The Beatles aren't that great.

[None of Your Business]

The title of this thread might come of as inflammatory, but I feel strongly about this. Is there any bands that it seems everyone likes that you just can't stand? Why?

To me, it really seems they are trying to perform music that sounds avant garde merely for avant garde's sake. I do credit them for probably being the predecessors to Progressive Rock, but their music seems experimental and poorly thought out. This isn't helped by the rabid fans who seem to think they're greater musical geniuses than Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven combined.

I must again point out this thread isn't necessarily about Beatles hating, but about being the minority opinion about a particular band.

[Mike McC]

Rush is horrible. Horrible. Absolutely horrible. Yeah, they got some great musicians in there, but all of that is undone by Geddy Lee. Fucking Geddy Lee. He sounds like an old woman doing a terrible impersonation of Robert Plant.

[shiney]

Any of the 'new rock' bands that are basically just emo angry white boys singing sad songs about how sad they are because their sad life is now a sad life without this girl that they don't have the balls to talk to and they are sad.

FUCK OFF NEW ROCK

[Mondt]

Any of the 'new rock' bands that are basically just emo angry white boys singing sad songs about how sad they are because their sad life is now a sad life without this girl that they don't have the balls to talk to and they are sad.

FUCK OFF NEW ROCKI could go with this. At least my list includes:

My Chemical Romance
The Used
AFI
Green Day (okay maybe not in THIS list but whatever)
Fallout Boy (I SAID IT FIRST HAHAHA)
On the same note as Fallout Boy, Panic! At The Disco

And I don't really know if these count because not EVERYONE likes them, but most people in a certain, eh, clique do. And I'm kind of part of it:

blessthefall
Bring Me The Horizon
Drop Dead Gorgeous
The Devil Wears Prada

[Fifthfiend]

None of your business:

This isn't helped by the rabid fans who seem to think they're greater musical geniuses than Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven combined.

No more of this insulting-the-fans shit. It's against the rules and it makes you look like an asshole.

You wouldn't be thrilled if someone did a post about like, "whiny bitch Beatles haters whose minds are too filled with stupid to appreciate their TIMELESS GENIUS" and you won't find it here cause we don't roll that way, so show others the same courtesy.

blessthefall
Bring Me The Horizon
Drop Dead Gorgeous
The Devil Wears Prada

I was like wait aren't two of those movies?

Then I looked them up and was like oh shit! They're bands too.

Learn something new every day.

[Mondt]

I was like wait aren't two of those movies?

Then I looked them up and was like oh shit! They're bands too.

Learn something new every day.Yeah I know, real original right? :rolleyes:

[Fifthfiend]

Well in fairness the one band calls themselves "Drop dead, Gorgeous." So that's sort of like being clever.

[Mondt]

Well in fairness the one band calls themselves "Drop dead, Gorgeous." So that's sort of like being clever.Cleverly emo! Their songs are all 'bout killinz and stuff I think. If I'm allowed generalizations. (Edit: My bad. Apparently its about metaphorical killing and then God.) (Edit Again: Actually I can't tell if these guys just have a weird killing obsession or they manage to make metaphors about it and just throw the word "God" into a few songs. Either way, not my thing)

In any case, About my list, The Devil Wears Prada actually isn't all too bad to me. The screamer is really good, but the guitarist is the emo-est thing this side of anywhere ever. Plus I'm not a huge fan of like the whole (WARNING! EXAGGERATION MEANT TO SHOW MY DISTASTE FOR THE MUSIC! DO NOT TAKE SERIOUSLY!) four minute breakdown thing.

[Megaman FTW]

Any of the 'new rock' bands that are basically just emo angry white boys singing sad songs about how sad they are because their sad life is now a sad life without this girl that they don't have the balls to talk to and they are sad.

FUCK OFF NEW ROCK

I don't think that the music is bad because its new. I think that the same amount of crappy music has always been around. Its just that 30 or 40 years after the music is made, the crappy songs are left behind and forgotten leaving only the good ones left to hear. This is why 60's music>70's music>90's music>Good 2000 music>Drilling a hole in your head>Crappy 2000 music>80's music.

Sorry, I just don't like the vast majority of 80's music. Some of it was good though.

[TDK]

Personally, I like the Beatles, but I can see where he is coming from.

As far as hating bands that most people love: I'm not too much of an ACDC fan. I mean, I don't hate the music, but most of the lyrics don't make any sense and the guitar, etc, is nothing special. I like certain songs, like For Those About to Rock, but I hate Back in Black, etc.

[Mondt]

I don't think that the music is bad because its new. I think that the same amount of crappy music has always been around. Its just that 30 or 40 years after the music is made, the crappy songs are left behind and forgotten leaving only the good ones left to hear. This is why 60's music>70's music>90's music>Good 2000 music>Drilling a hole in your head>Crappy 2000 music>80's music.

Sorry, I just don't like the vast majority of 80's music. Some of it was good though.I think he was elaning more towards the actual "angry emo white kids" bands and not just new rock despite that line.

If he was, I'd have to disagree to a point. ;)

EDITUS: Shiney's post reminds me of Atreyu. Atreyu is the catchiest metalcore thing in existance but holy shit are they emo. "We can burn in each others arms" "You kiss me for breath" "Will you still hold me when you see what I have done, will you still kiss me the same when you taste my victim's blood?" (That last one is on a song about becoming a vampire... wow)

[Mirai Gen]

Dragonforce is totally, utterly great, don't get me wrong. It's just that listening to more than three or four of their songs at a time makes the adrenaline slowly leak out from my body and I'm left listening to, oh wow, another agonizingly long Herman Li wank-fest solo.

[Fifthfiend]

Actually one thing I would like to say that is totally great about living in a world with mp3 players is I actually don't spend nearly as much time as I used to hating bands that other people like, because my iPod-cocooned existence means I'm no longer obligated to give a shit about sounds that other people enjoy which I do not. The only things I can work up a good hate over anymore are stuff to which I was exposed to pre-ipod (re: the Blinkin' Linkins) and anything which I absolutely can't avoid like having Kanye West hammered into my head by my (former) shitty gym's shitty locker room's shitty sound system.

[TDK]

Actually one thing I would like to say that is totally great about living in a world with mp3 players is I actually don't spend nearly as much time as I used to hating bands that other people like, because my iPod-cocooned existence means I'm no longer obligated to give a shit about sounds that other people enjoy which I do not. The only things I can work up a good hate over anymore are stuff to which I was exposed to pre-ipod (re: the Blinkin' Linkins) and anything which I absolutely can't avoid like having Kanye West hammered into my head by my (former) shitty gym's shitty locker room's shitty sound system.
Quote for fuckin' truth, man.

