TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- 12 Extremely Disappointing Facts About Popular Music
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »
Popular music's existence is disappointment enough.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by chewy dragee THe beatles are overated. They are one of those things that society demands you must like. If you say you don't like them people give you funny looks and the "WHAATT?? , how can you not like the beatles??", but deep down they also know the beatles are crap and too afraid to admit it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Arbiter Popular music's existence is disappointment enough. |
The Beatles were doing quite a bit in their own time. It was the birth of rock and roll, back then, which was very, very new.
I get why they're thought of as a bit "meh" now, but that's because we weren't around in the 60s when all their shit went through the roof.
In 30 years, people will be wondering why anything we currently think of as big, ever became big. Same shit, different era. And just like every era, some things appeal to some, and not to others.
Personally, I like The Beatles quite a bit. Not all their stuff, but quite a bit. I grew up listening to a lot of their music though.
the more psychedelic the beatles get the better they are
if anyone is overrated on the list it's Elvis
Hurr durr modern music just isn't the same as it was back in the 60s and 70s
I rest my case.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Redd if anyone is overrated on the list it's Elvis |
I find pretty much everything that's out and about in the 'popular' category to be mindnumbingly bland, autotuned, ripping off everything even our generation grew up with let alone previous ones.
Infact, I can be in the car listening to our local radio station and something like the pet shop boys, m-people or blondie come on amongst the newer stuff & I find myself excited
As for the beatles, they're good, very good when you judge them on what they were doing at the time they were doing it. Same as Elvis and pretty much everyone but it doesn't mean we have to like them, as long as we appreciate for what they did for music that allowed it to evolve as it did to what we do like.
I just pictured Ian popping a boner in the car with his mum, while listening to the Pet Shop Boys.
You don't have to like the Beatles to understand their significance in music history.
The Beatles came on the scene about a decade after the "birth of rock and roll."
I like some of their later stuff quite a bit, but to me all of their early cheesy love songs are just so much forgettable dross.
I guess my point was not clearly made- you can not like the beatles but you can't not like what they did- their effect on music is insane.
oh man, thanks for reminding me of Balance 005, such an awesome record
Ridiculous and whiny list. Comparing multi-million selling acts with other multi-million acts.
Might as well chuck my own opinions in as well.
About the Beatles: They were innovative, also one of the first widely-known acts to use electronic instruments IIRC. Great songwriters as well as the voice of a generation.
Elvis: Impressive voice, but most of his popularity comes from being a white man making black people's music (R&R).
Queen: Ah, Mercury and the band. No respect really, a lot of their music is terribly annoying and a repetition of the same theme. Probably more fun if your heart is covered in union jacks.
REM: No clue what's so special about them, pretty bland and non-provocative pulp.
Jimmy Hendrix: Unparalleled mastery of the guitar and an inspiring legacy to boot.
Nirvana: Grunty deppresive provocative youth act spawning an army of copycats. whoo and yay.
Bruce Springsteen: Now we're getting to an older generations' own cheesekings.
Pearl Jam: Why is this considered classic greatness while creed, who basically do the exact same thing, are part of the depressive new kid flock?
Bob Marly: Respect m�n and all. But i like eek-a-mouse more for clich� stoning purpouses 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Sushipunk I just pictured Ian popping a boner in the car with his mum, while listening to the Pet Shop Boys. |
the yardbirds with Clapton were amazing. while Jimmy page is ultra talented, when he replaced Clapton and they essentially became led zep...the band made good music but stole almost all of their songs without giving credit.
so led zep can eat a dick. they have certainly been sued and lost enough. I can't take when people think that a bunch of plagiarist crackers are innovators in music. they are nothing more than a pretty boy cover band with a great guitarist.
Have these numbers been adjusted for inflation?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by meriter Have these numbers been adjusted for inflation? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Meat187 [*]People think Balance 05 is good. [/list=1] |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Chimney Say that to my face, bitch. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by -FSP- And the Beetles are the most overrated band ever. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Meat187 Balance 005 is a boring piece of crap by a talentless DJ. It's mediocre at best. |
Why the hell doesn't Google Translate understand my post unless I add a space between 내 and 호!?
Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree with Fleischmann.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Sushipunk I just pictured Ian popping a boner in the car with his mum, while listening to the Pet Shop Boys. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.