peanut gallery: bride of the peanut gallery

[BlueScarab]

I love spirit science

This is obviously satire

He has 2200+ posts, most of them look to be about it. Nice detective skills.

[funzop]

i wrote a big response to that thing rtil posted/ taylor but then i forgot to post it so i will just you know yeah  

[retrosmash]

no wrong asshole post it i dare U

[put]

I love spirit science

This is obviously satire

He has 2200+ posts, most of them look to be about it. Nice detective skills.

Oh man, I didnt even see that.
hahaha, this guy man this guy

[funzop]

alright then: big gay opinion SKIP THIS PART SCROLL DOWN

i dont think that image is nearly as bad as you all make it out to be. theres tons of youtube comment things passed around which are much worse, labeling limp bizkit/ icp/ linkin park as real music while shitting on justin bieber which are all twice as depressing/ hilarious as that.

this person isnt even "nostalgic"; it says at the top that they wish they were born in the 90s, which implies they never experienced it so they really dunno shit about it. also as silly it is to glorify a lot of those things listed, when they really arent true at parts (a time when the youth werent completely fascinated by popularity and sex? come on now) it isnt unreasonable to glorify a time when popular music that was easily accessible and wildly popular but also resonated with kids on an emotional level.

i mean i like a lot of music from the 90's but whoever wrote that is an idiot. Punks being the "cool kids" is the exact opposite of what punk rock is supposed to be about - it wasn't about being cool. punk turned into a fashion in the 90's and that's why people say "punk is dead". or at least that's part of the reason.

punk goes in and out of fashion, it happened with the pistols in the 70s, and it happened with nirvana in the 90s. the fame that both those groups found were used as gateways by record companies to sign other bands of a similar style, as that style become commercially viable through them.

the whole "punk is a secret cool kids club and cannot be liked by anyone/ if you make a living off your music you are a sellout piece of shit" mindset is the worst part of punk imo and its its a really immature way way to think. if a punk band gets big off of their own music without changing their sound in attempt to dumb down their music for mass consumption, then thats fucking rad! when a band like green day or blink (i dunno who the fuck new found glory are) get big off of their own sound (or more the descendents sound in blinks case heh) then it means that more people are appreciating that sound, and while neither band are punk-as-fuck-DIY-straight-edge-HXC-true-shit bands, they both started as punk bands on independent labels and got the chance to sign to a major, without really changing their sound (in fact green day got punker on their first few major label records). this means that if a fan of either band bothered to do a bit of research, then it opens up a connection to that bands that ARE more unknown, which exposes that music to an audience that would never have heard it otherwise.

ok yeah but

START POST HERE
i have this
for all of you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyzjVL5tFn0

insane clown posse and jack white team up to cover mozart

[Philip K Dick]

alright then: big gay opinion SKIP THIS PART SCROLL DOWN

i dont think that image is nearly as bad as you all make it out to be. theres tons of youtube comment things passed around which are much worse, labeling limp bizkit/ icp/ linkin park as real music while shitting on justin bieber which are all twice as depressing/ hilarious as that.

this person isnt even "nostalgic"; it says at the top that they wish they were born in the 90s, which implies they never experienced it so they really dunno shit about it. also as silly it is to glorify a lot of those things listed, when they really arent true at parts (a time when the youth werent completely fascinated by popularity and sex? come on now) it isnt unreasonable to glorify a time when popular music that was easily accessible and wildly popular but also resonated with kids on an emotional level.

i mean i like a lot of music from the 90's but whoever wrote that is an idiot. Punks being the "cool kids" is the exact opposite of what punk rock is supposed to be about - it wasn't about being cool. punk turned into a fashion in the 90's and that's why people say "punk is dead". or at least that's part of the reason.

punk goes in and out of fashion, it happened with the pistols in the 70s, and it happened with nirvana in the 90s. the fame that both those groups found were used as gateways by record companies to sign other bands of a similar style, as that style become commercially viable through them.

the whole "punk is a secret cool kids club and cannot be liked by anyone/ if you make a living off your music you are a sellout piece of shit" mindset is the worst part of punk imo and its its a really immature way way to think. if a punk band gets big off of their own music without changing their sound in attempt to dumb down their music for mass consumption, then thats fucking rad! when a band like green day or blink (i dunno who the fuck new found glory are) get big off of their own sound (or more the descendents sound in blinks case heh) then it means that more people are appreciating that sound, and while neither band are punk-as-fuck-DIY-straight-edge-HXC-true-shit bands, they both started as punk bands on independent labels and got the chance to sign to a major, without really changing their sound (in fact green day got punker on their first few major label records). this means that if a fan of either band bothered to do a bit of research, then it opens up a connection to that bands that ARE more unknown, which exposes that music to an audience that would never have heard it otherwise.

ok yeah but

START POST HERE
i have this
for all of you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyzjVL5tFn0

insane clown posse and jack white team up to cover mozart

Nostalgia doesn't have to be limited to personal experience. It can cover any period of time a person feels especially attracted to or wants to live in/relive.

