People Who Seem To Believe All Music That Didn't Come Out During Their Youth Sucks

[Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds]

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.

[Bomby]

I still say Beatles > Stones. I prefer the Kinks and early Who to both.

[Lurch1982]

I still say Beatles > Stones. I prefer the Kinks and early Who to both.

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.

[Vapor]

I don't know anything at all about the Stones, and don't really care about most Beatles stuff prior to 1966.

[Deepfake]

I'm more with the Floyd kind of oldschool.

[video]4hkjkTe5kZE[/video]

[Apiary Tazy]

I don't know, I've enjoyed Led Zepplin. :/

I do like alot of Music though. Especially Video G- nevermind.

[Calamity Panfan]

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***.

[Rainbow Dash]

blanket statements ftw ~sml

The only good years in music were '83-'86, '88-'89, '92-'93, '96, '99, '03, and '06.

[Galefore]

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.

[Lurch1982]

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.

Re: Modern Rock

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.

[Galefore]

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.

[Dr. Furball]

I feel kinda left out, being a jazz fan.

[Galefore]

Ooh, Jazz. The best drummers are Jazz drummers. Cobb, Rich, Krupa, Roach... Too many amazing technicians to count.