- Joined
- Aug 1, 1997
- Messages
- 23,625
- Reaction score
- 20,740
- Age
- 53
- Location
- The People's Republic of Indianastan
Offline
Jethro Tull has some great songs but they lose something if you have to look at Ian Anderson while listening.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Jethro Tull has some great songs but they lose something if you have to look at Ian Anderson while listening.
or listen past it...lolololI just can’t come around to accepting that flute is a rock and roll instrument.
I can look past it on like three songs. If I have to.
1980s erotic thriller soundtracks ruined the saxophone as an instrument for all eternity.
The Beastie Boys were nothing more than frat boy rock in the mid-80's, they suck.
All six of the acts I mentioned should have been in before the Beastie Boys. Jethro Tull and Joan Jett were trailblazers in their own right, and the rest have very substantial bodies of work.It’s all so subjective... i kinda think the RHCP are properly rated; theyre not some great American band, yet i like some of their stuff.. i dont know too many people who think that the RHCP are the greatest thing since peanut butter, but maybe we run in different circles.
As for the Beastie Boys- i gotta disagree with you.. to me, they are one of the greatest acts to come out of the last 20 years of the 1900s.. If for no other reason than the License to Ill album, and the fact that we hadn’t seen anything else remotely like them: a white hip-hop/rap act comprised of three Jews?? I mean, like them or not- at least they were original (not suggesting they didnt rip off black acts that came before them, but everyone in music steals from everyone else.)
Jethro Tull sucks the big one... i dont know enough about Deep Purple to comment intelligently ... But do ya think Joan Jett really belongs in the Hall of Fame? You might have a point with Def Leppard though; I didn’t realize they weren’t already in the Hall.
Again, very subjective... The only thing that’s not subjective, and is empirically true- is that John Lennon was amazing.
All six of the acts I mentioned should have been in before the Beastie Boys. Jethro Tull and Joan Jett were trailblazers in their own right, and the rest have very substantial bodies of work.
Putting the Beastie Boys in on the strength of one album is like putting an nfl player in Canton because he has one monster year.
John Lennon is amazing ?
Martin Barre's guitar playing style does compliment the flute nicely.I just can’t come around to accepting that flute is a rock and roll instrument.
I can look past it on like three songs. If I have to.
John Lennon is amazing ?
I think they are a very good band but don't think they deserve "Greatest Band Ever" label. I would rather listen to the Stones, the Who or Led Zeppelin before the Beatles. I'd even rank Rush ahead of the BeatlesI've never cared for The Beatles. I find them very overrated.
John Lennon was a homophobe, anti-semite, and wife beater who espoused a philosophy he didn't actually believe in (or at least made zero effort to actually live up to) and a third grader could poke holes through and gets called a genius by Baby Boomers for it. He is literal garbage.
And still woefully overrated...
I recognize the Beatles' contributions to music history and pop culture during their days. I think all members (yes, even Ringo) were decent musicians; some better than others. I can appreciate some of their arrangements, when heard on a Muzak system on an elevator, or in a posh, public restroom in a fancy hotel or office building. But hearing a Beatles record or song on the radio makes me cringe as if I were having to endure yet another 3-hour elementary school talent show.
If you (and others) like them that much, then you can have my share of listening time as I just don't care for their performances.
???