[POS Industries]

The Grateful Dead. Seriously.

Then again, maybe I just never took enough drugs to appreciate what they were trying to do.

[Raiden]

Metallica.

Some of their songs are pretty good. But that doesn't do much when the band playing them is composed of douchebags.



Flogging Molly For Life, bitches.

[The Argent Lord]

Panic! At The Disco
I used to hate them, too, but I accidentally listened to them without knowing once and decided they're actually pretty good. They don't really fit the whole "emo angry white boys singing sad songs about how sad they are because their sad life is now a sad life without this girl that they don't have the balls to talk to and they are sad" thing, at any rate.

[Fifthfiend]

The Grateful Dead. Seriously.

Then again, maybe I just never took enough drugs to appreciate what they were trying to do.

This is actually one hundred percent correct; you really do have to take a shit-ton of drugs, and then all of a sudden jam-band music becomes good.

I used to hate them, too, but I accidentally listened to them without knowing once and decided they're actually pretty good. They don't really fit the whole "emo angry white boys singing sad songs about how sad they are because their sad life is now a sad life without this girl that they don't have the balls to talk to and they are sad" thing, at any rate.

I actually like Panic at the Disco, but I like it on the same where I like Fast and the Furious 3: Tokyo Drift. I'm not kidding myself it isn't shit but I've decided I'm basically okay with that.

[Mondt]

I used to hate them, too, but I accidentally listened to them without knowing once and decided they're actually pretty good. They don't really fit the whole "emo angry white boys singing sad songs about how sad they are because their sad life is now a sad life without this girl that they don't have the balls to talk to and they are sad" thing, at any rate.I just don't like them because I don't like Fall Out Boy. The first time I heard them without knowing who it was I thought it was Fall Out Boy.

[Yrcrazypa]

Any of the 'new rock' bands that are basically just emo angry white boys singing sad songs about how sad they are because their sad life is now a sad life without this girl that they don't have the balls to talk to and they are sad.

FUCK OFF NEW ROCK

Quoted for EXTREME emphasis. Except they don't sing because they are terrible at it, it just comes across as whining to smashing on their instruments as hard as they can. Remember, louder is always better! /sarcasm.

[Ugainius]

Dragonforce is totally, utterly great, don't get me wrong. It's just that listening to more than three or four of their songs at a time makes the adrenaline slowly leak out from my body and I'm left listening to, oh wow, another agonizingly long Herman Li wank-fest solo.


Hmm Dragonforce is good but I can't the feeling that most of there songs are about magical dragons flying out their asses out of mind for some reason.

Flogging Molly For Life

I won't second this but I will give it my secondary not real approval

Also ManO'War. Sure it's still about killin' shit but most of the killing revolves around other people. Most likely caused by you. In a thong.

[Wyndon]

This thread title made me cry a little bit. The beatles aren't that great?!

Okay, you can ask PX, cuz we had a long convo about this (Although I'm not sure if he even looks here), but I love Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. I also enjoy Ravel (La tombeau de couperin + Bolero = genius), Vagner, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Vivaldi, Handel, and a few others I'm most certainly forgetting.

But the Beatles are absolutely legendary. They have everything from Flying, to I am the Walrus, to Strawberry Fields, to Norweigan Wood, to Lonely People/Eleanor Rigsby. They're so eclectic in their music, and they're ORIGINAL. You have to remember, when they were around, Rock was just blooming. It was all jazz and blues (p.s. I'm also a Jazzhead >.>) before that, and the Beatles really paved the way for rock. If i'm not mistaken, Jimi Hendrix came AFTEr them (I wanna say 1967 was Jimi hendrix, so the beatles are before that).

Plus they're really really good. The fact that they have so many catchy songs is just...

ANYWAY!! Moving on.

Bands I hate: Anything that's really heavy metal/rock. Punk. Emo. All of that stuffs. It just seems to lack any passion (or talent, but I don't wanna say that cuz some of the drummers aren't bad). I almost feel like the real message and passion for music has been lost in that general area, which is saddening.

Personally, I stick to my acoustic / rock music.

[FenrisWolf]

Norweigan Wood...
I'm pretty sure that's the name of a jazz standard and I'm not familiar with the Beatles' version of it at all.

[facelift]

Almost all metalcore. You could play 10 second clips from 10 different metalcore bands with your eyes closed (as to not know the titles/bands playing) and I dare you to tell how each of them are distinct from the others. Because, more often than not, most of them DON'T have any distinct qualities. I imagine in the beginning when it first came around it was fresh but then 234,876,344,789,656 bands loved it, but refused to expand on it and just followed the formula. And it seems that any kid gets street cred as a "credible music fan" as long as they adore and worship all 10,000+ metalcore bands playing in their local area and can name off all the shows they've been to by each artist.

I don't know how it is in other parts of the world, but for those of you who live in SW Ohio and want to be big in local band, just follow this formula: play blastbeats, down-tune your guitars and play palm-muted chugging triplets, if you play lead make sure you do sweeps, and be sure to throw in breakdowns in every song or so just to please the moshers. As for you singers, just be sure to scream in the same guttural tone as everyone else, sing about how much you wanna fight, and flex your muscles so we all know how tough you are.

[Preturbed]

Metallica.

Some of their songs are pretty good. But that doesn't do much when the band playing them is composed of douchebags.



Flogging Molly For Life, bitches.

If you're referring to the Napster incident, it's pretty clear to me that they were in the right. Also "some" and "pretty good" doesn't begin to describe what Metallica created. You want to compare a band to Mozart, Beethoven et al, then this is the one you're looking for.

I will give you a really solid SECOND on the Flogging Molly bit though. Just saw them tonight and it was outstanding.

Overrated Bands I hate: Anything where the lyrics consist entirely of destroying the lead singer's vocal cords for the duration of the set. Also Linkin Park. Also also Panic! at the disco and their ilk.

[katiuska]

I'm pretty sure that's the name of a jazz standard and I'm not familiar with the Beatles' version of it at all.

Well, if you know a version with this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaNQjhXhfVs) melody, then it's a jazz arrangement of a Beatles song.

As far as I know, it's an original composition, an earnest tale of disappointment and arson. I missed that part for years, actually; I just assumed "lighting a fire" had something to do with a hearthside.

[Lord of Joshelplex]

I personally do not like the Beatles at all. Not only do I dislike the genre, but I felt the Beatles were talentless, and only wrote that stuff becasue they were high. Its easy to be innovative and unique when you are high, How about when you are not?


