Am I the only one who thinks The Beatles are overrated hacks?

[Dpm12]

And who thinks their music sucks and suffers from crappy writing? Not trying to piss off Beatles fans. I'm just stating my opinion and trying to see if there others out there like me.

[Ptah]

1. Yes.

[evlbstrd]

2. No.

But I understand it's an opinion, one with which I disagree.

[Iggo]

3. "Not trying to piss off Beatles fans."

Yes, you are.

[Drum]

4. probably...yeah yeah yeah n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

60. I see what you did there

[Drum]

103. :-)

[uriel1972]

5. The older stuff leaves me cold...

but stuff like "I am the Walrus" rocked my socks when I was about 6 or 7 and I still like it.

[Trajan]

31. Personally ... I rank I am the Walrus

as one of Lennon's greatest compositions, lyrically and musically ...along with A Day in the Life, All You Need is Love, Strawberry Fields, ... really ... countless great Beatles songs ... it was an embarrassment of riches ...

[Bucky]

101. Well, walruses ARE cold

[Sanity Claws]

6. As the years go by, I am more convinced about how great they were.

[Hoyt]

7. Millions of recording purchases indicate otherwise. Of course, lots of folks have poor taste.

[leftyohiolib]

10. millions of people bought pet rocks also

[Hoyt]

13. And voted for george bush.

[Chan790]

19. and bought Pat Boone records.

That's not apocryphal. My stepfather owns everything ever released by both Pat Boone and The Beatles.

De gustibus non est disputandum. ("In matters of taste, there can be no disputes.&quot

I'm not a Beatles fan.

Pat Boone is useful for torturing people.

[Old and In the Way]

27. His cover of 'Tutti Fruity' was brilliant!

:lmao:

[leftyohiolib]

14. blurred lines probably made someone alot of money but it's still a runny pile of fecal material

[Hoyt]

16. Do you think 50 years after release, millions will be buying repackaged albums from them?

[leftyohiolib]

20. im say that just because something is liked by millions of people doesnt make it good music

good music rarely makes it into mainstream so most are ignorant to it. they hear what is played

[Hoyt]

22. That I agree, but I bet the Beatles would have been a good acoustic act in a small room from start.

The production required to produce recorded music for the masses ruins it, IMO. Worse, big arena concerts suck too.

Personally, I'm not that big a fan of the Beatles, although I liked their early stuff in the 1960s. Big productions, and stuff made for consumption, not so much. But, can't deny that they produced something that people liked and felt, over and over and over.

I'll stick to my love of singer/songwriters in a small room, and indie musicians playing for the love of music and little glory/cash.

[Scuba]

96. Snort.

[Dash87]

23. Millions of people paid for Ke$ha songs.

Yep

[Phentex]

73. Millions buy Taylor Swift, too...

not my cup of tea but somebody loves her. Don't think you can judge by sales alone, imo.

I wouldn't put kesha or taylor swift in any category with the Beatles!

[Vashta Nerada]

76. Justin Bieber has sold millions of songs and albums.

It doesn't make him a talented musician.

[Hoyt]

79. Bet they get tossed after a few years too.

[randr]

8. You may be a real nowhere man or woman

[UncleYoder]

9. Around these parts,

them's fighting words, mister.

[uriel1972]

11. Yah looks like an invitation to a flamefest...nt

[bluesbassman]

12. Well, they certainly were no Nickelback...

But they were pretty good.

[Myrina]

15. Nope, I never understood the mania & adoration.

& I'm a child of the 60's ...

[Xyzse]

17. I don't know.

If they came in around now, I doubt that they would get that big, there are many talented amazing individuals out there. Youtube can attest to that.

Still, they introduced quite a few innovations to music, particularly the way they were produced.

The fading in and out of music is an innovation that they popularized.

Sure, their words might not be the best, but they were experimental enough to go beyond convention.

[pintobean]

26. If they came around now

now would be a lot different than it is.

[Xyzse]

28. Yeah,

So in "Historical" context, they were pretty damn awesome.

[antiquie]

18. Revolver.

[edbermac]

21. Yeah and so were Beethoven and Mozart.

Geez.

