TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- 12 Extremely Disappointing Facts About Popular Music
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »


Posted by Arbiter on Dec-06-2011 08:01:

Popular music's existence is disappointment enough.


Posted by WittyHandle on Dec-06-2011 08:14:

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.


Yes to the first part, no to the last. They are surely overrated, but to say they were crap is stupid.

quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
Popular music's existence is disappointment enough.


What do you mean?


Posted by Sushipunk on Dec-06-2011 09:14:

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.


Posted by Redd on Dec-06-2011 09:25:

the more psychedelic the beatles get the better they are

if anyone is overrated on the list it's Elvis


Posted by FuzzQi on Dec-06-2011 09:37:

Hurr durr modern music just isn't the same as it was back in the 60s and 70s


Posted by LAdazeNYnights on Dec-06-2011 09:41:

I rest my case.


Posted by SYSTEM-J on Dec-06-2011 10:17:

quote:
Originally posted by Redd
if anyone is overrated on the list it's Elvis


Elvis was a hero to most, but he never meant shit to me.

And I don't think the "we weren't around when the Beatle were new" argument necessarily holds up. I wasn't around when Led Zep or many other classic rock bands were doing their shit, 30-40 years back, but I still like a lot of music from that period without making allowances. Some people just do not find the Beatles to their taste. And I'm one of them.


Posted by Ian on Dec-06-2011 10:45:

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.


Posted by Sushipunk on Dec-06-2011 11:01:

I just pictured Ian popping a boner in the car with his mum, while listening to the Pet Shop Boys.


Posted by stren on Dec-06-2011 11:06:

You don't have to like the Beatles to understand their significance in music history.


Posted by Vector A on Dec-06-2011 11:39:

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.


Posted by EgosXII on Dec-06-2011 12:04:

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.


Posted by Meat187 on Dec-06-2011 13:10:


  1. Eurodance is dead.
  2. Armin still calls his music Trance.
  3. Dubstep is becoming more and more popular.
  4. I have no idea who the fuck Skrillex is, but apparently he's famous.
  5. People think Deep House is interesting.
  6. mnml
  7. Tiesto is making fart electro house now (or however you call that shit).
  8. People think Elvis and The Beatles made great music.
  9. Blackout Crew failed to repeat the brilliance that was "Put a Donk on it"
  10. Humppa is not popular enough.
  11. Clubs don't play enough Para Para / Eurobeat.
  12. People think Balance 05 is good.


Posted by stren on Dec-06-2011 13:11:

oh man, thanks for reminding me of Balance 005, such an awesome record


Posted by Bierheld on Dec-06-2011 16:16:

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


Posted by Silky Johnson on Dec-06-2011 16:21:

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.









We were never being boringgggg....


Posted by zyklon-jay on Dec-06-2011 17:46:

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.


Posted by meriter on Dec-06-2011 18:52:

Have these numbers been adjusted for inflation?


Posted by Vector A on Dec-06-2011 19:05:

quote:
Originally posted by meriter
Have these numbers been adjusted for inflation?

Or the fact that the population has grown by hundreds of millions since those days?


Posted by Chimney on Dec-06-2011 19:29:

quote:
Originally posted by Meat187

[*]People think Balance 05 is good.
[/list=1]


Say that to my face, bitch.


Posted by Meat187 on Dec-06-2011 19:32:

quote:
Originally posted by Chimney
Say that to my face, bitch.


Balance 005 is a boring piece of crap by a talentless DJ. It's mediocre at best.


Posted by Lira on Dec-06-2011 19:35:

quote:
Originally posted by -FSP-
And the Beetles are the most overrated band ever.

고맙습니다!고맙습니다!감사합니다!

사랑해,내호버크라프트는장어로가득차있어요


Posted by Chimney on Dec-06-2011 19:35:

quote:
Originally posted by Meat187
Balance 005 is a boring piece of crap by a talentless DJ. It's mediocre at best.


Tell me some better compilations then.


Posted by Lira on Dec-06-2011 19:38:

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.


Posted by Ian on Dec-06-2011 19:41:

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.


You just want to be one of the west end girls.


Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.