Personally, I really like "Blurry." Heard the single, then checked out the rest of the album... and it all pretty much sucked. So oh well... they're just one more no talent one-hit wonder to me... no big deal.
Or until Guns N' Roses releases their next album. Shut up with the jokes. Also, Velvet Revolver will be releasing an album in March.
Puddle of Mudd and bands like Creed, Staind. I put them into the same crap category as N Sync, Backstreetboys, Nelly, Ja Rule, Brittney Spears. Its just crap. I like rock hip hop and many other types of music. You just have to open your eyes and see what is really good. And the stated above is not it.
Dude, I'm so pissed at Axl for getting his tour cancelled. Am I the only one that was left stranded with tickets for the Houston show? He never should have staged an arena tour without Slash and Izzy anyways. Back to the original subject, I think Puddle of Mudd isn't bad, compared to all the other crap out there (Linkin Park???). Of course, why pay 30 bucks to see them when I payed 10 to see Poison and Vince Neil.
I find it humorous that you lambast Puddle of Mudd for being overly simplistic and uncomplicated and then go on to lament the passing of Nirvana. They weren't exactly composing symphonies of rock.
Are you freaking kidding me??? Ummmmmmmmmmmm yeah they had one thing at the time that Puddle of Mudd et. all do not: ORIGINALITY. Lyrics, live performance, ability to play their own insturments, are a few other things that come to mind......
I'm pretty sure Nirvana wasn't the first grunge band. Just the first really popular one. And as for the live performance, lyrics, ability to play their own instruments, etc...well, that's got nothing to do with my previous post. I was merely commenting on the general musical intricacy of each band. But feel free to come back with some rolleye smilies if it makes you feel better.
Sweet! It should be interesting to hear what they sound like. Regarding Puddle of Poo, I don't mind their music, but I'm not going to rush out and pick up their CD. I put them in the same category as every other Nickelback sound-a-like band. Little talent, but do have some catchy tunes.
Way to back up your assertions with facts...or even reasoning for that matter. You seem to think I have made some personal dig at you and your tastes here. For the record, I liked Nirvana much better than I currently do Puddle of Mudd, I just don't feel that Nirvana's music was so much more difficult to play than a lot of what Puddle of Mudd does. But since you can't seem to discuss this without making it personal, I'll just duck out right here.
Uh-oh, we've got a throwdown! Both Nirvana and Puddle of Dribble are pathetic, silly rock bands who use the same chords, distortion and image. Rock is dead and has been for a loooooooooong time! It's something you outgrow and are later embarassed by.
No Jokes here. Guns and Roses were great if only for the fact that they are the only hair bands that people still have to show some respect for today (not like, just respect).
Aww come on, Nirvana was not pathetic. They were a good band and they killed hair metal and boy bands (new kids on the block). They were able to translate cynicism for our current society into on album that redefined teenage angst and forced it into the masses. They were a band that never looked for fame (didn't even have a deal when they become big) and will now go down as one of the most influentials bands ever. Puddle of Mudd and many other bands on the other hand, are considered really really bad because they are just over produced wannnabe version of Nirvana that are just not as good. Nirvana's music isn't because that they have amazing technical abilities but because you can see soul in Kurt's songs and lyrics, as well as his voice. , if you would've seen the unplugged performance on mtv from him, you'll know what I am saying. So please, don't put the two on the same level