Kry-Edit: Arise thread. Arise. Arise thread. Arise. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV6J0QtcMkM)

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

Pink Floyd. Which is pretty nonsense because I listen to a whole lot of bands from the same time as Floyd and with similar sounds and methods of experimentation and such like so I should like them. I don't know what it is.
I guess they always seemed preachy with a fantasy-land philosophy to me. Not that every band ever doesn't push their own philosophy but I've always found it particularly grating with Floyd. Why I'm not sure.

[Mike McC]

Pink Floyd. Which is pretty nonsense because I listen to a whole lot of bands from the same time as Floyd and with similar sounds and methods of experimentation and such like so I should like them. I don't know what it is.
I guess they always seemed preachy with a fantasy-land philosophy to me. Not that every band ever doesn't push their own philosophy but I've always found it particularly grating with Floyd. Why I'm not sure.Thank you! Finally, someone else besides me and my family who agree Pink Floyd aren't that good.

[Nique]

I actually like Panic at the Disco, but I like it on the same where I like Fast and the Furious 3: Tokyo Drift. I'm not kidding myself it isn't shit but I've decided I'm basically okay with that.

Wait, you can do that? Ok so it's like a rule now?

Excellent!

Well, if you know a version with this melody, then it's a jazz arrangement of a Beatles song.

hahaha. pwned.

I have to give a strong second to the Metalcore hate. I just can not get on board with any of it... I mean, I'm sure there is some small obscure little corner where it bleeds into the only slightly less crappy Hardcore rock like 'Breaking Benjamins' or whatever in which I might not feel exactly like my ears have been violated, but really no it's all terrible.

Also I guess Nivana is a little overrated.

I do understand the Beatles thing, but then again I have to go 'come on', I mean, THE Beatles? There is nothing not good about them except maybe when they let Ringo go lead too much or whatever.

[Mondt]

Almost all metalcore. You could play 10 second clips from 10 different metalcore bands with your eyes closed (as to not know the titles/bands playing) and I dare you to tell how each of them are distinct from the others. Because, more often than not, most of them DON'T have any distinct qualities. I imagine in the beginning when it first came around it was fresh but then 234,876,344,789,656 bands loved it, but refused to expand on it and just followed the formula. And it seems that any kid gets street cred as a "credible music fan" as long as they adore and worship all 10,000+ metalcore bands playing in their local area and can name off all the shows they've been to by each artist.oh ho ho! A challenge! XD I'm not a huge fan of the genre because I do agree, it's overdone and a giant copy-fest, but I really only listen to Killswitch Engage from this genre, and since they're pegged with popularizing that particular copied sound, I don't feel so bad.

Verse: Screaming vocals, heavy riff
Chorus: Light chords every measure, clean vocals
Bridge: Breakdown, screaming vocals if vocals are there.

I don't know how it is in other parts of the world, but for those of you who live in SW Ohio and want to be big in local band, just follow this formula: play blastbeats, down-tune your guitars and play palm-muted chugging triplets, if you play lead make sure you do sweeps, and be sure to throw in breakdowns in every song or so just to please the moshers. As for you singers, just be sure to scream in the same guttural tone as everyone else, sing about how much you wanna fight, and flex your muscles so we all know how tough you are.Your area's bands suck.

:D

I can pretty much see everything on that list work out actually, except the blast beats. God blast beats sound terrible. And good vocalists are hard to come by in any genre that includes screaming, so that's not just your area XD

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

I do understand the Beatles thing, but then again I have to go 'come on', I mean, THE Beatles? There is nothing not good about them except maybe when they let Ringo go lead too much or whatever.

Hey now, we all know that Ringo's technically proficient but rather staid drumming is all that keep the crazies in the rest of the band from going nuts and creating solely dissonant ramblings.

[Solid Snake]

I have this really weird habit of really liking one particular singer or band from a particular genre, and then really disliking the singer or band that's considered nearly identical to the one I really like. If a band or singer is continually compared to one of my favorites, I'll often get excited only to listen to their music and...not like it at all. And I'm totally capable of listening to their songs and realizing that the styles are very similar and all, but...yeah. I'm strange like that.

For example: I love Billy Joel but I dislike Elton John. How the hell do you explain that? Seriously, Billy Joel's one of my all-time favorites. I could listen to nearly any of his tunes. Elton John's compared to Joel all the time (and I'm pretty sure a majority might even rate the Brit as the better of the duo.) So how the hell is it possible for me to love Billy's "Italian Restaurant" but prove unable to withstand nearly any of Elton's tunes you'd dare play?

Sometimes this even applies to different covers of the same exact song. I really like OneRepublic's original version of "Apologize" but I'm not the least bit fond of Timbaland's version and it's nearly the exact same thing. But seriously, I listen to Timbaland's version and I just want to grab a shotgun and blow the brains out of the guy who keeps going "Hey, hey, hey" in the background as if he has absolutely nothing better to say.

Another example from a totally different genre (actually two different genres, as one version is country and the other is more techno: ) I love Rascal Flatt's version of "What Hurts the Most." I hate Cascada's version of "What Hurts the Most." The strange thing about this particular example is that I actually really like Cascada. "A Neverending Dream" is a song Cascada sings that I really enjoy. So why would I dislike her version of "What Hurts the Most?" Seriously?

Then there are some cases of songs that were originally intended to be sung by a person of one particular gender, but I vastly prefer the version sung by a person of the opposite gender. For example, Linda Eder sings such a phenomenal version of "Man of La Mancha" that I can't listen to any other variation of the theme. The problem is that this song is written from a male's perspective: (lyrics include: "I am Lord Don Quixote, the man of La Mancha.") And I like the one damned version of the song a female sings. Seriously?

Finally, there's always the intriguing case of the artist I absolutely despise with the exception of a single song of theirs that I really happen to somehow like. (And it's rarely ever the song they're actually famous for.) I'm not a fan of Santana's songs at all and actually garnered somewhat of a reputation among family and close friends for disliking him and then suddenly I heard "Into the Night" and it was like shit, I actually really like a single Santana song. So my iPod's actually full of single songs from artists I actually don't like. I'm not a Matchbox Twenty fan but I love "Unwell." I hate Madonna with a fiery passion, but love one single song of hers: "Like a Prayer." This makes absolutely no sense.