Realistically, pop music is not very different than it was in the 90s, 80s, 70s, and so on. It's loosely defined but there are some common traits that have stayed through the generations: It's accessible. It relies on simple hooks and catchy choruses to sell itself. And there is always some level of emotional connection with its core audience. This is because that connection is not actually rooted in the melody or the words of the song, but the feelings associated with hearing it. People create that connection, not musicians. It's silly to heavily glorify any era based on a person's own experiences which have more than likely become biased over time. It is even sillier to do this based on a fragmented collective idea of the past that is largely based on stereotypes.

It's funny to me that there are so many kids wishing they'd grown up in a different decade. Punk subculture basically grew out of a fashion trend in England that was tailored to appeal to the anarchistic ideology that was emerging at the time. There is not a single trend started in the 20th century+ that didn't grow out of a person or group's strategy to sell and exploit that idea. There is no difference between Lady Gaga and Kurt Cobaine. There's no difference between Justin Bieber and Duran Duran. I have absolutely no doubt that in 10, 15 years people will be martyrizing this generation. And its no secret that kids growing up in the 80s wished they'd have grown up in the 60s. 90s kids wanting to have grown up in the 70s.

Watch Midnight in Paris, its a really good take on this subject.

[rtil]

[zhicago]

what exactly is going on in this picture

[tmk]

A piece of my recent project called "disturbation".
I've retold in pictures several stories that shouldn't had been never seen.
Capturing people during various intimate situations in "caught in the act" way,
most of it is mockumentary, reconstruction of true and false memories.
The rest is authentic.
There's nothing in common with political views of mine.

http://danypeschl.tumblr.com/

destined to be be called "art" condescendingly by redditors

[zhicago]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lLqqR2pcws
The fact that the girl was faking the whole thing is what makes this Peanut Gallery worthy. But enjoy the dubstep, too.

[Alta Don]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8DB_w0qeJc

[Philip K Dick]

lil b is the best ever

[logen]

i just hope it's milk in those bottles

[zhicago]

pus

[cipher]

pus

cannot unsee

[HXC]

pus

disgusting!

[trent bortknob]

alright then: big gay opinion SKIP THIS PART SCROLL DOWN

i dont think that image is nearly as bad as you all make it out to be. theres tons of youtube comment things passed around which are much worse, labeling limp bizkit/ icp/ linkin park as real music while shitting on justin bieber which are all twice as depressing/ hilarious as that.

this person isnt even "nostalgic"; it says at the top that they wish they were born in the 90s, which implies they never experienced it so they really dunno shit about it. also as silly it is to glorify a lot of those things listed, when they really arent true at parts (a time when the youth werent completely fascinated by popularity and sex? come on now) it isnt unreasonable to glorify a time when popular music that was easily accessible and wildly popular but also resonated with kids on an emotional level.

i mean i like a lot of music from the 90's but whoever wrote that is an idiot. Punks being the "cool kids" is the exact opposite of what punk rock is supposed to be about - it wasn't about being cool. punk turned into a fashion in the 90's and that's why people say "punk is dead". or at least that's part of the reason.

punk goes in and out of fashion, it happened with the pistols in the 70s, and it happened with nirvana in the 90s. the fame that both those groups found were used as gateways by record companies to sign other bands of a similar style, as that style become commercially viable through them.

the whole "punk is a secret cool kids club and cannot be liked by anyone/ if you make a living off your music you are a sellout piece of shit" mindset is the worst part of punk imo and its its a really immature way way to think. if a punk band gets big off of their own music without changing their sound in attempt to dumb down their music for mass consumption, then thats fucking rad! when a band like green day or blink (i dunno who the fuck new found glory are) get big off of their own sound (or more the descendents sound in blinks case heh) then it means that more people are appreciating that sound, and while neither band are punk-as-fuck-DIY-straight-edge-HXC-true-shit bands, they both started as punk bands on independent labels and got the chance to sign to a major, without really changing their sound (in fact green day got punker on their first few major label records). this means that if a fan of either band bothered to do a bit of research, then it opens up a connection to that bands that ARE more unknown, which exposes that music to an audience that would never have heard it otherwise.

ok yeah but

START POST HERE
i have this
for all of you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyzjVL5tFn0

insane clown posse and jack white team up to cover mozart

Nostalgia doesn't have to be limited to personal experience. It can cover any period of time a person feels especially attracted to or wants to live in/relive.

