conform the "classic grunge" contingent actually call themselves grunge as in a style of music?

and b) mudhoney suck and have sucked for the most part of their "career", if you look at it, their legacy is just one song, after that, they did have some sparks of brilliance but ever since the mid-90's they've been repeating the same riff and the same songs while blanding their execution, or are you going to tell me that whatever song from their last album has the aggression and excitement of touch me i'm sick or even suck you dry?

of course, critics don't suck off to soundgarden and alice in chains the way they do to mudhoney, so they most not be that good, uh?

and let's see that definition of grunge according to mudhoney you mentioned:

-musically: ripping off stooges riffs.
-lyrically: singing about dogs and being sick.
-visually: flannel shirts, ripped jeans, long hair...gee, didn't all bands from seattle before and around their time dress like that too?
-ideologically: what's mudhoney ideology? getting wasted? it worked very well on kurt cobain.

here's your intellectual discussion.