Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Nirvana's place in the world of music....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
    I'm just wondering what generation specifically did Cobain represent? Generation X? Generation Y? Millenials?
    Whatever generation only lasted 5 years. Ziiiiing!

    In all seriousness, that is a good question. That generation stuff has never made much sense to me. Where does one end and another begin? There's bound to be some overlap, no?

    Comment


    • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

      I'm just saying the "troubled youth of the era" isn't exactly a generation. Those kids grew up, many of them moved on from Nirvana, and besides that's not really a generation anywya. It's a sector of a part of a generation, which I think would fall into generation X, but I'm not sure

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X

      It's generally agreed Generation X is people born in the 70's and early 80's, so in theory Nirvana should be the voice of this generation, is there anyone from that generation who is willing to stand by that?


      Comment


      • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

        As long as you're part of the Pepsi Generation then you're a-okay. Well actually I prefer Diet Coke.
        You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

        Comment


        • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

          Originally posted by cdash View Post
          Whatever generation only lasted 5 years. Ziiiiing!

          In all seriousness, that is a good question. That generation stuff has never made much sense to me. Where does one end and another begin? There's bound to be some overlap, no?
          Generation X would be the offspring of the Baby Boomers, and should be anywhere from the mid60s to early 80s.

          Yes, there is overlap, like myself. I would think that if you documented actual generations, I would fall into Generation X eventhough I was born in 1986. My mom had me when she was 35, but the rest of my siblings were born prior to 1980.

          Anything after that would be Generation Y, and then any of our offspring would then be Generation Z, or whatever they're gonna call it.

          But yes, with people having kids later in life the lines are definitely getting blurry, IMHO.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

            Well I've seen people our age both be called Generation Y and Millenials. However, I would say we are clearly NOT the generation that would have been impacted by Nirvana. You might be right on the edge Since.


            Comment


            • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

              Originally posted by billbradley View Post
              By your argument Twain or the Backstreet Boys would be more influential than The Beatles and I know you don't believe that(I'm pretty sure Beatles never sold over 35 mill, but I could be wrong).
              Total number of worldwide record sales (albums, singles, downloads, videos) by the the Beatles: 600 million to 1 billion.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._music_artists

              #1 Beatles (600-1000 million)
              #2 Elvis (same)
              #3 Michael Jackson (350-750)
              #4 ABBA (???????)
              #5 Madonna
              #6 Led Zeppelin
              #7 Queen
              #8 Elton
              #9 Mariah Carey
              #10 Celine Dion
              #11 Pink Floyd
              #12 AC/DC
              #13 Rolling Stones
              #14 Bee Gees
              #15 Whitney Houston
              #16 U2
              #17 Aerosmith
              #18 Genesis
              #19 Sinatra
              #20 Stevie Wonder
              #21 Barbara Streisand
              #22 David Bowie
              #23 Backstreet Boys
              #24 Bon Jovi
              #25 Garth Brooks
              #26 Chicago
              #27 The Eagles
              #28 Bruce Stringsteen
              #29 Dire Straights (120 Million)



              The list seems to cover a 5-fold or more range in sales.

              the ease of downloading will likely skew this in favor of modern artists over time. the fact that Sinatra cracks the top 20 is amazing, when most of his career occured when a lot of the world poplulation didn't even have access to affordable (by today's standards) audio equipment
              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-04-2011, 04:42 PM.
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                It wouldn't be the first time I said that they were wrong, and won't be the last.

                Who were the artists claiming Nirvana as the "voice of a generation?"

                What criteria does Nirvana have, other than "they" (members of media, and musical artists" said so, do you have?
                I think I have a book with musician interviews, I will get those artists for you. As far as criteria and "they" I've already given a laundry list of the most respected institutions that stated this. I guess my question is how and why are these people wrong?

                Album sales certainly aren't the only criteria for "voice of a generation" or "most influential artist of a decade." As I said, look at what Shania Twain has done for music. The Genre she is the face of, is now the most popular genre in America. It's not there because of her.

                Yes, Grunge is a form of rock, but it's not around in pop culture really any longer. And That music certainly didn't impact the music industry like Twain's did. (And if I had to pick someone as the "voice" it wouldn't be her. I'd probably go with Tupac.)
                I already explained the differences between Twain and Cobain. And said several times that argument doesn't work because that same could be said for Twain v. Beatles and we agree that is wrong. Completely agree with Tupac being a voice for a generation. I won't cite anything since I know we agree.

