Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Bands that should and shouldn’t be here
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedBands that should and shouldn’t be here

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Poll Question: What bands should/shouldn’t be here?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
9 [4.59%]
7 [3.57%]
37 [18.88%]
2 [1.02%]
64 [32.65%]
10 [5.10%]
16 [8.16%]
2 [1.02%]
2 [1.02%]
47 [23.98%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
gdub411 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 24 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3484
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 19 2004 at 19:34
Originally posted by Nizzy Nizzy wrote:

gdub - well, when you put it like that...!

 OK, agreed mate. I just hate the idea that you need a cape and a degree in Dungeons & Dragons to be a prog band.

 Re Genesis, I was thinking more Lamb to Abacab. Now that's progress (if not PROGress).

 What about the Femmes - is Gano still rockin'?

How did you know about my cape and degree in D&D?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Thanks for your welcome.



Edited by gdub411
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 20 2004 at 03:47
Originally posted by Reed Lover Reed Lover wrote:

I cannot agree that Radiohead are prog. They are a very good band who do experiment, but do not try to push the boundaries with their musicianship and instrumentation.Nor are they symphonic.

I disagree - they DO push the boundaries with muscianship AND instrumentation!!! Do a bit more research!

OK Computer is quite symphonic in places - quite Barclay James Harvest-like, I feel,  but there are hundreds of prog bands that aren't symphonic, so this is a null argument!

To my mind, if Radiohead are prog then so too are U2, which is patently ridiculous.U2 constantly evolve their sound and experiment with different influences, but this does not make them progressive rock.

No, the two bands could not be more dissimilar. There is a difference between bands that experiment within a format, and bands that push the envelope and develop their own sound. U2 are in the former category and Radiohead are in the latter.

They are both blinding rock bands and difficult to pigeonhole.To me Rush (my favourite group) have not really been Prog Rock since Moving Pictures either. I would put them in the same ballpark as U2 and Radiohead.

Yes it's difficult to pigeonhole some bands, but I would never put U2 and Radiohead into the same ballpark. I can't think of a single U2 song that doesn't have a simple verse/chorus rock-song structure.

Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 20 2004 at 04:08

Bands like "Dream theatre" are not prog: really too binary and basic to deserve

the term "prog"

It's prog, compared to the nowadays sh*tty mainstream...

sorry for Dream theatre fans...

Back to Top
Lunarscape View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 19 2004
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 374
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 20 2004 at 08:31

Originally posted by frenchie frenchie wrote:

i am strongly opossed to radiohead being on here. even tho i love them loads i just dont think they qualify as prog. they have many prog elements but not enough to make them a prog band.

Couldnt agree more. No link between Prog Rock and Radiohead. In fact Radiohead is a poor cusin to Portishead.

Smashing Pumpkins shouldnt be here eigther.

__________

Lunar

Music Is The Soul Bird That Flies In The Immense Heart Of The Listener . . .
Back to Top
Reed Lover View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 16 2004
Location: Sao Tome and Pr
Status: Offline
Points: 5187
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 20 2004 at 10:33
Originally posted by Certif1ed Certif1ed wrote:

Originally posted by Reed Lover Reed Lover wrote:

I cannot agree that Radiohead are prog. They are a very good band who do experiment, but do not try to push the boundaries with their musicianship and instrumentation.Nor are they symphonic.

I disagree - they DO push the boundaries with muscianship AND instrumentation!!! Do a bit more research!

OK Computer is quite symphonic in places - quite Barclay James Harvest-like, I feel,  but there are hundreds of prog bands that aren't symphonic, so this is a null argument!

To my mind, if Radiohead are prog then so too are U2, which is patently ridiculous.U2 constantly evolve their sound and experiment with different influences, but this does not make them progressive rock.

No, the two bands could not be more dissimilar. There is a difference between bands that experiment within a format, and bands that push the envelope and develop their own sound. U2 are in the former category and Radiohead are in the latter.

They are both blinding rock bands and difficult to pigeonhole.To me Rush (my favourite group) have not really been Prog Rock since Moving Pictures either. I would put them in the same ballpark as U2 and Radiohead.

Yes it's difficult to pigeonhole some bands, but I would never put U2 and Radiohead into the same ballpark. I can't think of a single U2 song that doesn't have a simple verse/chorus rock-song structure.

I disagree - they DO push the boundaries with muscianship AND instrumentation!!!

OPINION dear boy! Leaving the final statement:

Do a bit more research!

Uncalled for!Ouch

I own all their albums but IN MY OPINION they do none of the things you claim for them.U2 are far more adventurous and take risks too.Although overall I prefer Radiohead.

