|
| Welcome to the Video Game Forums forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. |
| |||||||
| Cheat Codes | Arcade-(278 Games) | RPG | Donate | Member Forums | Daily Crossword Puzzle |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools |
| | #21 |
| *Admin* "mine.. not yours. NO. MINE." Epic Ladynerd Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Forteresse de Valois Gender: Posts: 24,325 Thanks: 451 Thanked 709 Times in 458 Posts | The obsession with the Beatles is unreasonable, for exactly what Lurch said. The songs that were good were excellent, but they are few and far between. Everything else they did will always be incredibly uninteresting. |
| | |
| | #22 |
| VGF's Resident Lennonist | I still say Beatles > Stones. I prefer the Kinks and early Who to both. |
| | |
| | #23 |
| Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Katrinaland, USA Gender: Posts: 9,278 Thanks: 122 Thanked 253 Times in 140 Posts | I prefer Stones > Beatles, mainly because I find myself jumping past fewer Stones tracks than Beatles tracks in my iPod. I prefer Bob Dylan, Hendrix, and Zepp (though they're about a half step to a full step removed in terms of musical generations) to both of them though. |
| | |
| | #24 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Betwen the Iron Gates of Fate Gender: Posts: 4,069 Thanks: 147 Thanked 261 Times in 165 Posts | I don't know anything at all about the Stones, and don't really care about most Beatles stuff prior to 1966. |
| | |
| | #25 |
| Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I rub my tilde all over your asterisk Gender: Posts: 16,940 Thanks: 580 Thanked 1,786 Times in 879 Posts | |
| | |
| | #26 |
| Senior Member | I don't know, I've enjoyed Led Zepplin. :/ I do like alot of Music though. Especially Video G- nevermind. |
| | |
| | #27 |
| Cooler than you and you ****ing know it. | I'm a prog guy in my older rock. Pink Floyd, Rush, Jethro Tull, Yes, etc. I also like the big British bands The Who > The Kinks > The Stones > The Beatles And a few reasons why 94 is a kickass year Nas - Illmatic Guided by Voices - Bee Thousand Jeff Buckley - Grace Nirvana - MTV Unplugged Nine Inch Nails - The Downward Spiral Weezer - Weezer (The Blue Album) Soundgarden - Superunknown Dream Theater - Awake Blur - Parklife Oasis - Definitely Maybe Pulp - His 'n' Hers Stone Temple Pilots - Purple Beastie Boys - Ill Communication Pearl Jam - Vitalogy Green Day - Dookie Beck - Mellow Gold The Offspring - Smash Toadies - Rubberneck And there are more. Just because one person died and people tried to restart Woodstock doesn't mean s***. |
| | |
| | #28 |
| HIKARI NI NARA!!! Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: ogmftwbqq Gender: Posts: 17,429 Thanks: 79 Thanked 364 Times in 264 Posts | blanket statements ftw ~sml The only good years in music were '83-'86, '88-'89, '92-'93, '96, '99, '03, and '06. Last edited by Swordmaster Link; 07-25-2008 at 01:18 PM. |
| | |
| | #29 |
| Gunjinkeeper | To Lurch: Although I disagree that all Rock music nowadays is trash that rehashes everything from the past, because if one looks deep enough there is some good in the bad, I do agree that the Stones and Beatles were mostly horrid. I'm not a fan of either, and it seems what I meant by great has been misunderstood; I meant they were incredibly popular, and by all means huge. Because of their popularity, they are regarded as gods among musicians while nobody even examines the music itself. Since they were 'great', apparently all music died with Lennon. This is the logic I was getting at, the general thought process of all elitists. |
| | |
| | #30 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Katrinaland, USA Gender: Posts: 9,278 Thanks: 122 Thanked 253 Times in 140 Posts | Quote:
I don't really know how it is wherever you are, but I'd say the local rock stations in the last three places I've lived (college town, major metropolis, medium city) or the last 5 cities I've visited (mostly medium-large cities) run their music at a 60/40 or 70/30 90s rock/post 2000 rock split, whereas during the 90s (when this stuff was hitting), the rock stations were pretty much playing present day music with the occassional 80s era Janes Addiction or RHCP track mixed in (or if you were really lucky, Sonic Youth). I haven't heard anything good that's "new" via the radio in years. Granted, maybe my tastes are spoiled. Maybe I'm going from the equivalent of filet mignon to the equivalent of 70/30 ground beef. Maybe there's good, but I haven't found it. Most of the "emerging" bands just have this terrible sound that combines things that shouldn't be combined. Much of it is musically bankrupt, and the lyrics are devoid of any meaning, passion, or even coherantness. Re: Stones and Beatles: Yeah, most of the Beatles is just bad, but the Stones have more direct influences to modern rock due to the guitar work. Their catalog is much deeper than the Beatles, though they probably should have died in the 70s. Not faded away, I mean physically died. And a true elitist would say that music hasn't died until Bob Dylan dies. | |
| | |
| | #31 |
| Gunjinkeeper | In terms of your belief that there hasn't been a legit movement in rock since grunge, Post-Rock has become a rather imminent movement. As well, there are plenty of interesting sounds in the darkest corner of music, bands that nobody is going to play on the radio; most indie music is annoying, especially dance-punk and noise rock, but even in that territory there is some good stuff. It really all depends on taste, and I'm sure yours is far different from mine (I'm a Radiohead fan, for the most part), but in terms of pure musical prowess, there are some very good musicians rising up nowadays. As long as one skims past the basic, musically-devoid bits of musical failure one hears on modern rock stations, such as Nickelback, Seether, and Daughtry, one can find something, something that he likes. As well, I agree that the Stones were the more influential and I tend to forget that. I dislike both bands anyway, as I'm more of a Who fan. But by that token, I'd say that may be because I'm a drummer and Moon > all the other British invasion drummers, including Watts and Starr. |
| | |
| | #33 |
| Gunjinkeeper | Ooh, Jazz. The best drummers are Jazz drummers. Cobb, Rich, Krupa, Roach... Too many amazing technicians to count. |
| | |
| | #34 |
| Senior Member | Well, I myself believe the saying that 1990's Hip-Hop/ Rap / R&B > 2000+ Hip Hop / Rap / R&B. 1990 - 1996 were the best years for hip hop, for me at least. |
| | |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| |
| |
| Thread Tools | |
| |