[walkerbait41]

24. Your are welcome to your opinion

but if you had said that in this house their would have been a 'REVOLUTION"

[CanSocDem]

25. There's more to the Beatles....

...than their music. Maybe you had to 'be there' but it was a cultural thing, an awakening of sorts that made it OK to grow our hair long, for one thing, and to wear sports jackets that had no lapels. Mind blowing stuff!!

They had a new style far different than the Elvis's and Bobby's of the day. They basically told us, an entire generation, that it was OK to be ourselves. They, along with other cultural hero's of the time, did with, skill and grace, change the acceptable bonds of behaviour that personified the 50's. Sexism, anti-semeticism, anti-communism and mass consumerism ruled the day, not to mention the war in Vietnam.

The Beatles were the soundtrack of the boomer generation. You either grew with the music or you were left behind.

.

[Old and In the Way]

29. They were OK

I was way more into the West Coast bands of the 60s and 70s. YMMV.

[Trajan]

30. The most original rock music ... ever ...

The early years were derived from others ...

From Rubber Soul, forward ... fucking brilliant, original art rock music ...

Ask Trent Renoir or Dave Grohl what they think of the Beatles, and you will find they started playing music because of their love for Beatles music ... same here ...

[EOTE]

108. Trent Renoir?

Is that the French impressionist industrial rocker, Trent Renoir?

[rug]

32. You don't know what you're missing.

[Taverner]

33. Yes. You are the only one.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

34. The Beatles changed popular music

I'm sure you're not the only one but I'm sure you're in the small minority. Even the great classical musician and composer Leonard Bernstein thought The Beatles were wonderful.

[pscot]

43. Actually, Elvis changed popular music

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

46. Did Elvis write tunes? Did he create a new brand of rock and roll?

I wasn't aware of that. Chuck Berry would be surprised to know. Not to knock Elvis (I was never a fan but I've never liked dismissing any hard-working musician) but to suggest that Elvis was a creator and changed music while the Beatles did not is, in my opinion, a pretty mistaken and uninformed opinion.

[pscot]

51. You're putting words in my mouth

Elvis wasn't a poet. He was a singer, straight up, as were almost all musicians at that time. But his arrival was like a stick of dynamite in the swimming hole. He blew Patty Page, Theresa Brewer, Frankie Lane, Gogi grant, the Four Lads, the Four Freshmen and god knows how many other crustless, wonderbread confections right out of the water.. Takes nothing away from Mr Berry or Fats Domino. An informed musicologist could argue that Louie Prima invented rock n roll. All those guys were more to my taste. I never really cared much for Elvis. But the guy was a genuine phenomenon. He certainly created a new kind of rock n roll just by his physical presence. He waggled his hips on tv (small, round, black and white screen) and the Empire trembled. All of a sudden there was air in the room.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

52. By suggesting that it was actually Elvis who changed popular music

in response to my statement that the Beatles changed it, it seemed to me that you were taking issue with that notion.

[pscot]

56. Until you've listened to How Much is that Doggie in the Window

The Restless Wind and My Heart Knows what the Wild Goose Knows hundreds of times, you really can't begin to appreciate the effect Elvis Presley had on American popular music. The Fab Four changed popular taste, but they jumped into a river that was already at flood. Elvis blew the dam.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

59. I was born in 1949

and playing (violin and guitar) and listening to music since the age of three. I went to the theater in 1956 when Elvis sang Love Me Tender. I remember listening to Hound Dog on the radio as a kid when it was brand new. Again, I have a habit of not liking to knock other musicians, but by suggesting that Elvis Presley was the first breath of fresh air after How Much Is That Doggie In The Window is contrary to everything I remember. Elvis didn't invent rhythm n' blues or rock and roll. In fact, his first recording was a cover of an Arthur Crudup R&B tune, almost identical to the original in musical style and delivery. Presley didn't write his own tunes or invent or create a musical movement. He made his rockabilly style very popular with a new generation of teens, it's true. But if you think Presley was influential (which he obviously was) and swept away previous genres, you've got to recognize that the Beatles did the same thing to Bill Haley and his successors, Presley, Bobby Vinton, Fabian, and the entire universe of slick-haired, teen idol solo-act stand up singers. And they did it by writing and performing their own personal stuff.