Finally, I can't commit to a single genre of music as my preferred style at all. My collection includes a little bit of techno, a little bit of classic rock, a little bit of country, a little bit of Weird Al's parodies, a little bit of videogame music, a little bit of movie soundtracks, a little bit of '90s dance, a little bit of Arabic pop, a little bit of Broadway-style vocalists, and the occasional Mozart or Bach. Pretty much everything but rap and heavy metal. Wait...scratch that...I do have at least one or two songs that might qualify as "metal."

Yeah I'm just fucked up when it comes to my music preferences.

[Satan's Onion]

Hey now, we all know that Ringo's technically proficient but rather staid drumming is all that keep the crazies in the rest of the band from going nuts and creating solely dissonant ramblings.

Them's fighting words, good sir =P --George Harrison was a damned good guitarist, and kept his feet on the ground even when John went a little off the deep end with the allegedly avant-garde stuff ("Revolution No. 9" never did anything for me) and Paul started insisting on dozens of takes of each song.

Ringo Starr, from what I've heard, is very much a drummer's drummer--he does a bunch of little things with his backbeat that other drummers, to this day, haven't quite been able to replicate.

[Mirai Gen]

I could talk about how Black Eyed Peas sucks, but I mean, everyone knows that.

Suicidal Tendencies. Like, I really did listen to more than just That Song On Guitar Hero 2. I don't get it. The guitar work is amazing but I'm just not seeing the appeal.

Finally, I can't commit to a single genre of music as my preferred style at all. My collection includes a little bit of techno, a little bit of classic rock, a little bit of country, a little bit of Weird Al's parodies, a little bit of videogame music, a little bit of movie soundtracks, a little bit of '90s dance, a little bit of Arabic pop, a little bit of Broadway-style vocalists, and the occasional Mozart or Bach. Pretty much everything but rap and heavy metal. Wait...scratch that...I do have at least one or two songs that might qualify as "metal."
Damn it, stop stealing my words. I'll file charges or something.

[Lord of Joshelplex]

Thank you! Finally, someone else besides me and my family who agree Pink Floyd aren't that good.

I hate them for the same reason I hate the Beatles. bunch of stoner hippies.

One band I absolutely do not like at all, that I know a lot do, is Led Zeppelin. I odnt know what it is really, but I just cant seem to like them at all. I try too, but I just cant.

[Magus]

I like Led Zeppelin because 1. I liked the songs/style and 2. Songs are immediately distinguishable from one another, which DOESN'T happen for every band, believe it or not. I mean, I could say that I like Blink 182 (I don't, but hypothetically), but unless I was some sort of hardcore fan I couldn't tell the difference between any of their songs. I'm not sure if hardcore fans can.

I'm not saying bands have to have songs that all sound radically different from one another but man, mix it up a little.

I hate this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azW7wGoOVyc) "band" (apparently called Norma Jean, whatever that means) and anybody else who sounds like them.

Can anyone explain to me what is the purpose behind this "music"? It sounds a little like Death Metal but all the Death Metal I've heard has a recognizable tune to it, and is also way cooler, and even though stuff is screamed you can understand it. I don't know what's going on with this "band".

[Mondt]

I hate this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azW7wGoOVyc) "band" (apparently called Norma Jean, whatever that means) and anybody else who sounds like them.

Can anyone explain to me what is the purpose behind this "music"? It sounds a little like Death Metal but all the Death Metal I've heard has a recognizable tune to it, and is also way cooler, and even though stuff is screamed you can understand it. I don't know what's going on with this "band".I'm no fan of Norma Jean but live performances of bands like this don't usually depict their music well. Lots of bands put on shows for for people to listen to less and to mosh to more. Either way, it's a style of music that's getting(has gotten) really popular which is made up of mostly breakdown and dissonant chords, changes tempo occasionally. The screaming just adds to the intensity. I'd say its mostly moshing music. For the hardcore kids.

But yeah, Norma Jean is mostly terrible if you ask me. Though, similar bands I can think of include The Devil Wears Prada (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufN6olJ3P8s) and Bring Me The Horizon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWggPLXeOkU) which are less sucky than Norma Jean in my opinion, though I'm not a fan. *shrug* It's pretty tough to hear any lyrics in screams anymore unless you've really developed an ear, and even then, for some bands (As I Lay Dying, Darkest Hour) you still have it look them up.

On death metal, well, I don't particularly know a lot about death metal, but the first thing that comes to my mind when someone says "death metal" is The Black Dahlia Murder (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBHNiebX2Mo), so yeah.

I understand where you're coming from, but I would just tell you to sotp listening to it unless you really really really really wanna run into lots of shit.

Though, it could be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U8uTmxDTxQ) worse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2jD-Cnlzwk).

Or this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr1JfQyEIZs), but that's just an abomination spawned from the depths of hell (and genre mashing). XD

[Nique]

Wow. I listened to all of those with a relatively opened mind, and got raped in the ear.

[Cid Highwind]

Like I've been saying before: What the hell are kids thinking these days? That shit doesnt sound good no matter HOW old you are, or HOW inexperienced you are with real music. And it cant even be called "new" rock. Its recycled music wth a downbeat tone, and then raped until it isnt good anymore.

And oh, dont get me started on dragonforce.

And... whatever happened to good singers? You know, the ones that actually sang, didnt whine or wail, or posess a nails-on-chalkboard pitch?

[Lord of Joshelplex]

And oh, dont get me started on dragonforce.

Do tell. I wanna know your reasons for hating them.

[Lumenskir]

Like I've been saying before: What the hell are kids thinking these days? That shit doesnt sound good no matter HOW old you are, or HOW inexperienced you are with real music. And it cant even be called "new" rock. Its recycled music wth a downbeat tone, and then raped until it isnt good anymore.
And... whatever happened to good singers?
And in my day, a man doffed his hat when a lady entered an elevator, and you could see a double feature down at the nickelodeon for just three cents, course you didn't wanna waste the three cents since ol' Pa only made a buck o' five a year and we had to butter our street cobbles with elbow grease, but only for nice Sunday dinners, but at least we had music playing out of the radio.

Sorry about that, but you just came off as mindbogglingly reactionary there. Oh shit, [given genre] music holds no appeal for you, how is everyone else coping?

Again, sorry if this seems like a personal attack, but there's a difference between what Nique said ("Hmm, I don't like this, with vehement overtones of disgust.") and basically saying that no one with a functioning brain could enjoy it.

Also, am I the only person who thinks that the only thing as annoying as saying "All music made after [40s/50s/60s/70s/90s/whatever] is bullshit" is saying "All music from the past is bullshit"? I went through about a year of actively avoiding the Beatles because my suite-mate would expound at great lengths on how they were the best band ever whenever I offered up a band who released an album in the 2000's. Then I met a guy who expounded at great lengths that the Beatles were overrated and under talented and I could never talk about music with him again.

