They're important, no doubt about that. But their songs just aren't good or impressive. They're technically competent but so is every professional musician
"they don't suck" is just ur opinion tho. It's not objective fact anymore than "they suck". Literally at the exact same level.
Cancer sucks, regardless of how impactful it is. Doesn't mean it should not be studied or that no one should have interest in it.
Or in MTG there are many cards that suck, not because of weak effects but because there is just something better to run instead. Those cards tend to shine in odd formats with one card limits or rarity limits.
For me, the Beatles suck, non of the songs are fun to listen to for me. They are flat pop stuff, sounds like all the same shit that's been released since, which also sucks. There's so much better music for me to listen to.
Lots of people love slop. I have slop I like , but I at least admit it's slop. I don't pretend it's gourmet just cause lots of people liked it and capital copied it over and over again.
I think for the Beatles bc of the age of their music and how much they’ve been referenced by artists they influenced looking back their stuff doesn’t seem as impressive bc we have the benefit of hind sight and we’ve heard other artists take their ideas and run with it
Like if you consumed a bunch of high fantasy media without ever reading Tolkien and went back to it you’d be like “this shit is derivative and cliche af” lol
They are important but this “sucks means they’re not good at music” thing is just categorically false and not the way people generally use ‘this artist/movie/whatever sucks’ when talking about art. 90% of the time when talking about an established artist and someone says they suck they mean they find their music subjectively bad
When I say tool sucks I don’t mean Danny Carrey can’t play drums to save his life, bc obv he’s a great drummer, I mean they make cringe pseudo intellectual music for cringe pseudo intellectual people
you're allowed to not like them, you just have to acknowledge that they were more influential than jesus and objectively great and your opinion is dumb and wrong, that's all :shrug-outta-hecks:
The Beatles fucking suck
You can dislike them, but this is a bad, contrarian take.
"I dislike the Beatles" vs "the Beatles are bad" is a distinction without a difference
It totally is a difference. You can not like them, but you can't deny their impact on the music world, recording techniques, and culture.
They are important.
Saying something "sucks" means that they can't play their instruments or sing well, and that's just straight up not true. Words matter.
They're important, no doubt about that. But their songs just aren't good or impressive. They're technically competent but so is every professional musician
Ok buddy. It's just not true but I'm not.going to argue about this.
Your opinion isn't a fact.
"they don't suck" is just ur opinion tho. It's not objective fact anymore than "they suck". Literally at the exact same level.
Cancer sucks, regardless of how impactful it is. Doesn't mean it should not be studied or that no one should have interest in it.
Or in MTG there are many cards that suck, not because of weak effects but because there is just something better to run instead. Those cards tend to shine in odd formats with one card limits or rarity limits.
For me, the Beatles suck, non of the songs are fun to listen to for me. They are flat pop stuff, sounds like all the same shit that's been released since, which also sucks. There's so much better music for me to listen to.
Lots of people love slop. I have slop I like , but I at least admit it's slop. I don't pretend it's gourmet just cause lots of people liked it and capital copied it over and over again.
I think for the Beatles bc of the age of their music and how much they’ve been referenced by artists they influenced looking back their stuff doesn’t seem as impressive bc we have the benefit of hind sight and we’ve heard other artists take their ideas and run with it
Like if you consumed a bunch of high fantasy media without ever reading Tolkien and went back to it you’d be like “this shit is derivative and cliche af” lol
They are important but this “sucks means they’re not good at music” thing is just categorically false and not the way people generally use ‘this artist/movie/whatever sucks’ when talking about art. 90% of the time when talking about an established artist and someone says they suck they mean they find their music subjectively bad
When I say tool sucks I don’t mean Danny Carrey can’t play drums to save his life, bc obv he’s a great drummer, I mean they make cringe pseudo intellectual music for cringe pseudo intellectual people
deleted by creator
The first is subjective while the latter is objective, or at least commonly interpreted as objective.
why is every beatles fan like this? just mentally append (I think) to the beginning and let people not like this shitty band, jesus
You're allowed to not like them. I've said that several times. Saying they "suck" is objectively false
you're allowed to not like them, you just have to acknowledge that they were more influential than jesus and objectively great and your opinion is dumb and wrong, that's all :shrug-outta-hecks:
:freeze-peach:
yawn.
oh damn you're right i totally mischaracterized your point, my deepest and most sincere apologies
Glad we got that cleared up. I accept your apology.
:kombucha-disgust: