Posts by placidtrucker4

5 posts shown.

Shipping packages internationally. in Miscellaneous · Sep 30, 2015

Hello there.

My apologies if this thread already exists—I couldn't quite track it down—but I was wondering if anyone here has dealt with something similar and might be able to offer some insight. I'm currently getting a package ready to send over to some friends in Germany, and I'm planning on including some cured meats and some assorted candies. I suppose I’ll wait until the weather really turns cold before I ship it out, just to be safe regarding melting or spoilage. I did read some info online where people weren't entirely sure if it would be fine, since apparently delivery trucks can get stuck at customs for hours on end or something like that, but I'm guessing it should be alright if the temperature stays right around freezing.

What I'm really curious about, though, is whether anyone has actual experience shipping these kinds of items within Europe, and if the packages actually arrive within the timeframe they promise. A contact told me that if I use HP express, it should reach Germany in about 2 to 5 business days. Thanks in advance, and if it isn't too much trouble, please just send me a direct message with your thoughts so we don't clutter up the feed.

→ go to post

Montag of Heck by Kurt Cobain in Movies · Jun 11, 2015

William Scott65 said:@placidtrucker4, I’m not going to waste my breath arguing because you clearly just don't get music. I'll say this one last time: the way you trash Nirvana is the same way you’d trash any legendary band. Since you fail to grasp Nirvana's massive impact, it’s pretty much impossible to expect you to understand the significance of groups like the Sex Pistols or the Ramones. I’d love to be blunt and give you the label your posts deserve, but I’d probably end up getting banned, so...

→ go to post

Montag of Heck by Kurt Cobain in Movies · Jun 11, 2015

William Scott65 said:Look, you've shared so much nonsense in your post that it’s hard to take you seriously when you call someone else out for talking nonsense. Let's break this down step by step:

Kurt was a likable guy, but I’d argue that nirvana is more of a cultural phenomenon than a collection of truly genius music.

Whether you’re a fan of nirvana or not, you have to admit the music is pure genius. Even if you think Nevermind feels a bit overplayed or commercialized, it’s an absolute masterpiece. If you browse any "best albums of all time" lists online, you'll notice Nevermind is everywhere, and that’s coming from the most relevant critics out there. It isn't by accident, either. On Rolling Stone's list of the top 500 albums ever, Nevermind landed at a massive number 17, sitting right alongside the greatest legends in music history. They have two other spots on that list as well: Unplugged in New York at 313 and in Utero at 435. Personally, I think in Utero is an incredible record, though it always seems to get underrated. It just had the misfortune of following up Nevermind, but it truly is an excellent album.

Nirvana was already well-established by the time the MTV era hit. That doesn't mean their music isn't good, but they definitely had a much easier time getting airplay compared to bands that were grinding it out back in the seventies.

I don't quite follow this logic. Are we saying it was easier for them to get exposure than it was for bands back in the 70s? If that's the case, what's the next step—just trash everything released after the 70s because MTV finally showed up?🙄

Keep in mind that Nirvana emerged right when the mainstream was starving for something "new," and they stepped into that void perfectly. Most of the people responsible for their massive success weren't necessarily connoisseurs of great music; they were more like the late 80s/early 90s equivalent of teenage girls screaming for the Beatles. In other words, the general public's mood and the market itself practically demanded the arrival of a band like Nirvana. As I’ve said before, it’s more of a cultural phenomenon than a case of pure musical genius.

Look, you have to realize that back when nirvana was hitting its stride, there were tens of thousands of bands out there on this planet. And wouldn't you know it—nirvana is the one that actually blew up. You’re talking about nirvana like they were some manufactured boy band designed by a committee, where everyone else wrote the songs and a massive marketing machine paved the way for them to succeed. It's like you think those three guys just had to learn a few dance moves, sing a little bit, and act cool to make it happen.

If you weigh the amount of ACTUAL quality material this band produced against the flood of mindless re-releases, TV specials, and lately, all those documentaries they've put out, they look more like a commercial product than a musical entity. Of course, that has nothing to do with Kurt, because it was everyone else exploiting his image and his work—and the music—after he passed away.