[akaSM]

Well, sorta like Solid-Snake, my music taste is really messed up, I have to listen to something in order to see if I like it, though I prefer lyrics-less stuff. Wow, how can the thing in Magus' post be called music? It's more like the sound made by TV's when they don't have cable or an antenna or anything plus someone screaming as if he had an open wound and someone else was rubbing a jalapeno in that wound, increased a ton of times O.o

[Frostatine]

I like a lot of newer stuff. I mean the complaints that people have about all the new bands could be had for a lot of the old bands. For instance: 80's rock/metal is great, honestly I love it, but there are a lot of similarities between the various metal artists. I mean, there are only so many sounds you can make with a guitar before you have to stop and admit that everything you hear isn't going to be fresh and completely original.

I've always been a fan of alternative rock and a lot of 90's grunge stuff. Punk and new metal have their gems as well. Recently I've grown a taste for underground rap. For some reason I can't stop listening to Dr. Octagon.

But yeah, I don't like it when someone screams at me about how their girlfriend left them while obviously drunk, so there's no incentive for me to pay for it.

[Cid Highwind]

And in my day, a man doffed his hat when a lady entered an elevator, and you could see a double feature down at the nickelodeon for just three cents, course you didn't wanna waste the three cents since ol' Pa only made a buck o' five a year and we had to butter our street cobbles with elbow grease, but only for nice Sunday dinners, but at least we had music playing out of the radio.

Sorry about that, but you just came off as mindbogglingly reactionary there. Oh shit, [given genre] music holds no appeal for you, how is everyone else coping?

Again, sorry if this seems like a personal attack, but there's a difference between what Nique said ("Hmm, I don't like this, with vehement overtones of disgust.") and basically saying that no one with a functioning brain could enjoy it.

Also, am I the only person who thinks that the only thing as annoying as saying "All music made after [40s/50s/60s/70s/90s/whatever] is bullshit" is saying "All music from the past is bullshit"? I went through about a year of actively avoiding the Beatles because my suite-mate would expound at great lengths on how they were the best band ever whenever I offered up a band who released an album in the 2000's. Then I met a guy who expounded at great lengths that the Beatles were overrated and under talented and I could never talk about music with him again.


Hm, yes. Youre justified in that. But I dont mean that all music after a certain date is bad. Definately not. But some of these highly praised musicians arent that good at all, and I frankly cant see the appeal in it at all. And beleive me, I've tried. But then again, its teen music was it ever all that good, in any generation?


And, LoJ, I dont know if youre asking me to explain why I hate Dragonforce as an angry fan, or as someone who shares the viewpoint. Because I seriously am tired of arguing with fans. I play guitar hero, the reason why I'm tired of that should be obvious.

SUPER EDIT-
NO DRAGONFORCE.

Iloveyou.

Oh right, youre obviously not a big fan.
So youve got this band that plays some cheesy, overdone power metal, right? And thats cool in its own way, to each his own. I mean, the music was bad at times, but there were some good thingws that came from it, like Yngwie Malmstein, whom I'm not a huge fan of, but he was a skilled damn guitarist. And a lot of the musicians from then were good, skilled players. Its not easy shit to play. And then this one band comes out, like 15 years after power metal is dead and stiff. Alright, you guys missed the boat, but its cool, lets see what you got! And they come out with some carbon-copy, cover-song variety, vanilla unthought lyrics, straight out of the worst albums of its genre metal abominations. Guys, this is 2005. What youre doing was bad when it was new, over a decade ago, but it was bearable because it blended in. But that shit doesnt fly now. You guys are kidding, right? Its a joke band, isnt it? No, they're quite serious. But they must be skilled with their instruments, because that shit is pretty fast. It IS pretty complicated. Even thought they cant write, they have skill... right? And then they played live. They can dress up a studio album quite well, I mean, this is the computer age. You can dress up mary had a little lamb into an epic rock song for the ages with a little editing and soem synth-action. Hell NIN does it all the time! But this shit is inexcusable! Not only cant you write, but you cant play your own shitty songs! You can barely play anyones shitty songs! Yet, through it all, someone hails them as the best band ever, herman li, the best guitarist ever. A LOT of people do, and their raving mad over it! Yeah, okay, whatever, its your story, tell it how you like it. But your credibility is effing shot, I cant help but to laugh. But, what exacerbates it all, is I have to put up with it every time I feel like playing some guitar hero against another human. Because every goddamn song anyone picks is TTFAF, which shoves its false difficulty in your face while your opponent is apparently in awe over how skiled dragonforce is. At least Jordan, was you know, a real song, with a real guitarist playing it, not dueling guitars and a synth, all at the same time, to make it look badass. But, that shit has to be shoved in my face, while some 14 year old rants about how good they are, etc. That pretty much sums up exactly why I hate it so much. Not all of it makes sense alone, but it doesnt need to, piled together, it triggers my disgust.

You asked for it!

[Wyndon]

I personally do not like the Beatles at all. Not only do I dislike the genre, but I felt the Beatles were talentless, and only wrote that stuff becasue they were high. Its easy to be innovative and unique when you are high, How about when you are not?

I hate them for the same reason I hate the Beatles. bunch of stoner hippies.

I am in awe. Shock. I do not even know what to say.

First off, a couple of things.

One, I am rather offended by your disdain in using the word "hippie". I'm not looking for a forum warning or anything like that, but that is rather unnecessary. The "hippie" movement was merely a liberal movement, towards peace, tranquility and love. What is wrong with that? Do you have something against peace? Against love for humanity?

Second, regardless of whether they wrote their material on substance or not does not matter. Humanity has always viewed hallucinogens as a means of understanding the world. I take it by your tone that you have never tried smoking, or even been willing to be open to the idea. I pity you my friend, I really do. And not out of "forum sarcasm" or any misdirected anger. I am sad that you hold such a strong prejudice against something that has been cherished by humans all over the world, in every single culture, for millienia. The fact that modern-day media has taken it and skewed the "drug culture" into such a fashion that it is viewed as a ...you know what, never mind, on second thought, I don't want to derail my post, let alone this thread. Point is, it shouldn't matter whether they wrote their stuff high, because frankly, I bet you I can find pot in any kind of music you listen to. So don't be pretentious about it please, it's saturated the music industry.