 

Wink




Back to Top
Reed Lover View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 16 2004
Location: Sao Tome and Pr
Status: Offline
Points: 5187
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 20 2004 at 10:36

And no,I am not trolling and yes I do understand/have comitted to memory the civility thread.

And yes, I have had a bad day at the office!Cry




Back to Top
sigod View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 17 2004
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 20 2004 at 11:22

Prog's greatest asset is also it's Achilles heel in that to be a progressive band you have to do exactly that; progress. If it's in your nature to push the boundaries and look for new sounds/arrangements/melodies then there is always a danger that you will outgrow your roots.

For some that has given us some terrific bands (YES, King Crimson, Mars Volta, Spock's Beard, Flower Kings, etc) for others it has spelled their doom (err...that'll be Genesis then  )

It would be incredibly hard to DEFINE what a prog band is (many have tried) but I'm sure most people would agree that they'd know it when they hear it. 

By the way, ABBA is NOT prog.

 

 

I must remind the right honourable gentleman that a monologue is not a decision.
- Clement Atlee, on Winston Churchill
Back to Top
Dan Bobrowski View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 02 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5243
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 20 2004 at 11:25

The issue of who belongs and who doesn't is in the hands of the Admin Group.

Us forum members need to layout the supporting facts on why a band should be included. The fact that anyone believes a band should not be in the archive isn't really at issue. Maani made a great arguement for the inclusion of the Church, quite well I might add, and they were added. That is our part of the scheme. Find a band that you think fits the criteria of the archive and put forth the evidence to gain admittance.

Golly good debate, wot?

Back to Top
sigod View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 17 2004
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 20 2004 at 11:29
Originally posted by danbo danbo wrote:

 That is our part of the scheme. Find a band that you think fits the criteria of the archive and put forth the evidence to gain admittance.

Golly good debate, wot?

Too true danbo, some odd, time signatures, a mellotron and a dodgy haircut do NOT, a prog band make

I must remind the right honourable gentleman that a monologue is not a decision.
- Clement Atlee, on Winston Churchill
Back to Top
Scratchy View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 16 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 110
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 20 2004 at 22:01

