I don't even think the older episodes were that great.
>>81605909
Good post
>>81605909
For me it was the Lisa episodes that were the worst.
I still like the show and would say it was easily good from about 2-6, with some seasons before and after also containing good episodes. But to hear some people talk you'd think every episode was like a nonstop comedic orgasm and also incredibly emotional AND ALSO the smartest satire ever. And the show has done all of those areas well throughout its early years, but very rarely all at once or even incredibly consistently.
It's not even that I think it doesn't hold up or was never good. It just feels like people oversell it way too hard these days.
At the risk of destroying my credibility, I really think I prefer King of the Hill because I like character humor more than the typical Simpsons style, and Simpsons only had that going for a very brief period on and then made the show and characters wackier. And while I like how cartoony it could get, a lot of jokes about Homer being stupid and lines that seem almost written to be used among their auidence like "Your ideas intrigue me and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter" don't do much for me anymore. At a certain point it just becomes way harder to give a damn anymore about characters at the time the show wants you to, when they're used as vehicles for jokes more often.
For all that I like how the show's tried a lot of different things. Some just worked for me more than others, and if I were to rewatch the episodes I really like I'd probably skip over a bunch.
>>81606600
>I still like the show and would say it was easily good from about 2-6, with some seasons before and after also containing good episodes. But to hear some people talk you'd think every episode was like a nonstop comedic orgasm and also incredibly emotional AND ALSO the smartest satire ever. And the show has done all of those areas well throughout its early years, but very rarely all at once or even incredibly consistently.
That's not at all the impression you get if you read 90s Usenet posts which often shit on episodes now regarded as classics, but then a lot of people shit on the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin in 1971 as well. The dicksucking came only years later.
>>81606600
Also by "still like" I meant I still enjoy the early seasons I mentioned and don't think IT'S ALL SHIT just because I'm critical of it, not that I still watch and enjoy new episodes.
Before someone says my opinions suck because I only like HD episodes or whatever.
>>81606705
My dad could confirm. He said a lot of people really hated the Stones back then. It was like "How the fuck did they get so big? They can't play for shit. They sound like a club act."
>>81606041
also are the worst
Doesn't matter, it's been bad for much longer than it was ever good.
>>81606945
We are literally living in the universe that sprung up when someone unaware of their cosmic power said "man, The Simpsons is so good, I wish it could go on forever!" back in 1993.
>>81606710
You dont have to backhand compliment yourself so hard over liking the new stuff, the show is generally getting back in favour outside the people SUPER die hard in thier hate, or people who havent watched it. Not saying nobody genuinely hates it anymore, but it still has a lot of fans. Also, you should also just not give a fuck if someone shits on you for not hating the new stuff.
>>81607027
But I actually don't like the new stuff; that was my point: I realized it could be read as that when it wasn't what I meant.
It doesn't get me mad it's still on, but I just honestly haven't seen a new episode in years and didn't want my general point (Simpsons was never a consistent masterpiece) distorted if it looked like I was saying it's currently better now.
>>81606600
>At the risk of destroying my credibility, I really think I prefer King of the Hill because I like character humor more than the typical Simpsons style, and Simpsons only had that going for a very brief period on and then made the show and characters wackier
Then again, most people find the Season 2 style too dry and unfunny. I think when most people refer to "classic Simpsons", they mean Seasons 4-8.
>>81607123
Oh. Your original comment was pretty confusing.
>>81607134
I'd say the two sections generally called "classic" are 2 to 8 and 1 to 10.
I have no opinion on what is classic because I never watched it growing up, started randomly watching and enjoying the HD series and not even knowing about any "golden age" or the fact that the episodes were hated until like a year after I started watching.
Now that I go back to the older stuff, I feel no huge difference in the humour outside Season 1.
>>81607239
>started randomly watching and enjoying the HD series
>>81606992
>every bad decision that has ever been made was made by somebody with cosmic powers and never realized it
What a dick.
>>81606041
Lisa and Homer episodes are always top tier
>>81606705
>Usenet shitting on X
They rather resembled 4chan in that regard. You have to see through the vitriol and rapid dogshit to the rare specs of insight.
>>81607294
>>81606992
I wish that I'd have the sense to use cosmic powers better if I had them.
>>81607315
It's like I said >>81606899
>>81606899
Those people were right though
>>81606899
>>81607366
I'm sure your dad really had his finger on the pulse of the nation when he was a younger man. What a happening dude. So insightful. Thanks for sharing.
>>81607480
Fatherless nigger detected
>>81607276
I had no older series to compare it to due to not having watched it. Though I legitimately dont find the older stuff like, objectively better. While some all time classics like Deep Space Homer are indeed fantastic, I dont find others that good. Like A Streetcar Named Marge. That was probably a 6/10.
>>81607480
>>81607536
Or guy with severe daddy issues.
I can't be objective about the first 5 seasons. I was 7-12 years old when I watched them. They formed many of my notions of humor.