Thirdly, to call the Beatles talentless...There's a difference between not liking the music, and not respecting the music. And you have crossed it. You don't have to LIKE the Beatles, I can accept that their music is not for everyone. However, to completely disregard the success of the MOST SUCCESSFUL musical group yet (and most likely to be, of all time) is simply astounding to me. What, you think all of humanity is friggen' dumb or something? That we are all ignorant to the "true ways" of music? When the greatest musical minds alive TODAY have looked to the Beatles for inspiration?

Furthermore, I think you, like many others on this forum, have always failed to grasp exactly what the Beatles stood for. Or what John Lennon stood for. Or how innovative their music actually was.

John Lennon was FEARED by the governnment for how much the youth backed him. Obama is the modern John Lennon, through a different medium. And I daresay, you wouldn't call Obama "talentless".

And Lennon was much greater than Obama is. =\

In any case, if you're not going to like the music fine. But friggen respect the movement, and respect the musicians. I'm highly affronted by such a display.

Yes, I am quite annoyed.

(edit) Oh, and one last thing? If it's so easy to make music when high, you go sell over 500 million worldwide records.

Ready for my banning now.

[Cid Highwind]

Yeah, and thats a lot of what triggers me into finding some movements disgusting. When they decide that everything old is bad. They lose respect for what built the foundations of whatever they are playing now. Those are the guys that fucking invented your genre, then for shits and giggles, reinvented and evolved it again and again, moving it along and refining it faster and purer than any of your shit ever did. Know your damn roots! All you ever did was starting copying and incorporating the riffs and scales and movements that they did first, dress it up, and label it as new; whether you realise it or not! Either you're a hypocrite, or you're ignorant to that fact that what you are doing with your music, is the same as what they did, but hey did it first. And at least, if nothing else, they meant something with their music, tried to do something with it, aside from make money and impress teenyboppers.

But, thankfully, most credible musicians and bands arent like that.

And the comparison to Obama? Well, He can preach hope and change all he wants, but when he gets in the big chair and does it, then I'll beleive him. Because after all, Bush promised to make the world a better place too, as did every other president. It just seems Obama promises harder. Can he do it? Thats not for me to say. Lennon did, and proved it.

[Lord of Joshelplex]

I got nothing against love and peace, but seriously, the Beatles were a bunch of stoner hippies. Some of their songs are just plain drug trips. I mean, when you start singing about marshmallow houses and flying pigs and stuff, stoned.

Furthermore, I actually dont liike Obama, becaus I personally dislike the Democrats, because all they did over here in Canada was screw us over, and I dont expect much better from them in America.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

It's terribly off topic so I'll keep this short: Anyone saying Lennon is such a great prophet, watch the video clip to Imagine. That's all I need to say on that.

Ontopic: The modern fad of songs that don't have any coherent rythmn (like "Pyramid song" by Radiohead). Ooooohhh it's sooo complex.
Schubert's 9th symphony is complex. You have just made a mess of sound.

[Lord of Joshelplex]

Cid, thats like, my exact same reason for not liking DF.

[GARUD]

Disturbed > The Beetles

I'm sorry, but holy shit. Holy freaking shit. Beetles are far overrated in comparison to the relative obscurity of these guys. Disturbed = ungodly fan-freaking-tastic, but I can barely stand anything the Beetles churn out.

And contrary to popular belief, not all of Fall Out Boy's songs are about girls not going out with them. I have like 30 of their songs and only like, 2 deal with an issue like that.

[Mirai Gen]

Also, am I the only person who thinks that the only thing as annoying as saying "All music made after [40s/50s/60s/70s/90s/whatever] is bullshit" is saying "All music from the past is bullshit"?
Nope. Totally agreed.

And your rant about damn whippersnapper kids was pretty accurate too, but I think it missed a key element of today's music is "Nothing but noise."
EL RANT
On the grounds that Dragonforce, to me, is relatively entertaining, I disagree. I do have a hard time dealing with aforementioned 14 year olds talking about how amazing Herman Li is, when half of the music is dicking around with synth and nothing that hasn't been done a hojillion times before, but my problem with the more extends to having a CD with, like, twelve to fifteen songs on it, each song has it's own completely (ahem) "unique" solo that lasts for four minutes alone, and each song also has like four climaxes.

I'm not saying that Dragonforce isn't entertaining to listen to. I'm saying that doing so is just goddamn exhausting.

[Lord of Joshelplex]

The thing about The Beatles was that it was never about the music. It was about the social reform.The music itself is pretty bad.

[Meister]

Of course Beatles songs are going to compare unfavourably to modern music (well, let's disregard the personal taste factor for the moment and discussion's sake). It's because they're all very old and music's developed since then. I'm absolutely sure in the 60s people who liked the Beatles discussed how boring Big Band music was very much like you do now.

And yes indeed, the "stoner hippies" thing is a bit out of line I think.

[Mondt]

And... whatever happened to good singers?What do you mean by good singers? Not to plug this band AGAIN, but I mean its relevant, I consider this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tREg7dG0AbQ) good singing, even if you want to ignore the screams. I don't know if this goes under "nail-on-chalkboard pitch" for you, but often the problems people have with it are that its "emo" "whiny" or "girly" which I can't understand. It's none of those, considering he hardly sings through his nose at all, that eliminates the first two, and he never even touches his falsetto in most songs, and doesn't even sound like a girl when he does so yeah. Though if you have half a brain, you'd probably have other complaints with it if you didn't like it. As far as rock-metal-whatever voices go (unprofessional sounding I guess?), I think its top-notch.

If that IS nails-on-chalkboard pitch for you (I don't fully understand what you mean there), then you'll probably have a hard time finding a lot of stuff since rock is usually classified with having at least a somewhat high singing voice. Nickelback is the lowest I can think of off hand, and to comfortably sing Photograph, I move into my head voice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_voice). High voices is part of the genre. I know you don't necessarily mean anything with high voices, but I mean it's to be expected to see hair-band-esque pitches (Dragonforce) considering the lows in rock aren't... low.

[Nique]

Beetles are far overrated in comparison to the relative obscurity of these guys. Disturbed = ungodly fan-freaking-tastic, but I can barely stand anything the Beetles churn out.

Ok, listen; Maybe the Beetles are overrated. But only inasmuch as, say, Chocolate is overrated - It might be praised too much, and it might not be for you, but that still doesn't mean it isn't technically and critically great.

I understand you prefer the sound of Disturbed. But 1) You're not actually sorry and 2) You can't compare these two groups like this - it's a statment of personnel prefrance only, or you have no real argument because technically and historically speaking the truth is that The Beatles > Disturbed, as you put it.

