response 25 of 61:

Mar 8 07:24 UTC 1994

   It is DUMB people that use/abuse all sorts of things. Using TV doesn't
make anyone dumb, but a dumb person who 'abuses' TV (by doing little
else) becomes DUMBER as a result.
 
  Alcohol, or narcotics are mind-altering substances that the (ab)user has
no control over for a certain time (which is the effect they want).  I really
doubt that TV has the same effect, but my experiences with drugs are limited
to being drunk, or dealing with other individuals who are under the
influence of illicit narcotics.
 
    I think Other should start a campaign, educating dopers that they can
get the same 'high' by merely watching TV.  It would be much safer, & 
instead of handing out needles & methadone, we could just hand out
remote controls...

response 27 of 61:

Mar 8 20:54 UTC 1994

 Let's clarify the terminology... Dumb refers to "one who is unable to 
speak" i.e. deaf and dumb. I believe the proper word Mr. Tyler is looking
for is STUPID. 

response 29 of 61:

Mar 9 05:40 UTC 1994

ziggy, thanks for the reality check!

response 31 of 61:

Mar 9 07:12 UTC 1994

Jim and Tim!  Go stand in the corner! 
(And quit squabbling!)

response 33 of 61:

Mar 9 15:48 UTC 1994

Well, now, he's out of the coma, happy, happy!

response 35 of 61:

Mar 9 22:34 UTC 1994

Wasn't he alwasy mute? ;)

response 37 of 61:

Mar 10 02:07 UTC 1994

I think that listening to Nirvana is in many ways worse than doing
drugs, depending on why you do drugs.  Listening to Nirvana shows a
lack of individual thinking because no person who thinks for themselves
would actually like their dumb music.  Those who do drugs to fit in
are just as dumb.  However, I respect a drug-user who knows why they're
doing what they're doing a lot more than someone who gets their "high"
off of commercialized music (assuming that it can be considered music,
which is a fairly large assumption.)

response 39 of 61:

Mar 10 16:03 UTC 1994

#37: Funny. Nirvana was "alternative" until more people started listening 
     to them. Are you saying there is no musical difference between
     "alternative" and "commercial" music? The only difference being those who
     listen to" alternative" music are cool and those who listen to
     "commercial" music are stupid? 

     A long time ago, I asked a high school friend the same question about
     New Order, and he couldn't come up with an answer.

response 41 of 61:

Mar 10 20:27 UTC 1994

I've heard some of Nirvana's music, and I don't understand what anybody
would see in it.  But then, most Nirvana listeners would feel exactly
the same way about the music *I* enjoy most.

I guess that means I don't have any reason to specifically mourn the
fate of this guy from Nirvana, and it would not bother me a bit if the
band never played again.

Given that they presumably have millions of devoted fans, I think any
insincere expressions of regret I might offer would be decidedly
superfluous.

response 43 of 61:

Mar 10 22:24 UTC 1994

Re 37 - Yes, Jemmie, that's the main thing that annoys me about
the "alternative" phenomenon - that any "alternative" group will
suddenly become non-alternative when they actually sell albums.

How I long for the days when they called it "college radio"...

response 45 of 61:

Mar 11 02:37 UTC 1994

Good point, if they are a good band it doesn't matter how many people like
them.

response 47 of 61:

Mar 11 14:39 UTC 1994

#43: Exactly. It seems like "alternative" is simply a term used to describe:
     1) Bands that play shitty music that appeal to very few people, thus
     "alternative; 2) Bands that play good music but have no idea on how to
     market their music and reach very few people, thus "alternative". 
     In case one, once the band starts playing music which appeals to more
     people, they are no longer cool and are instead "commercial." In case
     two, once the band learns how to market their music, even with no
     intrinsic change in the music, the band is no longer cool and is now
     "commercial." I have absolutely no respect for the "alternative" label
     and find it quite stupid. (BTW, I do like some "alternative" music but
     despise most of it -- mainly because it sucks.)

#44: What if there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between
     "making good music and having fun" and commercial success? I assume
     "good music" is defined as "music that is appealing to the ears and
     minds of a significant number of human beings." If music only appeals
     to two people out of five billion, it can hardly be defined as 
     "good music." The bottom line is that usually "good music" will be
     a commercial success -- look at the Beatles, Led Zepplin, even 
     Tchaikovsky. What I am curious about is why are commercial failures
     called "alternative"? Are they cooler because they appeal to less
     people? Are they cooler because they are marketing idiots? 

response 49 of 61:

Mar 11 19:06 UTC 1994

        re #47:
        Obviously you have little or no knowlege of what is required for
        a band to market it's music, no matter how good it may be.  Not
        only do they have to find gigs, and advertise them to make sure
        that people show up, but if they are unknown, then they have to 
        work that much harder to get anybody to hire them do the gigs in
        the first place.
        In other words, a band could be the best in the world, and if they 
        didn't put in the effort to commercialize themselves, then they
        would not ever be heard by more than the friends to whom they give
        their basement tapes and whom they invite to sit in when they
        play.
        If they do not commercialize themselves, or have someone willing
        to do it for them, then there is no mechanism for the distribution
        of the music, except bootlegging and word of mouth, which is
        extremely slow and limited in it's potential.
        The commercialization of music has nothing to do with the quality
        of the music itself, just as the number of people who enjoy the
        music has nothing to do with whether the music is 'good' or 'bad.'
        Those are labels which are meaningless except to the individual
        who applies them, and those who share that individual's tastes.