>>81607538
The songs from the play that we hear only, like, 5 lines of each are some of my favorite musical bits it's ever done.
But probably my favorite Simpsons musical thing isn't even in the actual show so I might just have weird taste: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwqA_OMaUes
Fucking 10/10 voice acting.
>>81607798
I cant deny the music was great. But the plot was just bad. I despise "it's a character acts much worse than usual so that they can be better episode" because I cant get invested in the plot knowing that's not how bad they really are.
Loved the Maggie sub plot, though that might be me being spoiled by "genius baby" being her character in the modern stuff
>>81607798
>Fucking 10/10 voice acting
Sort of, but Julie Kavner fails pretty hard at singing.
>>81606899
The Stones were a lot more divisive, but they always had a huge following. They were pumping out hits since the early 60's, and a lot of people like that era the most. My own dad sites the Rolling Stones as his second favorite band, first being the Kinks, but he's been a fan since they premiered in the States. In fact both of my parents prefer Brian Jones era Stones.
Also, part of their appeal WAS trying to mimic the more rough style of club acts, at least later on. Exile on Main St. was basically a huge attempt to imitate that sound, and it really caught on so they rolled with it. On the other end of things, Let It Bleed is extremely well produced, and sounds like anything but a club act.
There's also Their Satanic Majesty's Request, but they may have gone too far in a few places there.
>>81608204
Meant that comment for the song in the link.
Luckily Marge didn't sing much in the episode.
>>81608253
My mom did like their 60s stuff when she was a young teenager, eg. she liked Satisfaction and Paint It Black. She really doesn't like any post-1969 Stones eg. Miss You she hates.
>>81608369
Their early stuff is actually pretty great. Like most bands you have to dig a bit deeper than the stuff they play on the radio, but they had a lot of fantastic stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGi-Eq5MBbg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhrqsnvPaco
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-62QgzmcDQ
I tend to think of their early stuff up to Their Satanic Majesty's Request as being great, then Beggars Banquet - Exile on Main St. as their most solid run of albums. Between the Buttons is actually an extremely overlooked album.
The Rolling Stones functionally died with the 1960s, or at least after Sticky Fingers. Later Stones are just lighter-waving stadium rock, even worse because Exile On Main Street was one of the main ingredients that led to the hair metal cancer.
>>81608553
To make the discussion a bit more cartoon related, Exile was something like Shrek. It's fantastic on its own, but ended up having a really negative influence.
You should see how hard Black Sabbath were shit on by critics in the early 70s.
HAVE THE ROLLING STONES KILLED
>>81608553
>even worse because Exile On Main Street was one of the main ingredients that led to the hair metal cancer
Along with Robert Plant's overwrought UH UH UH BABY BABY BABY nonsense.
>>81608204
Dan is the only of the main cast that can actually sing, probably because he has the right ethnic background for it. :^)
>>81608688
Critics have always been overly critical of new musical trends. They initially hated jazz because they thought that the artists were "playing the instruments wrong", having been accustomed to classical music. The same thing then happened with critics who liked jazz claiming that rock and roll was playing the blues wrong. They hated pretty much every album that's become among the most influential at release. A lot of critics called Hendrix a shit guitar player at first.
They get kind of caught up in this structure of what they're critiquing "should" be, and end up missing what makes something revolutionary. I think it's better to gauge the general populace's reaction to see what general attitudes were at the time.
>>81608895
And if you asked Robert Christgau, he's still never changed his opinion of Sabbath over 45 years later. :^)
>the majority of this thread
>>/mu/
>>81608895
>They get kind of caught up in this structure of what they're critiquing "should" be, and end up missing what makes something revolutionary. I think it's better to gauge the general populace's reaction to see what general attitudes were at the time
Then again, if we used popularity as a gauge of something, Nickelback would be the Beatles of the 2000s judging by the amount of radio play and album sales they had. And I don't think we'd want to go down that road.
>>81605909
the older episodes were tests designed to tell if the viewer is a faggot or not. If you didn't like it.. i have bad news.
>>81609081
True, you can't really use argument by popularity either, and taste is subjective. In the end, I think what bothers me most is when people hold strong opinions, positive or negative, about a band, when they've only heard a few songs. Like that guy who hates the Beatles because he's heard I Wanna Hold Your Hand and Hey Jude, or the guy who claims to be a huge Zeppelin fan but has only listened to Stairway to Heaven and Rock and Roll. I feel like you need to listen to at least a few albums by any band before writing them off as gold or garbage.
>>81608678
So Shrek is Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu? I had no idea.
>>81609248As somebody who really liked Haruhi when it was airing, yes. Holy fuck all those copycat series.
>>81609305
Batman actually beat God the one time they came into conflict. He has never beaten Swamp Thing, however.
>>81609185
Unless you're a retard like Xgau who's a supposedly professional critic but judges artists' entire catalog by their worst album.
>>81606899
He also said people didn't like Aerosmith back then either and called them a third-rate Stones/Zeppelin imitation.
