topic list  |  new topic  |  authorish list

parent: pink=rubbish

Re: pink=rubbish by Kid. on 2002-09-11 01:21:48

That's not entirely true. I've come to notice that she's not as pretty as Britney Spears, but I have a housemate who finds Pink (facially, not in attitude, style and music, I ought to say) very attractive.
Although I ought to argue the point of women who aren't trading off their looks getting into mainstream music, (As you know, I'm partial to a few of Madonna's tunes) I don't think P!nk is very good.
Still, she's better than Nicklecrack.

Reply to this

Comments:

Re: Re: pink=rubbish by lost prophet on 2002-09-11 13:59:13  |  Reply to this

i take it you mean nicklebak? well while they aren't the best grunge act around by a long shot, at the moment that award should go to the vines, definitely not puddle of mudd who SUCK live when i saw them supporting koRn. anyway, got sidetracked, nickleback are better that p!nk will ever be, and never again is a fairly good song. and even those of you who don't like grunge would probably agree that how you remind me was excellent, if far to overplayed. Never Again? by Kid on 2002-09-12 01:43:53  |  Reply to this   If that's the new one from the 'Crack (what? Am I taking it too far? Yes. But I like the idea of knowing Nickleback as The Crack) then its rather poo. Its a bored chord sequence and a crappy chorus. I won't get drawn into debating bands into pigeon-holes, I'll just say that I don't like the Vines. They ruined a perfectly good Jools Holland for me. We had BDB, Del Amitri, Suzanna Bacca (sp.) and The Vines. Wasn't good. They didn't fit in. Re: Never Again? by lost prophet on 2002-09-12 11:38:59  |  Reply to this   No, the new song is too bad, and yes, that is poo Vines? by Tetra Grammaton on 2002-09-24 11:52:44  |  Reply to this   Are they the ones doing the bad early-60s Rolling Stone impersonation? Re: Vines? by Me on 2002-10-16 04:08:58  |  Reply to this   Actually the Vines are really good, and today their sound is very individual.