I was blown away in 1964 when I first heard this. It was as far away from the doo-wap and rockabilly I'd heard in malt shop juke boxes as I could imagine. True that the Beatles were less R&B influenced than the Stones but their tunes were pretty unique to me as a teen.

[pscot]

71. Musically speaking, i'm a generation older

than you are. Until I was about 10 we had no tv. Music was in the doldrums. Big band was dying and Perry Como, Julius LaRosa and Vic Damone ruled the airwaves. Arthur Godfrey and Nashville were dictating the country's musical taste. I knew better. I used to lay in bed at night listening to Daddy O Daylie on WAIT out of Chicago playing jazz and blues. In that context, Elvis didn't impress me all that much, but the impact of Elvis on popular culture was sensational. I understand what the Beatles did. Their music is incredibly sophisticated and elegant compared to those 50's rockers and doo wop, but you have to understand where we'd come from, which was Nowhere land.

[rurallib]

49. actually, Buddy Holly changed popular music

Elvis couldn't carry Holly's jock.

And the Beatles also changed popular music.

[pscot]

72. You need to get out more

[datasuspect]

97. beat me daddy

eight to the bar.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

98. Aaron Copeland, Leopold Stowkowski, Leonard Bernstein and many others have championed the Beatles

Critics and musicologists like William Mann and Deryck Cooke hailed their originality. Leonard Bernstein described tunes like Eleanor Rigby and A Day In the Life and the album Revolver to be among the great works of the 20th century.

http://www.thecultureclub.net/2009/12/01/leonard-bernstein-from-mahler-to-the-beatles/

[NoGOPZone]

35. You're not

the Internet is full of "I'm so cool I don't like Beatles" types who are much more boring than the band ever was.

[elleng]

36. Yes

[B Calm]

37. My dad if he were still alive would be ninety six and

was also a musician. He thought the Beatles were great.

[redwitch]

38. Probably not the only one but I disagree. Strongly.

Love the Beatles!

[Aristus]

39. My stepson wanted to know why The Beatles and Buddy Holly were such a big deal.

I told him the reason they don't sound like such a big deal nowadays is because the innovations that originated with them are now used by everybody. So when you go back to the source, it doesn't shake you up the way it would have with someone from those times listening to the music for the first time ever.

For example, when you listen to "I Want To Hold You Hand" these days, the sudden break in tempo in the middle of the song, which leads to "...And when I touch you, I feel happy inside..." doesn't sound like a big deal. But when the song was released it was unheard of to break tempo in the middle of a short single. Unheard of. That must have amazed a lot of people back then.

Also, Holly and The Beatles wrote their own songs, which was very rare back in the day, when record labels would hire a group to record songs written by a stable of acknowledged song-writers.

[raccoon]

69. Sort of like CITIZEN KANE. I watched it fairly recently and I was like, What's the big deal? nt

[trueblue2007]

40. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE

YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU AREYES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU AREYES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU AREYES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU AREYES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU AREYES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU AREYES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU AREYES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU AREYES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU AREYES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU AREYES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU AREYES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU AREYES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU AREYES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU AREYES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU AREYES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE

[Ptah]

41. Yoko, is that you?

[Jetboy]

42. The Beatles were a great band and wrote and recorded great music.

But Chuck Berry's thread only got 2 replies to the dozens in this one so you may have a point about the overrated part.

[Denis 11]

44. I agree NT

[blogslut]

45. bless your heart

[SamYeager]

47. Mostly. n/t

[femmocrat]

48. If not, you should be.

Blasphemy!

[rurallib]

50. Their music was great, but it wasn't only the music

they were at the leading edge of social and cultural change that rocked the world and upset the norms of life.

Hard to understand what the Beatles meant in toto unless you lived through it.
As for the music, they were always two steps ahead. While others were doing "moon ... spoon ..... June" they were doing "Rubber Soul"

But 50 years later out of context maybe they weren't much.
But that Justin Bieber ------------------- he's the greatest ain't he? <sarcasm for the humor impaired>

[kwassa]

53. Not the only one, but one of a very few that agree with you.

[lunamagica]

54. Yes. nt

[LiberalElite]

55. Not trying to piss off Beatles fans?

You could have fooled me.