1st  David Bowie 60s-00s Rock
1st  Captain Beefheart 60s-80s Rock
1st  Electric Light Orchestra 70s-00s Rock
1st  Peter Gabriel 70s-00s Rock
1st  The Move 60s, 70s Rock
1st  Queen 70s-90s Rock
1st  Roxy Music 70s, 80s Rock
1st  Todd Rundgren 70s-00s Rock
1st  Rush 70s-00s Rock
1st  Frank Zappa 60s-90s Rock
2nd  Ambrosia 70s-90s Rock
2nd   Area 70s Rock
2nd  Argent 60s, 70s Rock
2nd  Asia 80s-00s Rock
2nd  Brian Eno 70s-00s Rock
2nd  Merrell Fankhauser 60s-00s Rock
2nd  Bryan Ferry 70s-00s Rock
2nd  FM 70s-00s Rock
2nd  Japan 70s, 80s Rock
2nd  Jon & Vangelis 70s-90s Electronica
2nd   Judas Jump 70s Rock
2nd  Phil Manzanera 70s-00s Rock
2nd  Procol Harum 60s-00s Rock
2nd   Samson 60s, 70s Rock
2nd  Spirit 60s-90s Rock
2nd  Styx 70s-00s Rock
2nd  Supertramp 70s-00s Rock
2nd  David Sylvian 80s-00s Rock
2nd  10cc 70s-00s Rock
2nd  Trapeze 70s-90s Rock
2nd  Wishbone Ash 70s-00s Rock
2nd  Roy Wood 60s-00s Rock
3rd   Albatross 70s Rock
3rd   Albion 90s, 00s Rock
3rd  Jon Anderson 70s-00s Rock
3rd  Brian Auger 60s-00s Rock
3rd  Babe Ruth 70s Rock
3rd  Ginger Baker 70s-00s Rock
3rd  Syd Barrett 60s, 70s Rock
3rd  Be Bop Deluxe 70s, 80s Rock
3rd   Tim Blake 70s-00s Rock
3rd  Brand X 70s-90s Rock
3rd  Jack Bruce 60s-00s Rock
3rd  Kate Bush
3rd  John Cale 60s-00s Rock
3rd  Eugene Chadbourne 70s-00s  
3rd   Roger Chapman 70s-00s Rock
3rd   China Crisis 80s-00s Rock
3rd   Cosmos Factory 70s Rock
3rd  Holger Czukay 60s-00s Rock
3rd  Chris de Burgh 70s-00s Rock
3rd   Deus Ex Machina 90s, 00s Rock
3rd   Graeme Edge 70s Rock
3rd   Electric Frankenstein 70s Rock
3rd   Elixir 80s, 90s Rock
3rd  Rik Emmett 90s, 00s Rock
3rd  Roger Eno 80s-00s Electronica
3rd   The Falling Leaves 00s Rock
3rd   Merrell Fankhauser & H.M.S. Bounty 60s Rock
3rd  Godley & Creme 70s, 80s Rock
3rd  The Groundhogs 60s-90s Rock
3rd  Guru Guru 70s-00s Rock
3rd  Happy the Man 70s, 80s Rock
3rd   Heldon 70s-90s Electronica
3rd  Hugh Hopper 70s-00s Jazz
3rd   The Idle Race 60s, 70s Rock
3rd   Illusion 70s Rock
3rd  It's a Beautiful Day 60s, 70s Rock
3rd  Henry Kaiser 70s-00s Rock
3rd   Dietrich Kammer 00s Rock
3rd  King's X 80s-00s Rock
3rd   La Dusseldorf 70s, 80s Electronica
3rd  Lindisfarne 60s-00s Rock
3rd  Love Sculpture 60s, 70s Rock
3rd   Magnum 70s-90s Rock
3rd  Mark-Almond 60s, 70s Rock
3rd  Material 80s, 90s Rock
3rd   Merlons 90s, 00s Rock
3rd   Normann Mertig 00s Rock
3rd   Felix Mühle 00s Rock
3rd  Nico 60s-80s Rock
3rd   No-Man 90s, 00s Rock
3rd  The Penguin Cafe Orchestra 70s-90s New Age
3rd  Porcupine Tree 90s, 00s Rock
3rd  The Pretty Things 60s-00s Rock
3rd   Pulnoc 90s Rock
3rd   Purple Gang 60s Rock
3rd   Rare Bird 60s, 70s, 90s Rock
3rd   Karsten Rasim 00s Rock
3rd  The Red Krayola 60s-00s Rock
3rd   Salty Dog 90s Rock
3rd   Savage Grace 70s Rock
3rd  Savage Rose 60s-90s Rock
3rd   Maria Schumann 00s Rock
3rd   Steamhammer 60s, 70s Rock
3rd  Al Stewart 60s-00s Rock
3rd  Andy Summers 60s-00s Jazz
3rd  Synergy 70s-00s Electronica
3rd   Keith Tippett 60s-00s Jazz
3rd  Triumph 70s-90s Rock
3rd  Nik Turner 70s-00s Electronica
3rd   Unicorn 70s Rock
3rd   Village 60s, 70s Rock
3rd   Tony Visconti 70s Rock
3rd  We All Together 70s Rock
3rd  Yello 80s-00s Electronica
3rd  Yellow Magic Orchestra 70s-90s Electronica

Taken from AMG Top Artist's Prog Rock/Art Rock - you've got to laugh at some of them.Only taken the ones that are questionable or very questionable(some I wouldn't know) 1st/2nd/3rd is what rating group they think they belong in.

Back to Top
Nizzy View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: October 18 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 51
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 20 2004 at 22:20
The Grateful Dead are one of my favourite bands, but have never thought of them as prog. Does anyone disagree?
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 21 2004 at 03:41
Originally posted by Reed Lover Reed Lover wrote:

I disagree - they DO push the boundaries with muscianship AND instrumentation!!!

OPINION dear boy! Leaving the final statement:

No - that is not opinion, it is fact!!!!! Don't confuse the two things!

If you like their music, as you say you do, you'll have noticed how they use many non-conventional instruments and retro synthesisers - especially on Kid A, and the experimental approach they have to the music backs up the musicianship side.  Note their constant avoidance of the obvious in terms of chord progressions and song structures. U2 do not share this, hence my distinction between the two.

Do a bit more research!

Uncalled for!Ouch

Not at all - if you listened carefully (ie researched) then you would understand the facts as I present them. I will resist the temptation to go through a detailled analysis - I am very good at stripping music down to its components and analysing it, but it bores most non-technical people and upsets others who seem to confuse academic, technical debate with a flame war. Worn that cap too often

I own all their albums but IN MY OPINION they do none of the things you claim for them.U2 are far more adventurous and take risks too.Although overall I prefer Radiohead.

I'm steering clear of opinions, and sticking to facts. The problem with opinions is, as you point out so subtley, they are like arseholes - everyone has one, and I'm damned sure I don't want to see yours! Also understand that owning and listening to albums are two different things

Please note that I am merely correcting your false assumption that I somehow gave an opinion earlier. This is not the case. I am not trying to start a flame war, or present a case for why Radiohead or anyone else should be in the archives - that is a matter for the webadmins and another thread.