Without The Beatles, Disturbed wouldn't be around. The Beatles sound is the great-great grand-pappy of Disturbed's music. The Beatles were innovators. Regardless of how much you like or dislike their music, it was still groundbreaking, it is still great, and they were still amazing lyricists and musicians on a level that I would wager Disturbed doesn't even approach.

Furthermore, this opinion in no way stems from a 'Back in my day' mentality. It's the same logic Brian used in the 8-bit FAQ - The merits of the Beatles do not lay in the time period in which they created their music, or through some feeling of magical nostalgia - It is in the music itself. Music which is still unique and enjoyed by new fans long after it's creation, music which was so innovative that it helped to create or add to many of the genres of music we enjoy today.

Maybe you suckers prefer a Triple Whooper over a perfectly cooked Filet Mignon, but don't try to tell me which one is of better quality because I already figured it out.

And yes indeed, the "stoner hippies" thing is a bit out of line I think.

I honestly don't even know where to start with that one. I mean what is being said here exactly? Does it have a place in this conversation at all?

[NonCon]

Seconded.

I like Disturbed, but I really, really don't think they even approach obscurity. At all.
Plus, even though I don't listen to the Beetles that much, I really like the songs I listen to and a fair few of them have a really deep meaning to them. Yeah, they did drugs, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the music. I'm sure it influenced some of it, but a lot of bands do drugs, so to criticize them for being stoners and then talking about how awesome such and such band is is just silly.

[TheSparrow]

Without The Beatles, Disturbed wouldn't be around. The Beatles sound is the great-great grand-pappy of Disturbed's music.

I'm definitely going to have to respectfully disagree there. I'm fairly sure that metal bands owe to The Stones, therefor to Chuck Berry, and Bo Diddley and other such greats. The Beatles influenced far more along the pop sensibility, while the grand pappies of punk or metal, guys like Thin Lizzy, Zepplin and Deep Purple for metal and the New York Dolls, The Stooges and the MC5 for punk, were listening to Stones records, not Beatles records. And the Stones rise was also in 64-65, at the same time as the Beatles, So they weren't influenced by the Beatles, except in a bit of fan cross-over due to curiosity.

Honestly, the Beatles not existing would have probably gotten to Stones a smaller audience in the early 60s, but really wouldn't have changed the development of hard rock/metal in the slightest.

[Mirai Gen]

From what I understood I thought this was pretty much a "Shit on everyone's favorite bands" thread.

If we're up in arms in the defense of Beatles I'd like to say that having a 20th century critique on a band from the 1960s isn't going to work very well for you, because you're basically critiquing the a renaissance gunpowder musket to an AK 47.

There's really no room to stand on because - and hey, stop me if I'm wrong here - none of us were young during the 60s and therefore the kind of renovation the Beatles were at the time is utterly lost to us. I'm not really taking a side here, honestly, I'm just reflecting on the fact that people are even taking sides at all.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

From what I understood I thought this was pretty much a "Shit on everyone's favorite bands" thread.

If we're up in arms in the defense of Beatles I'd like to say that having a 20th century critique on a band from the 1960s isn't going to work very well for you, because you're basically critiquing the a renaissance gunpowder musket to an AK 47.

There's really no room to stand on because - and hey, stop me if I'm wrong here - none of us were young during the 60s and therefore the kind of renovation the Beatles were at the time is utterly lost to us. I'm not really taking a side here, honestly, I'm just reflecting on the fact that people are even taking sides at all.

It is certainly possible to take a side here. You just have to compare what the Beatles were doing to what was around them and compare newer bands and what they were doing.
Sure we may not have been around in the 1960's but the entire subject of history is based around putting yourself in the mindset of the past, post-modernism be damned.

There is a lot of subjectivity but one can approximate some sort of subjective objectivity by looking at the environemtns the bands were in and also for earlier bands how much later bands were influenced by them.

[Fifthfiend]

Disturbed > The Beetles


Hey guys, Garud is down. With the Sickness. It's SO SICK. SICKLY SICK.

OOOOOOOO-WAH-AH-AH-AH.

[GARUD]

Hey guys, Garud is down. With the Sickness. It's SO SICK. SICKLY SICK.

OOOOOOOO-WAH-AH-AH-AH.

Actually I'm INDESTRUCTIBLE...

I understand you prefer the sound of Disturbed. But 1) You're not actually sorry and 2) You can't compare these two groups like this - it's a statment of personnel prefrance only, or you have no real argument because technically and historically speaking the truth is that The Beatles > Disturbed, as you put it.

Should have put an IMO somewhere in my post, eh? But I understand where you are coming from completely, except for the part about the Beetles influencing musicians of our time, or even the genres.
Disturbed are a rock band, and the Beetles are a pop band, both of different times. Its like comparing capsicum to eggs. Both are high in nutrients, but not everyone likes them (or both of them).

I'm definitely going to have to respectfully disagree there. I'm fairly sure that metal bands owe to The Stones, therefor to Chuck Berry, and Bo Diddley and other such greats. The Beatles influenced far more along the pop sensibility, while the grand pappies of punk or metal, guys like Thin Lizzy, Zepplin and Deep Purple for metal and the New York Dolls, The Stooges and the MC5 for punk, were listening to Stones records, not Beatles records. And the Stones rise was also in 64-65, at the same time as the Beatles, So they weren't influenced by the Beatles, except in a bit of fan cross-over due to curiosity.

Honestly, the Beatles not existing would have probably gotten to Stones a smaller audience in the early 60s, but really wouldn't have changed the development of hard rock/metal in the slightest.

Well, that sums it up. To me, the Beetles just aren't that great. I dont understand why people like them. I don't say "OMG, tur taste in moosic is suxxor" simply because that isn't my right, and I could very well be wrong. But I still dont see why the Beetles are so prominent. To me, it seems like a case of right place and right time.

[Lumenskir]

Personally, I can understand not thinking that The Beatles were the greatest band of all time, or thinking they’re overrated (whatever that word means), or even not being “a fan” per se. But if you like pop music and/or rock ‘n’ roll at all, and you claim that you don’t like The Beatles, then 90% of the time, I'm going to assume you’re just being contrary for contrariness’ sake. The Beatles made so many different kinds of music, and wrote so many great songs, that it would be all but impossible not to find something in their repertoire to like.

