For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Captain TeagueQuote
Shezeboss
really : 1 led zep 2 u2 3 beatles 4 queen 5 acdc 6 e.street band 7 oasis 8 blur 9 rem 10 jackson 5
I don't see how any self respecting fan of rock music can dislike all of these bands, especially 1-6. Don't know a great deal about 7-9. I don't like the child molester with or without his brothers.
Quote
GazzaQuote
Captain TeagueQuote
Shezeboss
really : 1 led zep 2 u2 3 beatles 4 queen 5 acdc 6 e.street band 7 oasis 8 blur 9 rem 10 jackson 5
I don't see how any self respecting fan of rock music can dislike all of these bands, especially 1-6. Don't know a great deal about 7-9. I don't like the child molester with or without his brothers.
In most cases, its bands who have at various times been on the same level of commercial success as the Stones or have exceeded it. I would guess its some kind of personal affront!
Quote
lsbzQuote
GazzaQuote
Captain TeagueQuote
Shezeboss
really : 1 led zep 2 u2 3 beatles 4 queen 5 acdc 6 e.street band 7 oasis 8 blur 9 rem 10 jackson 5
I don't see how any self respecting fan of rock music can dislike all of these bands, especially 1-6. Don't know a great deal about 7-9. I don't like the child molester with or without his brothers.
In most cases, its bands who have at various times been on the same level of commercial success as the Stones or have exceeded it. I would guess its some kind of personal affront!
They're really not the best of bands; it needs not be anything personal. Commercial success says very little about the quality of the music. They have *some* qualities, or made *some* good tracks, but IMO too few to appreciate much.
Quote
GazzaQuote
lsbzQuote
GazzaQuote
Captain TeagueQuote
Shezeboss
really : 1 led zep 2 u2 3 beatles 4 queen 5 acdc 6 e.street band 7 oasis 8 blur 9 rem 10 jackson 5
I don't see how any self respecting fan of rock music can dislike all of these bands, especially 1-6. Don't know a great deal about 7-9. I don't like the child molester with or without his brothers.
In most cases, its bands who have at various times been on the same level of commercial success as the Stones or have exceeded it. I would guess its some kind of personal affront!
They're really not the best of bands; it needs not be anything personal. Commercial success says very little about the quality of the music. They have *some* qualities, or made *some* good tracks, but IMO too few to appreciate much.
none of which is exactly enough to warrant them being the worst ten acts on the planet.....