Realistically, pop music is not very different than it was in the 90s, 80s, 70s, and so on. It's loosely defined but there are some common traits that have stayed through the generations: It's accessible. It relies on simple hooks and catchy choruses to sell itself. And there is always some level of emotional connection with its core audience. This is because that connection is not actually rooted in the melody or the words of the song, but the feelings associated with hearing it. People create that connection, not musicians. It's silly to heavily glorify any era based on a person's own experiences which have more than likely become biased over time. It is even sillier to do this based on a fragmented collective idea of the past that is largely based on stereotypes.

It's funny to me that there are so many kids wishing they'd grown up in a different decade. Punk subculture basically grew out of a fashion trend in England that was tailored to appeal to the anarchistic ideology that was emerging at the time. There is not a single trend started in the 20th century+ that didn't grow out of a person or group's strategy to sell and exploit that idea. There is no difference between Lady Gaga and Kurt Cobaine. There's no difference between Justin Bieber and Duran Duran. I have absolutely no doubt that in 10, 15 years people will be martyrizing this generation. And its no secret that kids growing up in the 80s wished they'd have grown up in the 60s. 90s kids wanting to have grown up in the 70s.

Watch Midnight in Paris, its a really good take on this subject.

^^ yeah basically most people who claim that the music of their age was better just associate the music of their time with fond memories of their youth and stuff. i've met people who grew up in the 70's and claim that the 70's has the best music, etc. of course i've played them stuff from the 70's that they had never heard of as kids and guess what? they didn't like it, and put it in the same category as new music, calling it "noise". it's like they just aren't interested in music anymore, but act like it's music's fault somehow.

people will certainly act like this generation was amazing and great in 10 or 15 years. i do, however, think that there is a difference between kurt cobain and lady gaga. sure, the way that they are perceived is basically the same, people call both of them legends and others call them horrible pieces of shit musicians. the difference with kurt was that he honestly did not care about his audience. gaga has wanted to be famous since she was a kid. they might both be huge superstars, but kurt certainly did not feel comfortable being one.

[zhicago]

really couldn't have picked a better thread to discuss cobain and lady gaga in

[trent bortknob]

the whole "punk is a secret cool kids club and cannot be liked by anyone/ if you make a living off your music you are a sellout piece of shit" mindset is the worst part of punk imo and its its a really immature way way to think. if a punk band gets big off of their own music without changing their sound in attempt to dumb down their music for mass consumption, then thats fucking rad! when a band like green day or blink (i dunno who the fuck new found glory are) get big off of their own sound (or more the descendents sound in blinks case heh) then it means that more people are appreciating that sound, and while neither band are punk-as-fuck-DIY-straight-edge-HXC-true-shit bands, they both started as punk bands on independent labels and got the chance to sign to a major, without really changing their sound (in fact green day got punker on their first few major label records). this means that if a fan of either band bothered to do a bit of research, then it opens up a connection to that bands that ARE more unknown, which exposes that music to an audience that would never have heard it otherwise.

i can agree that punk fans can be douchebags who put a strict limit on what punk is. you can't have x amount of money, you can't have good production values, you can't do this and you can't do that. if you play a guitar solo, you're out. if your songs aren't fast enough, etc. i wouldn't give a shit what people like that say, i mean look at green day. people won't agree with me on this, but i think green day's newest releases are just as good or better as their older ones. they're actually MORE experimental now than they used to be, and they've ALWAYS had catchy songs.

however, it can go the other way as well. people hate on bands with a REAL d-i-y ethic all of the time, as well as straight edge bands. look at fugazi: they were really strict with who they did their business with, how everything was run, etc. they wouldn't do an interview with rolling stone because rolling stone had cigarette ads in their magazine. since rolling stone supports a company that the members of fugazi don't want to support, they wouldn't do the interview. and there is a ton of shit like this that they do.

some people get pissed about that, but i think it's more praiseworthy than anything. they're really dedicated, they're not only concerned with money, and they're smart. they know how to be profitable without being sell-outs or going out of their comfort zones. they're also hated on for their straight edge stance, as well as their anti-moshing shit, but for the straight edge thing, the members have talked about this before: they don't do it because they've had bad experiences with it. it's not like they talk down to everyone who does drugs or something. and for the moshing, if they don't want moshing at their shows, then they should be able to say that. it's their own show after all.

however, people get so angry about all of the stuff fugazi does. people call them pompous assholes, tightwads that put their own success and fanbase below their own ideals. i see absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it certainly doesn't make them assholes. i think music fans (punk or not) don't understand their place. it's your responsibility to find music you like, it's not the artists' responsibility to make music for you. when artists make decisions based on what they want and not what the fans want, they're usually insulted (look at thom yorke), but really it's fans acting like they're more important than they actually are.

so yeah. i think the problems go both ways.

[Sinitron]

i think the problem is that people give a shit about the musicians

when they're all fucking gay as shit and lady gaga isn't even pretty she just looks like a whore (and sings about being a whore)

i mean KMFDM and Mindless Self Indulgence are like two of my favorite bands but i like them for the music, the actual people are fucking horribly gay as fucking hell