[lastlib]

57. yes, you probably are.

They are emphatically NOT hacks. While they may not have been the most talented musicians, they were incredibly innovative lyrically, and had an amazing ability to tap the emotions of the human race. Yes, they deserve their place in history, whether you like it or not.

[fishwax]

58. well, they're no Oasis, that's for sure

[geardaddy]

113. hahaha!

[TorchTheWitch]

61. I always thought they sucked

Never could figure out what was considered so great about them.

I'm sick to death of them. At this point every time I hear one of their songs I have the urge to stuff a long pointy stick in my ear.

[TeamPooka]

62. not the only one but you're in the minority. nt

[Joe Shlabotnik]

63. They are.

They were a fantastic band that peaked between 65-68. McCartney should have gone off on his own and wrote broadway-musical/pap shit.

[Art_from_Ark]

90. Actually, McCartney DID go off on his own

He flew for a while with WINGS. And some people consider the Beatles' last album, Abbey Road, to be one of their best (excluding "Maxwell's Silver Hammer", of course).

[applegrove]

64. What about Abby Road. That is still one

fine album.

[Inkfreak]

65. Meh, I prefer metal.

I understand how they changed music & helped start a culture. But I'm 34, that music does not resonate with me. As I suspect Pantera wouldn't resonate with a lot of Beattles fans.

That aside, how could a musical genius like Lennon marry a tone deaf hack like Yoko??? Does not compute. And why does Rolling Stones always give her shit positive reviews?? Unacceptable, people....

[pipi_k]

66. Hey, music is

subjective.

There are popular artists I think suck.

And there are artists/groups lots of people make fun of that I like.

If we all had the same tastes, it would get real boring, wouldn't it.

Even among people who would agree that the Beatles are the best thing since sliced bread, you'll find some who think this or that album was THE BEST, and argue over that.

I like the Beatles, but not everything they did.

I like Led Zeppelin better, but even they had some stinkers that I hate.

That's life...

[A Simple Game]

67. I'm no big fan although I did like Sgt. Pepper and Abby Road. My main problem

with the Beatles is the amount of radio air time they got. During that same time frame there were so many excellent bands that got little or no air time because of the amount used up by Beatle songs.

This was a time when people got recording contracts for the most part because of their talent and emotion not their looks. I think the Beatles started the change or probably were just a sign of that change.

[Art_from_Ark]

91. The Beatles got hardly any radio air time where I was

I remember a LOT of '60s artists who got air time on the radio in my neck of the woods--
Dionne Warwick, Diana Ross, Gary Puckett and the Union Gap, Roger Miller, Petula Clark, Nancy Sinatra, Neil Diamond, Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass, and Peter, Paul and Mary, among others. There were also many music programs on TV that featured these and other artists as well, and some even had their own regular TV shows, like Dean Martin, Buck Owens/Roy Clark, Porter Wagonner, and Liberace. I think even The Mamas and The Papas had their own show for a while. And The Monkees had a show on Saturday morning. But the only places where I could hear British Invasion stuff were at the skating rink and public pool-- and even then, there was a dearth of Beatles and Stones songs.

[BlueJazz]

68. Dpm12. If you really want to hear what is (most likely) the truth about the Beatles...

...from a former studio musician...just say so. I don't want to post it here.

[mulsh]

70. Listen to the live stuff on the BBC cds, that will give you an idea of good those guys were.

I prefer their earlier stuff, written when they were still having fun being in the band. The final stuff, after Mystery Tour mostly sounds like dirges to me. "Only A Norther Song" definitely told the story.

[Art_from_Ark]

92. They were one of the most versatile and innovative rock groups ever

They used a wide variety of instruments in their music, including cellos, trumpets, sitars, pianos, and violins, among others, and incorporated many types of musical influences, including classical.