Every major band puts out plenty of mindless re-releases. Every single one. That includes nirvana. No matter how many of those exist, they don't diminish the actual quality of nirvana's music.

I really don't see nirvana as serious pioneers of anything. Comparing them to a band where everything was perfectly packaged for a market that was practically screaming for something like them—like AC/DC—is just pointless. Back in the seventies, people had to grind for years playing tiny clubs, working side jobs, swapping out lineups, and slowly building momentum just to make it. In other words, you had to have genuine talent for an audience to actually notice you, rather than just relying on a wow Effect. Honestly, debating any kind of legacy for nirvana by comparing them to legitimate legends of MUSIC is just tragicomic.

The way you're trashing nirvana is the same way you could trash any band. You're trying so hard to downplay and marginalize their impact. The market was also begging for bands like the Beatles or the Stones back in the sixties, so what? Are we supposed to trash them now?

Every era of music has its own specific characteristics. You're perfectly entitled to stay stuck in the seventies and refuse to acknowledge anything after that. But if you do, you're just being a dogmatic thinker, not a music connoisseur. At that point, arguing with you would be a total waste of time.

Look, I don't care for the Beatles, the Stones, The Doors, Pink Floyd, or a lot of other musical giants myself. But if I didn't understand why those bands matter and the massive impact they made on music, I'd be an idiot.

You’re funny, I’ll give you that. Honestly, I pretty much stopped reading once you started rambling about critics—those pseudo-experts who refuse to step foot outside their little mainstream bubbles. They remind me of those same types of pundits who somehow thought Zinedine Zidane deserved a different spot in the race for World Player of the Year back in 2005 or 2006.

I suppose one could argue that Nirvana is essentially an average band—a well-crafted commercial product that possessed just enough quality to reach a broader demographic than someone like Ceca or Severina might. As I have mentioned before, they feel more like a marketing phenomenon than a source of lasting musical value. This becomes particularly evident when you consider that probably eighty percent of the people who ever bought their albums were either deeply depressed individuals or, in large part, young girls who almost entirely forgot about Nirvana a few years later. The small circle of people I actually know who listen to Nirvana are generally decent enough, but the vast majority of their fanbase consists of people prone to depression who, even twenty years later, haven't expanded their musical horizons in the slightest. Oh... I nearly forgot the pseudo-intellectuals and the self-proclaimed "free artists" who can sit around sipping tea for hours, philosophizing about the genius of Kurt Cobain’s songwriting and the profound emotions expressed within them—even though, frankly, almost every song sounds identical and the emotions conveyed are more or less the same every single time. It is quite simple, really. If you find yourself standing alone inside the Great Pyramid of Giza or within the walls of Chartres Cathedral, regardless of whether you are a religious person or not, you will instinctively know that the people who constructed those monuments truly understood their craft. There is a significant chance—especially in the case of the pyramid—that you might find yourself moved to tears or at least experience a genuine sense of awe. That is what true art is: something profoundly complex that triggers a unique emotional and intellectual experience within you, even if you aren't an architect who understands the subtleties of construction, nor are you musically trained enough to grasp the intricate details of great classical symphonies. In short, the people who built or composed those works evoked something deep within you or altered your state of consciousness, regardless of your level of expertise in those disciplines. Nirvana is quite the opposite. Their music is incredibly simple and basic, yet fans persist in trying to present it as something emotionally sophisticated, claiming there is hidden suffering woven into the lyrics or that the songs are inspired by profound real-life events... honestly, it's enough to make me weep. So what? You listen to it for a few hours and you just become numb; every song ends up sounding exactly the same.

Look, I don't bother arguing with trolls. It’s just not worth the energy. You go ahead and keep telling yourself that *Nevermind* belongs at number 17 on any kind of legitimate list if that makes you feel better. I guess you should just wake up one day and realize you’ve somehow slipped into a parallel universe—like some weird episode of *Star Trek* where everything is completely backwards.

→ go to post

Montag of Heck by Kurt Cobain in Movies · Jun 9, 2015

phonk said:well, I don't see a title above your head claiming you're some sort of professional critic... so...

I suppose other bands could be considered posers too, like AC/DC and all that garbage... it's just commercialism. This man actually had a musical vision... he was perhaps the only musician who truly loved the music itself... he wasn't just looking at the profit margins...

