Originally Posted by squonk
He lumped some bands (Foreigner/Boston) in with completely different bands (Yes/ELP) clearly trying to label them under the same umbrella, within the context of pages of discussion about progressive rock, thus using the oversimplification term of "that ilk"
Oh I see, so now "all that ilk" just mean "music I think is crappy". Gee, that's nice and specific. So now we've gone from bands that are similar to Yes and ELP (when they clearly are not) to all bands I think are crappy.
Now yer just starting to catch on - although it wasn't just a "I think" situation, but a general notion of them. If you didn't understand that, then that goes back to what I was originally saying about you "just not getting it."
So punk rock was a reaction to all bands that Tom Brennan thinks were crappy. Gee, how can you argue with that absurdity?
Nope - as I mentioned, lots of people.
I understood it perfectly--bands of that ilk meant bands that Tom Brennan thought were progressive rock bands, or belonged under the same "ilk"
But now its apparantly a moving target, or you are trying to redefine it and includes ANY crappy band according to TB (or you, I guess).
You're wrong. Ilk: "SORT, KIND" - as defined by Merriam Webster. So *you* decided that "sort, kind" was meant to refer to Yes, Kansas, and Foreigner as the same *genre* - no one else, necessarily. In fact, by mixing genres that should indicate that to readers. Well, most readers anyway.
So now this has officially become the dumbest argument in human history.
You're wrong (if you think something on one of thousands or more internet forums would be a milestone in human history, anyway).
Are you getting dizzy from chasing your tail? I never said I was in the SCENE and all knowing because I hung around bands--YOU DID.
Really... Maybe you should re-read your posts where you are talking about parties and seeing bands, so you were there and knew all. Unless that was sarcasm and you weren't actually.
And now none of that matters because on behalf of TB you just changed the meaning of the absurd word he used anyway--"ilk" now means "any crappy band in my opinion".
You betcha. I think I have pointed out where you were wrong, too. And at the same time, you are sort of arguing against yourself here. Do I need to repeat your very recent quote: "punk rock was a reaction to a wide variety of music ranging from jam bands like the Grateful Dead and psychedelic music of the 60s to the long guitar solos and rock star excesses of bands like Led Zeppelin, to the cartoon excesses of Alice Cooper and KISS, to singer songwriter lite fair such as Simon and Garfunkel and the Carpenters, to slick AOR 'produced' rock like the Eagles, to later the disco crap of the mid to late 70s" - oh, I guess I did. I think that you meant, crappy bands in the eyes of punks. So you do get it, perchance?
I didn't break into Watergate but I know a heckuva lot about the whole Watergate scandal. I guess according to you, the only people that possibly could state any facts or opinions re Watergate would be those who were actually involved in the break in and coverup.
Nope - but for facts, wouldn't they certainly be the best dang source around? Oh, I guess not, according to you. And anyone can make opinions - that's mixing things up.
In sum, punk rock was a reaction to every crappy band in the world (according to Tom Brennan) and thus, ie all punk bands were good and there was never a crappy punk band. And "ilk" now does not mean anything in the same genre, but anything someone doesn't like. Gee, aren't we all smarter now?
Not according to Tom, but a prevailing notion. But I take it all back if you think a lot of punk bands worshipped Foreigner and Boston... And the attributed logic of "all punk bands were good" does not seem to really fit into this. Now you're really reachin'.
You can't fix stupid.
At this point, does this even need to be addressed?