[frogmarch]

74. So what?

Whether one likes their music isn’t important, and to me, neither is their music. I loved the Beatles for starting some new trends here in America: longer hairstyles for guys (yay, so long, boring crewcuts!), the focus on bands instead of individual singers, Edwardian-style suits (worn with those awesome collarless shirts), and later, paisley suits, and then brightly colored shirts and pants with, omg...floral patterns! I loved it that finally, guys got to do fashion right along with us girls. I liked Beatles music okay, but I was crazy about their hair, clothing, and oh, yeah, their pointy boots!

BEATLES FOREVER!

[Vashta Nerada]

75. No.

I have never cared for the Beatles either.

[Arkansas Granny]

77. No, you're not the only one.

[Miles Archer]

78. You had to be there...

...and if you were and still feel that way, you're entitled to your opinion.

I go back and listen to all of the artists who deeply affected me in "The Summer of Love" (1967), and in 2013, I still see genius as well as artists who were red hot in the moment and haven't really stood the test of time.

The Beatles? Still a fan.

Buffalo Springfield? A couple of Stephen Stills' career-best songs like "Pretty Girl Why" and "Rock & Roll Woman" and EMBRYONIC Neil Young. I feel that his solo career overshadowed EVERYTHING he did in Springfield.

Jefferson Airplane & The Grateful Dead? Hey, they were high, and so was the audience (I was too young). I still get cold chills when I listen to some of their songs, but BOTH bands recorded LEGENDARY amounts of SHIT that wasn't fun then and isn't fun now.

HENDRIX? A god then, a god now.

And so on, and so forth.

[valerief]

80. No. nt

[DFW]

81. A good measure of how subtle some of their stuff was

I am a part of a group that takes well-known songs and puts new texts to them for a year-end revue every year. Songs of most well-known groups are often used, but the ones that turn out to be the most complicated to do (and this is a fairly sophisticated crowd musically) are always Beatles songs. There are always little twists and turns in the chord structure or the scanning or the rhythm that confound people trying to sing their tunes. This is why so many people that like to sing along with their records always fell flat when trying to reproduce the songs on their own. SO much of the Beatles' material contained much more than a once-off casual listen revealed, I think that is why their music endures. If everyone could do it, it WOULD boring. But to a musician it is anything but boring.

[wickerwoman]

82. No, but you're all wrong.

Some of their early stuff is trite (but still catchy) and some of their later stuff is self-indulgent but name a single artist/band today that can put their catalogue up against "Across the Universe", "Let It Be", "Strawberry Fields Forever", "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", "Happiness is a Warm Gun", "Eleanor Rigby", "Blackbird", "If I Needed Someone", "With A Little Help From My Friends", "Nowhere Man", "Hey Jude", "Mother Nature's Son", "The Long and Winding Road", etc.

Then remember that they were doing all this 45 years ago and commence weeping into your tea.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

83. "Yesterday" is one of the greatest pop tunes ever written in my opinion

Yesterday is one of the most covered tunes by other artists in the entire history of recorded music. Yesterday was voted the No. 1 Pop song of all time by MTV and Rolling Stone magazine and in 1997, the song was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame. Broadcast Music Incorporated (BMI) asserts that it was performed over seven million times in the 20th century alone.

And I still love the excitement in their early tunes, like I Saw Her Standing There. And If I Fell, although an early one, is as good as anything they wrote.

Edit to add In My Life, one of the most poignant and beautiful things ever written by anyone. How could I leave this out.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

93. And this early masterpiece from 1964

I know music is subjective but it's hard for me to believe that anyone could dismiss this amazingly crafted ballad as this Lennon-McCartney composition is and call it the work of "hacks". Maybe if you're accustomed to the musical tradition on the planet Mars I can understand. But if you are a member of western society and have grown up in its musical traditions, there are certain objective standards of quality and most Beatles compositions are representative of that. The Beatles are the first group, right from the start, that had hit 45 after hit 45 where BOTH A and B sides were terrific songs.

[Still Blue in PDX]

84. I agree with you - a little bit.

Even their name is derivative of Buddy Holly and the Crickets.

They took a little bit of different types of music and created something truly their own. I loved them when I was a kid -- I was 10-ish when I first heard them, and heretofore had listened to Glenn Miller (my dad), Rosemary Clooney (my mom) and Danny and the Juniors (my brother), et al -- and still get goosebumps when I sing and clap along with I Wanna Hold Your Hand.

