We've said the Rolling Stones several times already right? (heck, I think even I've already said the Stones in this thread. They're really good, just not as great as is too often said about them).
The Beatles. I don't think they were bad; they have songs that I like. I will just never understand why they are viewed as the saviors of music. I've heard stuff from the beginning of their career to the end, and I still vastly prefer the American rock n roll of the '50s. Even from the British Invasion era, I prefer the Stones.
Even though I enjoy a decent amount of his music, Elvis. I know that with him, a lot of it is the looks, image, etc. and there's no denying he had "it." I guess I agree with a friend of mine who said, "I like Elvis, but I can't stand a lot of his fans."
Joebill said:
The Beatles. I don't think they were bad; they have songs that I like. I will just never understand why they are viewed as the saviors of music.
Jesus. Then do your fucking research.
Keith said:
"I am literally a child and have absolutely zero understanding of historical context." - What I hear when people say the Beatles are overrated.
Newsflash: you cannot be overrated if the paradigm by which all other modern western pop music is "rated" was created to describe you.
Keith said:
"I am literally a child and have absolutely zero understanding of historical context." - What I hear when people say the Beatles are overrated.
Newsflash: you cannot be overrated if the paradigm by which all other modern western pop music is "rated" was created to describe you.
Gumballhead
Saint Charles, MO
July 2011
NOV 19, 2012 04:42 PM