Thread: Just call me "Kanye Rose"

Read the playboy interviews with John Lennon(he goes song by song, saying if they were good or bad), and listen to various quotes from George Harrison over the years. They both thought that a LOT of beatles songs were garbage, with several gems they were proud of. Personally, I like their stuff, but having gotten over my 'beatles' phase, I like maybe 50% of what they did AFTER 1965. In short, Even 2 of the Beatles agree with Loki.

This is gonna be fun...

Originally Posted by loki520

G&R were good, but overrated, and Axl has always been a man of very VERY little talent.

I also find "little discernible talent" to be a good descriptor for the Rolling Stones, the Doors, that gay fuckwad from Nirvana who shotgunned himself over his "hard" life, the Doors, the Beatles, Bob Dylan's singing, and the Doors.

Not overrated. Remember (not counting Haxl), they came up, slogging their way through all that hair metal. Quite an accomplishment. And a worthy accolade.

Rolling Stones; really good band. The Doors; WTF? Nirvana? The only real talent in that... act... was Dave Grohl. The Beatles? I'll get to them later. Dylan? Another WTF?

Originally Posted by blinddeafmute

I think The Doors have a few decent songs, but nothing legendary. The Beatles are nothing more than the NSYNC of the 50's. Bob Dylan can't sing worth a shit, but the Stones have quite a few good songs, that would rank them above the rest.

Agreed (obvious) except what I have to say about The Beatles later on.

Originally Posted by 4th and 26

I would not say G&R is overrated, the produced some great music in a short time. I think Axle totally ruined that band. Their first album is the best in my opinion. I would say Nirvana was a great band the introduced a different type of music when they were around. Kurt Cobain was not my favorite but I felt he had talent yet the drugs and his butt ugly wife was probably enough reason to shoot himself.

The only real good thing they did was AFD. They died right after that. UYI (I and II) were shit. Spaghetti was over-cooked... blah.

Nirvana was crap. Sorry, there's no other way to sugarcoat that. "Grunge" would have happened without them.

There were plenty of bands (Mother Love Bone) exploring Grunge before Cobain and his incessant whining showed up.

Seriously. Listen to Nirvana now and see if the lyrics don't rub you the wrong way. They're only valid to disaffected youth and those who never grew up. The music is crap.

And after all this time, Seattle's best bands are Queensryche, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam and Alice In Chains. Grunge is given credit for having more impact than it really had.

Originally Posted by 4th and 26

Axle's career went south when he refused to play after Metallica's lead singer got burned on stage

Was going south before that, but that night certainly helped. I'm sure the French Canadians have much love for Haxl.

FYI (for those that might not know), G&R opened for Metallica that night. A flashpot burned Hetfield early on in their set and he was rushed to the hospital. The promoters asked if G&R would retake the stage. Haxl refused and a major, destructive riot was the result. It's not Haxl's fault; a guy got burned so badly, the skin was bubbling on his arm but those fag French Canadians wanted a show.

Originally Posted by BearFan51

He's actually about 90% correct. I used to think very little of the Beatles, and they would be very forgettable, were it not for George Martin. Go ahead and add Greatful Dead to his list.

Oh, and I don't think the Doors were twice as bad as the others listed

Grateful Gag. Mellow Stoner Music. Like Phish.

Phuck that.

Originally Posted by 4th and 26

As far as I am concerned, Iron Maiden is the greatest Heavy Metal band.

NOT! Priest!!!

*Iron Maiden is an awesome fucking band.

Originally Posted by Henry Burris

Read the playboy interviews with John Lennon(he goes song by song, saying if they were good or bad), and listen to various quotes from George Harrison over the years. They both thought that a LOT of beatles songs were garbage, with several gems they were proud of. Personally, I like their stuff, but having gotten over my 'beatles' phase, I like maybe 50% of what they did AFTER 1965. In short, Even 2 of the Beatles agree with Loki.

And only Ringo had a worse post-Beatles career.

The very early Beatles are a lesson. They jumped on this 'rock and roll' thing and created an environment few other bands are credited with; The Garage Band. Their music was rudimentary but melodic. And if you were to take any of their early stuff, pump up the dynamics and add some distortion, it would seriously cook. The fact that they were followed by hordes of screaming pubescent teen girls detracts from the fact that they were, initially, a good band. Arguing against the musical importance of some of their songs is futile.

The only real problem with the Beatles is their decision to stop touring and become self-important.

Allowing that to happen was partly George Martin's fault.

And McCartney's hatred of Ono.

And Harrison's need to find Nirvana. Without moving to Seattle.

Ringo's the only one who did it right. He got rich and married Barbara Bach.

Oh yeah. Axl's an idiot.