You're talking nonsense. I guess Kurt was a likable guy, but I'd argue nirvana was more of a cultural phenomenon than anything strictly falling under the category of genius music. Besides, you can love music as much as you want, but I don't think that necessarily makes you a better musician than someone who puts their family and friends before everything else. At the end of the day, it comes down to talent, the ability to express oneself, and hard work.

By the time they arrived, nirvana was already firmly in the MTV era, which doesn't automatically make their music bad, but I suppose it was much easier for them to get any kind of promotion compared to bands that started back in the seventies. You have to consider that nirvana emerged at a time when most of the mainstream audience was practically begging for something "new," and they just happened to fit the bill perfectly. In my view, the vast majority of people responsible for nirvana's success aren't really connoisseurs of fine music; they're more like the late 80s/early 90s equivalent of teenage girls screaming for the Beatles. In other words, the general public's sentiment and the market demand essentially required something like nirvana to exist. As I mentioned before, it feels more like a cultural phenomenon than a display of truly brilliant music.

If we were to compare the actual amount of QUALITY material this band produced against the sheer volume of various idiotic releases, TV specials, and now even the recent documentaries they've sold off, they seem much more like a commercial product than a musical entity. Of course, I suppose that has nothing to do with Kurt himself, since others exploited his image and his work—and his music—following his death.

I really don't see nirvana as being serious pioneers of anything, and I guess comparing a band for whom everything was perfectly laid out—with a market practically crying out for something of that nature—to bands like AC/DC is just pointless. Back in the seventies, people had to spend years playing in tiny clubs, working side jobs, constantly changing lineups, and slowly grinding their way up just to succeed (which, in other words, meant you actually had to possess quality for the audience to notice you, rather than just relying on a wow Effect). Ultimately, I feel that discussing nirvana's legacy and trying to compare them to legitimate legends of MUSIC is somewhat tragicomic.

→ go to post

What's the best horror movie franchise? in Movies · Jun 1, 2015

Emily Ward56 said:Exactly—just the originals, the first films. The rest of the sequels aren't really worth mentioning (or being particularly popular), right? 🥳

If I started listing every horror franchise out there, this thread would be miles long. ☕ Just to reiterate: I only included the absolute heavy hitters!

I suppose I should mention that Omen 2 is actually an excellent film, standing out as one of those rare sequels that truly holds its own. Of course, nothing can ever quite measure up to the original masterpiece, and there is that somewhat strange subplot involving a Satanist working within the Thorn corporation who envisions a future where they profit from global famine—essentially turning hunger into a business model. It isn't entirely disconnected from the main plot, given the assumption that the Antichrist thrives on chaos and requires massive corporations to facilitate it, but I guess it just wasn't fully fleshed out. Aside from that, the film is great, even if it does borrow a few elements from the first installment. Jonathan Scott-Taylor was phenomenal as Damien, and Jerry Goldsmith's score is more than just good; the timing of the music is absolutely spot on. For instance, when they used pieces of his work in the fourth movie, they completely botched the pacing, whereas here it works perfectly. The ending of the second film is particularly brutal—it’s almost perfect.

When it comes to the third installment, I suppose it might actually possess the best musical score of the entire trilogy—though, in all fairness, that was an incredibly high bar to clear—and the acting is genuinely impressive, particularly Sam Neill’s performance as Damien. The real issue with the film, if you ask me, was the lackluster script; I honestly can't wrap my head around how they managed to mess it up quite that badly. There were certainly some brilliant sequences scattered throughout, yet there were also those frustrating narrative gaps, just several unnecessary plot points that didn't quite land. All things considered, even this third entry remains completely unreachable for most horror films from various franchises like Friday the 13th or Unreachable Halloween.

I suppose the fourth installment isn't even worth mentioning, much like that remake, which I honestly believe stands as one of the absolute worst remakes ever produced. It felt as though they literally just copied ninety percent of the original scenes, only to swap them out for inferior acting, a total lack of atmosphere, and some pretty subpar music. To make matters worse, there was that incredibly irritating kid playing little Damien, which just added insult to injury.

→ go to post