                17 years later, Nirvana record still an icon for rock lovers
                Rachel Rodriguez
                http://articles.cnn.com/2008-12-11/e...?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ

                "One song changed the way we look at rock music," said Russ Lancaster of "Smells Like Teen Spirit," the first track on the record. "Just like the Beatles changed pop music 30 years prior, Nirvana's breakthrough album achieved the same level of power in terms of changing pop music. They weren't singing anymore about happy, funny songs. They were taking a real dark turn to pop music, and it changed everything. Back then it was really different to hear that on the radio. It opened up a floodgate of artists that might never have been heard before that."

                The article goes on about different opinions about Nirvana good or bad for rock, I'm not really posting this as new evididence to prove my point as it is not a really good article at all. I just thought it was something else to look at.

                I think maybe Trader Joe and some others were asking why these writers are acting like highschools are filled with people that are grundge. Well, if you look at movies,tv shows, commercial, etc. of the 90s grunge began to be the style for "cool" people. Flannels, plaids, chucks and that roll out of bed look started with the grunge rock scene. I just don't understand how there can be such oppisition to something that is so well understood and documented.

                Comment


                • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                  Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                  Total number of worldwide record sales (albums, singles, downloads, videos) by the the Beatles: 600 million to 1 billion.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._music_artists

                  #1 Beatles (600-1000 million)
                  #2 Elvis (same)
                  #3 Michael Jackson (350-750)
                  #4 ABBA (???????)
                  #5 Madonna
                  #6 Led Zeppelin
                  #7 Queen
                  #8 Elton
                  #9 Mariah Carey
                  #10 Celine Dion
                  #11 Pink Floyd
                  #12 AC/DC
                  #13 Rolling Stones
                  #14 Bee Gees
                  #15 Whitney Houston
                  #16 U2
                  #17 Aerosmith
                  #18 Genesis
                  #19 Sinatra
                  #20 Stevie Wonder
                  #21 Barbara Streisand
                  #22 David Bowie
                  #23 Backstreet Boys
                  #24 Bon Jovi
                  #25 Garth Brooks
                  #26 Chicago
                  #27 The Eagles
                  #28 Bruce Stringsteen
                  #29 Dire Straights (120 Million)



                  The list seems to cover a 5-fold or more range in sales.

                  the ease of downloading will likely skew this in favor of modern artists over time. the fact that Sinatra cracks the top 20 is amazing, when most of his career occured when a lot of the world poplulation didn't even have access to affordable (by today's standards) audio equipment
                  Sorry, I meant single album.

                  edit: I will say I did not expect to have such a small amount of crappy bands on that list. But where is Bob Dylan?!?! Greatest lyricist of all time missing?
                  Last edited by billbradley; 08-04-2011, 04:49 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                    Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                    17 years later, Nirvana record still an icon for rock lovers
                    What do you notice about this headline?




                    The phrase "for rock lovers" sticks out like a sore thumb. Which is what we've been arguing the entire time. For rock lovers, Nirvana might be their voice. But not an entire population. Most of the population doesn't fall in the category, because they're too busy buying pop, country, and hip-hop/rap.

                    For rock lovers, yes, Nirvana is relevant. To the other 80% of the population, and that's being generous, not at all.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      What do you notice about this headline?




                      The phrase "for rock lovers" sticks out like a sore thumb. Which is what we've been arguing the entire time. For rock lovers, Nirvana might be their voice. But not an entire population. Most of the population doesn't fall in the category, because they're too busy buying pop, country, and hip-hop/rap.

                      For rock lovers, yes, Nirvana is relevant. To the other 80% of the population, and that's being generous, not at all.
                      During their reign, Nirvana was the most popular music out. You are just not going to understand that because you chose not to.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                        Except that they didn't even have the most popular album out that year. A guy named Garth Brooks did.

                        But carry on.

                        EDIT: I don't know why you keep presenting this stuff like it's fact. The only facts in this entire thread is album sales and Nirvana clearly falls short. It's a matter of opinion.