Wink



Edited by Certif1ed
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 21 2004 at 06:33

Originally posted by Nizzy Nizzy wrote:

The Grateful Dead are one of my favourite bands, but have never thought of them as prog. Does anyone disagree?

In my opinion, they can be considered as prog, in the way it's virtuose, complex,

long pieces, like the good allman and santana period.

 

 

Back to Top
Reed Lover View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 16 2004
Location: Sao Tome and Pr
Status: Offline
Points: 5187
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 21 2004 at 07:30
Originally posted by Certif1ed Certif1ed wrote:

Originally posted by Reed Lover Reed Lover wrote:

I disagree - they DO push the boundaries with muscianship AND instrumentation!!!

OPINION dear boy! Leaving the final statement:

No - that is not opinion, it is fact!!!!! Don't confuse the two things!

If you like their music, as you say you do, you'll have noticed how they use many non-conventional instruments and retro synthesisers - especially on Kid A, and the experimental approach they have to the music backs up the musicianship side.  Note their constant avoidance of the obvious in terms of chord progressions and song structures. U2 do not share this, hence my distinction between the two.

Do a bit more research!

Uncalled for!Ouch

Not at all - if you listened carefully (ie researched) then you would understand the facts as I present them. I will resist the temptation to go through a detailled analysis - I am very good at stripping music down to its components and analysing it, but it bores most non-technical people and upsets others who seem to confuse academic, technical debate with a flame war. Worn that cap too often

I own all their albums but IN MY OPINION they do none of the things you claim for them.U2 are far more adventurous and take risks too.Although overall I prefer Radiohead.

I'm steering clear of opinions, and sticking to facts. The problem with opinions is, as you point out so subtley, they are like arseholes - everyone has one, and I'm damned sure I don't want to see yours! Also understand that owning and listening to albums are two different things

Please note that I am merely correcting your false assumption that I somehow gave an opinion earlier. This is not the case. I am not trying to start a flame war, or present a case for why Radiohead or anyone else should be in the archives - that is a matter for the webadmins and another thread.

Wink

Sorry, I just forgot to consult my "Certifiable Big Book Of Facts"Ouch

By the way, make sure you dont get your ears full of water the next time you have colonic irrigationWinkWink

Out the way Greg this has to be done properly.

 

Peace now,I dont know what I've done to you but well you know   ??????



Edited by Reed Lover



Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 22 2004 at 07:52

OK - no probs. Next time I have colonic irrigation I'll make sure the plumbings done properly... thanks 

As I said - my intention is not to flame, but to debate; you disputed a point I made and alleged that I was merely stating opinion. I stated my point of view to the contrary and you seem to see it as a flame war. This seems to be very common around here - maybe I need to brush up on my debating skills 

Maybe it's just me, but I think that debate is healthy - and when on a forum about music, what better stuff to debate than music itself? Yes, it's hard (no, not that... oh. Hang on...), but then prog is hard to listen to - or we wouldn't enjoy it, right?

I'm not using capitals to shout, or funny icons to poke fun or ridicule - when I discuss music, I give it respect. Especially Mariah (we are not worthy...). I just want to get past apparently banal, flat opinions and get to the reasoning behind them. Is that so bad on an intelligent discussions forum?

If so, bad Cert

No hard feelings - it's very clear that the root is a simple communications issue.

Back to Top
Lunarscape View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 19 2004
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 374
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 22 2004 at 08:00
This wil narrow down the issue to "Whoever writes and performs a piece of music longer than 5 minutes with more than 2 movements and a guitar solo will reach the hall of fame of Prog Rock" ! Well, Jimi Hendrix should DEFINITLY be here then, together with Albert King !
Music Is The Soul Bird That Flies In The Immense Heart Of The Listener . . .
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 22 2004 at 08:29

I wonder who was the person that coined the term 'Progressive rock' ?? To what band was the label first applied??

My gut feeling is that Radiohead and Muse could qualify for a place in the archives, by the skin of their teeth. I believe they represent prog as it is now, what it has PROGRESSED to!! Ok, so they are not flying around the fretboards, key boards and drums at the speed of sound. They dont obviously dig far out jazz, or pay homage to classical composers. They dont play everything in 7/4 time, but did Floyd?? Did VDGG Did King Crimson?? Did Hawkwind?? No. The criteria for prog is more flexible than we sometimes allow, IMO. What makes the aforementioned old bands prog is their attititude to their music writing. The moods, atmospheres, concepts and the sticking two fingers up at the verse chorus verse chorus formula. Radiohead and Muse share many of these qualities, and should be accepted as modern prog. Rick Wakemen seems to agree. One old progger embracing the new.

