ilovefuzz.com

space6oy wrote:the new tracks they've released suck. officially IMO.

i'm still going to see them again though when they hit cinci.

christianatl wrote:revisionist history for millennials

christianatl wrote:revisionist history for millennials

christianatl wrote:Hum and Failure reunions are a joke. They were both third-tier crap a hundred years ago. Now it's just sad to see them attempting to rewrite history for kids that don't know any better.

WeHuntKings wrote:

christianatl wrote:revisionist history for millennials

Man, you've got a really huge hate boner for these guys don't you?

D.o.S. wrote:

christianatl wrote:Hum and Failure reunions are a joke. They were both third-tier crap a hundred years ago. Now it's just sad to see them attempting to rewrite history for kids that don't know any better.

D.o.S. wrote:Dude you don't like the Pixies (who are awesome and beyond reproach) because you're a fucking weirdo. Don't attach any more significance to it than that.

D.o.S. wrote:

I should clarify: it's not as if Hum et. al. were doing something really different that was passed over by people at the time. They're not a buried treasure waiting to be rediscovered (and I say this as someone who thinks Hum is rad as hell), they're definitely just one of many bands who were doing that kind of music at the time. I mean, Stars was a radio hit. They were signed to RCA. They were the Pumpkins for nerds.

resincum wrote:I was legit waiting all day yesterday for cc to come in and lay the smack down regarding hum/failure

casecandy wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:

christianatl wrote:Hum and Failure reunions are a joke. They were both third-tier crap a hundred years ago. Now it's just sad to see them attempting to rewrite history for kids that don't know any better.

Thanks, that what I thought.

I think this is kind of suspect, for the reason that it sells millennials like myself short. Maybe we're not clueless. Maybe we are the ones revising history, not the bands. I mean, I've literally never heard a Failure track. But if people in my generation decide that music from your generation speaks to them, that is their prerogative. Maybe it didn't speak to you when you heard it. Maybe it was waiting for a new audience to appreciate it. Many bands are ahead of their time; more likely, they're just in the wrong time.

Similarly, a new generation might take a band that was worshipped in an older generation and say that it's nothing to write home about. Like, The Pixies. They were heroes to Kurt Cobain et al. I think it was that they invented the quiet/loud dynamic and that was mindblowing back in the day. But so many bands (including Hum, from what little I've heard) improved on that dynamic, that The Pixies aren't really much to a lot of millennials, in terms of visceral enjoyment. I respect the shit out of Frank Black and even love his music by times but I don't love it like I love Nirvana. And that's okay. Chris Carrabba (my all-time scene hero) recently cited Hum as a major influence and "one of the greatest quiet/loud bands of all time." Things change.

Am sick of expressing my love or hate for bands from the past only to be told by a Gen Xer or Boomer that that's not how it was back in the day. Just because you were "there" doesn't mean you know shit about anything. IMO "there" and having been "there" (allegedly) are roadblocks in our appreciation of music.