                        Can we atleast agree that there's a difference between opinion and fact?
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                          http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...s/050928&num=0

                          Klosterman: Certainly, music is WAY more subjective. These two subjects are not even comparable. For example, I could insist that the greatest band in the world is actually four unsigned guys from Oregon who have never made a record and are just bouncing around the Portland club scene, and that this band is like what would have happened if Lennon & McCartney had formed a quartet with Keith Richards and Charlie Watts, and that these people write the best songs since The Smiths and they play louder than Blue Cheer. I could argue that this group is cooler than The Arcade Fire or the White Stripes, because I could insist they are more "authentic" or "incendiary" or "visceral." I could create reasons that explain this hypothetical band's greatness, and a few crazy people would find my theory interesting and potentially valid. However, I could never claim that the best quarterback in the country is actually some 28-year-old dude working in a car wash in downtown Detroit, and that this person is substantially better than Peyton Manning. That would immediately seem idiotic to everyone. This is why the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is such a failure; there are no quantifiable qualities for the inductees. There is no way to *prove* that a musician is good. And this is not an issue in sports. There's no risk that Greg Maddux won't make the Baseball Hall of Fame simply because certain sportswriters don't think he's hip enough, or because they feel his pitching style is derivative.

                          I think you somewhat misread my rock writing, though; I don't think I ever imply that my opinions are some kind of universal truth. When I say "Vitalogy" is "irrefutably" the best Pearl Jam album, I'm really just saying that fact is irrefutable *to me.* But I am only speaking about my own reality. If I say a band is good, it only means that *I* think they're good; if I say a band is bad, it only means that *I* think they're bad. All my criticism is autobiography. I have no interest in persuading (or dissuading) readers from liking anything.
                          This is coming from a music critic, and a pretty well respected one. See what we are saying guys...it's all opinion. You might respect the NY Times opinion more than mine, but it doesn't make it any more true.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Except that they didn't even have the most popular album out that year. A guy named Garth Brooks did.

                            But carry on.

                            EDIT: I don't know why you keep presenting this stuff like it's fact. The only facts in this entire thread is album sales and Nirvana clearly falls short. It's a matter of opinion.

                            Can we atleast agree that there's a difference between opinion and fact?
                            I didn't say they had the most popular album of the year.

                            I'm just relaying what happened, and you are saying it didn't happen.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                              Comment


                              • Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

                                Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                                I think I have a book with musician interviews, I will get those artists for you. As far as criteria and "they" I've already given a laundry list of the most respected institutions that stated this. I guess my question is how and why are these people wrong?



                                I already explained the differences between Twain and Cobain. And said several times that argument doesn't work because that same could be said for Twain v. Beatles and we agree that is wrong. Completely agree with Tupac being a voice for a generation. I won't cite anything since I know we agree.

                                17 years later, Nirvana record still an icon for rock lovers
                                Rachel Rodriguez
                                http://articles.cnn.com/2008-12-11/e...?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ

                                "One song changed the way we look at rock music," said Russ Lancaster of "Smells Like Teen Spirit," the first track on the record. "Just like the Beatles changed pop music 30 years prior, Nirvana's breakthrough album achieved the same level of power in terms of changing pop music. They weren't singing anymore about happy, funny songs. They were taking a real dark turn to pop music, and it changed everything. Back then it was really different to hear that on the radio. It opened up a floodgate of artists that might never have been heard before that."

                                The article goes on about different opinions about Nirvana good or bad for rock, I'm not really posting this as new evididence to prove my point as it is not a really good article at all. I just thought it was something else to look at.

                                I think maybe Trader Joe and some others were asking why these writers are acting like highschools are filled with people that are grundge. Well, if you look at movies,tv shows, commercial, etc. of the 90s grunge began to be the style for "cool" people. Flannels, plaids, chucks and that roll out of bed look started with the grunge rock scene. I just don't understand how there can be such oppisition to something that is so well understood and documented.
                                No, the Beatles did for rock..a much bigger genre of music, what Twain did for crossover country. Their influence was much greater.

                                No one's saying there wasn't influence. What we are disagreeing with, is the idea that it was the greatest influence in the 90s, or that Cobain was somehow the voice of a generation.

                                These institutions are just giving their opinion. I've given you some criteria, popularity, musical influence, and cultural influence. It's pretty factual that Twain (who as I said, wouldn't have even been my pick, but she beats Cobain) was/is more popular and had a bigger musical influence. Cultural influence is debatable, but I haven't really looked into Twain's influence on that.

                                This is not to say that Shania Twain makes higher quality of music than Nirvana. But I think that's a different set of criteria than "voice of a decade." For example, Britney Spears would easily be the voice of the 2000-2010 decade. I don't even think that's debatable. That doesn't make her music quality. It's just obvious that she was easily the most popular musical entertainer, had the most influence on music (from the music video establishing musical artists, to starting trends in pop music) and cultural influence..(don't make me get into that..)
                                Last edited by Sookie; 08-04-2011, 05:18 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X