What Are You Listening To? Febus Mark V

^ Loving it Slarti

King By-Tor wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: Good to see you're listening to the real thing. Rock on. Oh buzz off. This is the first time I've listened ti Crimson in a couple of years and y'know why? I find them boring 9/10 times. I'd rather listen to Tool or Mars Volta or Devin Townsend - something with energy and an edge.

Now you're just lying to yourself and everyone on the boards.  Trying to look hip? Silly, the only way is the pre-89 way.

TheGazzardian wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: The outfit playing in the 1981 recording is Discipline, not King Crimson. I had to resort to anachronisms because some hateful thieves of the present day decided to inflict this violence upon KC. I don't use iTunes, and I don't care about other people's lack of standards when it comes to music. What really grinds my gears is when the fools that pretend to make "music" today do so by pilfering from the legacy of real artists. Say "NO!" to new music. Oh Walter, you're so funny. I've tried to figure out your whole post-89 phobia and I can't. Even though I was once similar (when I was into exclusively classic rock, I used to think it had something "special" that modern music lacked. But then I listened to modern music and got confused because nothing was lacking!) I just can't make sense of it. xD I mean, your conditions are so explicit too. It's '89 or nothing. But what about a band that started recording in '85 but it took them five years to get their album out? Do they have as much props as a band that recorded an album in the last month of '89 and released it before the end of the month, or are they still out?  What about a band that released their first album on  December 31, '89? Are they more valid than a band that released their first on January 1st, '90? What changed that made the new bands suck? Is it the pop culture that they were raised with? Let's say most bands start at 20-something. That would mean that the pop culture from '70-'90 must have sucked, because the people who grew up with that pop culture can't make original music anymore. But that's the period that you claim to love. And if the pop culture is the problem, what about bands started by 40-somethings?  No - I just don't understand you, Walter. And I think I've given it way too much thought. xD

If you don't record in the 80s, you're entering the recording era with a post-89 album plagued by post-89 production techniques, post-89 tendencies and post-89 currents of thought. Tainted and forever inimical to the pre-89 age, it is a career that has no merit.

As for those artists that did manage to record in the golden age, well, their godlike genius is what keeps music alive and I heartily salute them for their contributions to culture

WalterDigsTunes wrote: King By-Tor wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: Good to see you're listening to the real thing. Rock on. Oh buzz off. This is the first time I've listened ti Crimson in a couple of years and y'know why? I find them boring 9/10 times. I'd rather listen to Tool or Mars Volta or Devin Townsend - something with energy and an edge. Now you're just lying to yourself and everyone on the boards.  Trying to look hip? Silly, the only way is the pre-89 way.

if you say so...

 

Great versions of Neil Young's ,Southern Man and Procul Harum's.Whiter Shade of Pale. This rocks as much as it disco's.  

Before:

Rivertree wrote:   one of the finest space rock albums ever ...