Having said that, I don't understand how or why they became the phenomenon that they were.

[raccoon]

109. I think part of it was a large generation of young people (boomers). With money to spend

on records and other Beatles paraphernalia.

[Demo_Chris]

85. Definately overrated. They have a few amazing songs and a hundred absolute crap songs...

Your mileage may vary.

[Violet_Crumble]

86. I think if they'd come along 30 yrs later they'd have been Matchbox Twenty

Kind of bland and boring, but very easy to listen to when yr not in a thinking mood. The only good songs the Beatles ever did was Helter Skelter and 'You've Got To Hide Your Love Away'

[LWolf]

87. Yes.

You are the only one.

[JoeyT]

88. I don't think I'd go as far as calling them hacks, but I think they were overrated.

There are a small handful of songs I really like by them, the rest I'm pretty bleh about.

They were before my time, though, so maybe I'd feel differently if I was around for it.

[nomorenomore08]

89. Compared to who? Name me a more important, influential band (well there is the VU).

I don't see how anyone can completely dismiss the Beatles, unless they just don't like "pop" music period.

[B Calm]

94. Yep, you're the only one!!!

[Paladin]

95. Lennon and McCartney, on their own, are both overrated.

The Beatles are still wonderful, as far as I'm concerned.

[joeybee12]

99. Yes...nt

[Bucky]

100. Do you have a problem with military marches?

They were John-Philip Sousa on acid. Some of that early stuff was almost listenable.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

102. I am getting particularly annoyed with one radio announcer

On my local radio station who has spent most of his three-hour program for the last four nights droning on and on about the Beatles and seemingly very little else of substance, bordering on the verge of the obsessively ridiculous. It's kind of like listening to a one-man imitation of a media circus -he's trying to milk it from every angle he possibly can non-stop long after he's got anything new to offer. The sad thing is that, as someone born well after the Beatles period, I love hearing about what life, music, politics and everything else was like during that era but am turned off by this guy's inability to let go of the topic and instead allowing it to oversaturate his program day after day. If he goes on like this in real life, he must be a real bore at parties

OK, now that I've got that rant over, back to the question.

Despite the tendency of some fans (see my first paragraph) to go over the top about them to the point of boring everyone else to death (a phenomena found in most genres of fandom, I note), I love the Beatles and their music and don't find them either overrated or hacks. I love the diversity of their music, the rich, unique, meaningful, poignant beautiful and sometimes downright bizarre lyrics and their exploration of different genres. Some songs are obviously better than others but that's no different than any other song writer or group. I can definitely understand why they were so big then and why their music resonates through the generations today. I wish I'd been alive for the time when they were at their peak in popularity.

[MadrasT]

104. The Beatles have never really done it for me.

I don't get what the big deal is. Not my cup of tea.

I can't exactly say it "sucks", but rather just "I don't care for it."

[MrMickeysMom]

105. Can you add a poll to this question?

I am betting it varies by age.

By the way... YES!

[deutsey]

106. I'm sure there are plenty of people who agree with you

I'm just not one of them.

[Burma Jones]

107. Nah, millions of Adolescents that want to annoy their elders do too.......

Nyah Nyah Nyah.....

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

110. Probably

that makes you a "Nowhere Man"

[KamaAina]

111. No.

I'm pretty sure Liam Gallagher from Oasis does, too.

[geardaddy]

112. I think they moved music forward

but the older I get, the less I like them. I tend to go for newer stuff.

[Cadfael]

114. Yes

..

[trueblue2007]

115. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE. YES YOU ARE. YES, YOU ARE

[okieinpain]

116. And who said weed doesnt destroy

Brain cells

[cui bono]

117. You must be young or unable to appreciate their place in musical history.

I have the same feeling sometimes when I see older films that are considered classic or an important work of cinema. But when you look at something like that in the context of when it came out. You have to think about what else was out at the time and if it was innovative for its time, and did it break new ground. Then you can appreciate it more. Even if you don't like it or think it's simple, you can see how at the time it was the new and different thing.