Now, as for ELO NO WAY. They were rock 'n' roll when they were just ok, they 'progressed' into pop, they are barely worth a mention. Someone mentioned U2. I dont think so; rock band with a punk/new wave origin. Smashing Pumpkins, great band with a few proggy leanings but not as much as Radiohead and Muse, and not really enough to be considered.

Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Back to Top
Dick Heath View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Jazz-Rock Specialist

Joined: April 19 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 12815
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 22 2004 at 10:18
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

 

Now, as for ELO NO WAY. They were rock 'n' roll when they were just ok, they 'progressed' into pop, they are barely worth a mention.

 

I'm reminded that ELO came about because ELO founder Roy Wood stated he wanted to mine that vein the Beatles passed through, say with Eleanor Rigby and Walrus, with strings and things - and he couldn't do it with the Move. Not really what the early prog bands were about - picking the bones clean of a beast killed by some other animal.

Back to Top
Reed Lover View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 16 2004
Location: Sao Tome and Pr
Status: Offline
Points: 5187
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 22 2004 at 14:52
Originally posted by Certif1ed Certif1ed wrote:

OK - no probs. Next time I have colonic irrigation I'll make sure the plumbings done properly... thanks 

As I said - my intention is not to flame, but to debate; you disputed a point I made and alleged that I was merely stating opinion. I stated my point of view to the contrary and you seem to see it as a flame war. This seems to be very common around here - maybe I need to brush up on my debating skills 

Maybe it's just me, but I think that debate is healthy - and when on a forum about music, what better stuff to debate than music itself? Yes, it's hard (no, not that... oh. Hang on...), but then prog is hard to listen to - or we wouldn't enjoy it, right?

I'm not using capitals to shout, or funny icons to poke fun or ridicule - when I discuss music, I give it respect. Especially Mariah (we are not worthy...). I just want to get past apparently banal, flat opinions and get to the reasoning behind them. Is that so bad on an intelligent discussions forum?

If so, bad Cert

No hard feelings - it's very clear that the root is a simple communications issue.

One tries to do the right thing ie use emoticons to take the fire out of situations and whilst you find my latest preoccupation childish, or overdone at best,that is your perogative.

The trouble is that whenever one uses humour in "tense" situations everyone else seems to lose their sense of humour.The fireman smiley was a double-entendre for putting out the flames but also colonic irrigation (oh how we laughed!-NOT!) which was apt given my post.

I fail to understand-you might wish to educate me- how you can opine that a certain band pushes the limits of anything (even patience) and make that a statement of fact.They might be a little more thoughtful than your average Indie band but avant-garde they aint. I stated that I thought they liked to experiment but I feel this is as far as they go.I dont present this as fact but opinion.

I feel it is sometimes too easy for certain individuals to confuse heated debate with confrontation.I understand this is quite often the "nature of the beast" with forums as you cant see the person who is posting and read their body language.Whenever you have a group of people who are passionate about a subject, whether it be Films. Football or Music, discussing the merits and demerits of their favourites there is inevitable raised voices, hoots of derision and a large chunk of momentary disrespect. Then the next topic comes up it's all forgotten and lfe moves on-until the same topic is raised again.

Getting a pompous blast of air from someone (who isnt a member of the band) who feels their opinion on Radiohead or who/whatever is the word of God is fine by me.I enjoy the "banter".What I do mind is the constant insinuation that "persons who shall go unnamed" are  ridiculing,or underminding (or whatever other paranoid nonsense), the more "erudite" forum members. Get a life for Goddssake! I use smileys,large script and different colours to brighten up the page. If I use capitals I AM NOT SHOUTING. This is supposed to be fun! I have never knowingly disrespected someones opinion. If making a silly comment undermines or troubles certain individuals then they should go and lie down until the feeling subdsides.

As I tried to say I dont like to take life too seriously-I am happy for people to make jokes at my expense. But do not bloody well insult my intelligence. I refuse to censor everything I write before posting, I do not believe that a mere music forum warrants this.I think that anyone who spends any longer than a few seconds considering their posts should get out to the pub and join in some "real-life" debate.This is something I enjoy and I aint watching my back any longer.



Edited by Reed Lover



Back to Top
Reed Lover View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 16 2004
Location: Sao Tome and Pr
Status: Offline
Points: 5187
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 23 2004 at 16:36
Ok no more soap box stuff!



Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.100 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.