Still, I understand the impulse—among young turks especially—to reject a band that’s been rammed down our collective throats for 45 years now. There’s something so damned monolithic about The Beatles. How can anyone be expected to hear “Yesterday” or “Strawberry Fields Forever” with anything like fresh ears at this point in pop history? Beatles songs have become so omnipresent that having an informed opinion about them is like trying to determine which brand of bottled water is superior. Because the band was so prolific, so eclectic, and so effortlessly accomplished, they almost defy human understanding. To just sit down one day and knock out an “In My Life”…well, I just can’t imagine it.
God, I love the A.V. Club.

[Fifthfiend]

But back on this Disturbed thing I mean I'm not going to say Disturbed is derivative of the Beatles? Because I would be missing a fantastic opportunity to say that Disturbed is derivative of the fucking Monkees. I mean never minding that Disturbed shamelessly lifts the same pop riffs and rhythms that the Monkees pioneered shamelessly ripping off thirty-odd years ago, whitewashed with generic CHUNG-CHUNG guitars with all the delicacy the Monkees might employ in cramming an electric organ into I Wanna Hold Your Hand, they actually go so far as to craft a paean to their own shameless self-promotion, in the finest tradition of Hey Hey, We're the Monkees! Because hell if you can't inspire a fanmania by being authentically appealing like the Beatles or a bunch of losers like that, fuck, just tell the kiddies how much they wanna buy your fuckin' product!

But no in fairness I mean the Monkees never got so far as thinking to add actual screeching-monkey vocals to their songs, so that's sort of like an innovation, I guess?

On another note, I am certain that this --

Not only do I dislike the genre, but I felt the Beatles were talentless, and only wrote that stuff becasue they were high. Its easy to be innovative and unique when you are high, How about when you are not?

-- is a view one hundred percent derived from authentic firsthand life experience, and totally not regurgitated from DARE propaganda and Cartman's rants from South Park which were, themselves, almost certainly written while the creators were stoned out of their ever-loving gourds.

[Mesden]

I think Marijuana touched LoJ when he was a kid. Guys got some serious issues with people smoking it also doing things that other people might enjoy.

So anyhow I'm gonna go smoke a bowl and become an industry breaking musical troupe all because of the magical powers of good ol' Mary J.

[Mondt]

I think Marijuana touched LoJ when he was a kid. Guys got some serious issues with people smoking it also doing things that other people might enjoy.

So anyhow I'm gonna go smoke a bowl and become an industry breaking musical troupe all because of the magical powers of good ol' Mary J.My favorite bands are huge druggies.

I don't know if the "two returns, add a face" should have a :) or a :( though.

[Mesden]

I actually think it works in opposite. Great bands eventually start doing drugs, not people do drugs and then WOOPS arguably the best band of the century.

[Fifthfiend]

So anyhow I'm gonna go smoke a bowl and become an industry breaking musical troupe all because of the magical powers of good ol' Mary J.

Hey guys I just smoked some pot - and now I'm a virtuoso cellist!

Carnegie Hall, here I come!

[Mondt]

I actually think it works in opposite. Great bands eventually start doing drugs, not people do drugs and then WOOPS arguably the best band of the century.Well one of their lyricists does salvia, but apparently it's like, spiritual shit.

Yeah.

>.>

Another has said in an interview that shrooms were more likely than not a part of writing the album, though I don't know if they were silly druggies before they got popular.

[Mike McC]

Disturbed > The Beetles

I'm sorry, but holy shit. Holy freaking shit. Beetles are far overrated in comparison to the relative obscurity of these guys. Disturbed = ungodly fan-freaking-tastic, but I can barely stand anything the Beetles churn out.Okay, how the hell is Disturbed in any sort of comparison "obscure"?

Anyway, I'm just going to lump the majority of metal bands that came to prominence in the 2000's in here. I mean, there are a couple of exceptions, such as A Perfect Circle, probably some other indie groups that do not suck, but really most of the newer metal bands they play on the radio are horrible.

[Lord of Joshelplex]

I think Marijuana touched LoJ when he was a kid. Guys got some serious issues with people smoking it also doing things that other people might enjoy.

No. I got serious issues with pot cause it's illegal, and it makes you wonder what a plus sign tastes like.

[Mesden]

Well you also have issues with it because it makes people global musical superstars of unparalleled popularity, as you stated in this very thread.

Not all illegal things are bad, by the by.

But nah I'm gonna go smoke a doobie and play bass even though I've never even held a bass guitar in my life. Fuck yeah pot, making world breaking musical artists since the 60s.

[Meister]

See I'd feel more comfortable if the law followed people's morals instead of the other way around.

My old buddy Bill Hicks has a comment:
And if you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor. Go home tonight. Take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. 'Cause you know what, the musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years … rrreal fucking high on drugs. The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few tunes.
Basically yeah, unless you listen to straight edge hardcore exclusively I'd be comfortable taking bets that your favourite is or at some point during their musical career has been involved with drugs.

[Fifthfiend]

So I just went and looked up what Joshel likes.

Metallica, Scorpions, Godsmack, Guns n Roses, Motley Crue, Disturbed

Metallica, Scorpions, Godsmack, Guns n Roses, Motley Crue, Disturbed

Guns n Roses

Because shit guys when I think of a clean-cut and morally upright fellow who never did any kind of drug in his life, this motherfucker --

http://i.pbase.com/u13/jori_lai/upload/7384111.SlashGunsnRoses.jpg



-- is the first thing that comes to mind.

I mean is there an exception where drugs don't count if you're snorting them off of an underaged groupie's ass, what?

[Mesden]

I bet he hugs orphans and gives them money in his offtime.

[POS Industries]

No. I got serious issues with pot cause it's illegal, and it makes you wonder what a plus sign tastes like.
So, it's a drug that makes you unfocused and unmotivated, and yet it somehow made them the widely-considered measuring stick for all rock music in the late 20th Century and beyond. 'Kay.

Disturbed > The Beetles

I'm sorry, but holy shit. Holy freaking shit. Beetles are far overrated in comparison to the relative obscurity of these guys. Disturbed = ungodly fan-freaking-tastic, but I can barely stand anything the Beetles churn out.
Yeah, don't get me wrong here. I like Disturbed, too. But I've seen them live. Twice. If you're a globally touring rock band, you are at least expected to have all your members stay on tempo with one another at least once. Ever.

I mean, it's fine if some of you don't like the Beatles' songs. Genre taste is subjective. But it's pretty fucking stupid to say they weren't good at what they did. And oh yes, I am flaming you. Super hardcore.

[Fifthfiend]

Okay, time to pull the plug.

EDIT: In case anyone felt like asking yes I probably would warn POS for the flame but I already let Joshel slide ruleseywise on the hippie-bashing so I figure we may as well call it a wash.