Controversial opinions

Chop said:
You should only take your kids trick-or-treating in your own neighborhood.
Click to expand...

When I was a teenager, a friend of mine next door used to trick or treat our neighborhood and then he'd get in his car and drive to other neighborhoods and clean them out. He would come home with a 30 gallon trash bag full of candy. I had outgrown trick or treating by then, but I have I admit that I was a little impressed. Lol
 
Deez,

We stopped giving out Halloween candy when teenagers started driving into our neighborhood and trick-or-treating. If you are old enough for a job, you're too old to Tick-or-Treat.

I stopped when I was 10 or 11 and that was just a few years ago.
 
utahorn said:
Deez,

We stopped giving out Halloween candy when teenagers started driving into our neighborhood and trick-or-treating. If you are old enough for a job, you're too old to Tick-or-Treat.

I stopped when I was 10 or 11 and that was just a few years ago.
Click to expand...

We still give it out, because we mainly get little British kids and US military family kids. For some reason, the older teens here largely don't do it unless they're escorting younger siblings.

Like you, I quit when I was about 11, and though I'm generally of the opinion that you should "let kids be kids" and keep their innocence as long as possible, for some reason the "almost adult" teens trick or treating on their own has always grated on me. Not saying everybody has to quit when I did, but if you're growing adult body hair and have to shave and wear deodorant, it's time to start letting that particular activity go.

If you still want to sleep on NFL team logo bedsheets, have a stuffed animal in your bed, still like watching the Charlie Brown specials, or get crazy excited about Christmas morning or going to amusement parks, I'm totally cool with that. That's part of what's memorable about being a kid. But don't keep hustling free candy off of strangers when you can go flip burgers and easily buy your own candy.
 
nashhorn said:
I’m really old and I still get excited for Christmas mornings. But that’s just me.
Click to expand...

I do too, but it's hard to ignore the fact that the next month's MasterCard bill is gonna be my problem. Lol. The excitement is still there, bit it's blunted a little.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I do too, but it's hard to ignore the fact that the next month's MasterCard bill is gonna be my problem. Lol. The excitement is still there, bit it's blunted a little.
Click to expand...
I'm excited every Christmas morning--except for that one year when I stayed up past 3 am putting that big doll house together on Christmas Eve.
 
Deez,

Why do you feel that way?

Nirvana was at Grunge Rock's forefront (maybe not the first). I was in my late 20's / early 30's when I first heard this. Of course, it was this:


Or perhaps this:


From what I've read, this song, for good reason, did give pause to MTV executives:


Never saw them in person and would rate many others above them that I did or did not see.
 
utahorn said:
Deez,

Why do you feel that way?

Nirvana was at Grunge Rock's forefront (maybe not the first). I was in my late 20's / early 30's when I first heard this. Of course, it was this:


Or perhaps this:


From what I've read, this song, for good reason, did give pause to MTV executives:


Never saw them in person and would rate many others above them that I did or did not see.
Click to expand...


I was in high school in the early '90s, so I was a bit younger than you at the time. Obviously, it's all a matter of preference, but in my view, Cobain had an offensively bad singing voice. It was unpleasant to listen to. I'm not a fan of over the top screaming, especially unpleasant lyrics. Their guitar work sounded like his singing - unpleasant and kinda sloppy sounding. They also seemed to take themselves very seriously - like they were speaking for a generation. I'm not a fan of that sort of delusion of grandeur in a band. It doesn't mean I hate ever song. Come as You Are and In Bloom were at least listenable.

I preferred other bands, and most of them didn't have great singers either, but they grated on me much less. I preferred Jane's Addiction, Alice in Chains, and to a lesser extent, Pearl Jam, Red Hot Chili Peppers, and Soundgarden.

One positive about Nirvana - they (along with Jane's Addiction) played a major role in destroying hair metal. Bands like Motley Crue, Poison, Bon Jovi, and Warrant took nosedives as those bands found success.
 
Kurt took music away from over-produced garbage that focused primarily on the look of the band and that required a massive $$$$ investment by a big label.

It was a generational sea-change in music.

After a very long period of dominance, the Boomers were on the outs.
 
Chop said:
Kurt took music away from over-produced garbage that focused primarily on the look of the band and that required a massive $$$$ investment by a big label.

It was a generational sea-change in music.
Click to expand...
And Kurt, Krist, and Grohl were very humble about it. Watch the interviews. Kurt would say (paraphrased): "We're not even the best band in Seattle. There's 4-5 that are a lot better than us."

Dude lived under a bridge. (literally)

He did not off himself. He was murdered.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Obviously, it's all a matter of preference, but in my view, Cobain had an offensively bad singing voice.
Click to expand...
I agree with the voice preference. Getty Lee had a less-than-stellar voice, but I still like Rush.

I still believe that one of the underrated voices was Ronnie Hammond of Atlanta Rhythm Section.

 
Chop said:
Kurt took music away from over-produced garbage that focused primarily on the look of the band and that required a massive $$$$ investment by a big label.

It was a generational sea-change in music.

After a very long period of dominance, the Boomers were on the outs.
Click to expand...

Kurt (through Nevermind) was a big factor in it, but he didn't start it. Jane's Addiction and the Lollapalooza tour had already begun the process. It was on its way out. Even Guns & Roses and Living Colour were a bit of a departure from hair metal and a sign that it was on its way out.
 
utahorn said:
Deez,

Why do you feel that way?

Nirvana was at Grunge Rock's forefront (maybe not the first). I was in my late 20's / early 30's when I first heard this. Of course, it was this:


Or perhaps this:


From what I've read, this song, for good reason, did give pause to MTV executives:


Never saw them in person and would rate many others above them that I did or did not see.
Click to expand...


They sucked because they singlehandedly killed 80's rock hair bands. Literally overnight we went from Guns N Roses to Smells Like Teen Sprirt and poof hair bands died. I've hated Nirvana ever since and absolutely never liked the grunge scene at all.
 
I did not discuss "Rock Hair", it was about Nirvana and Grunge. I like Bon Jovi, etc. I do not believe that one genre kills another. Times and tastes change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top