Have you ever heard anyone say: "I don't like the Beatles"?

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
al-Qa'bong

"Whomp

 Bop-alua

Ba-lom

Bam

Boom"

Anyone looking for great lyrics in pop music runs a distinct chance of being disappointed.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Yeah, I think it's nonsense that the Beatles weren't great lyricists. What constitutes a good pop song lyric anyway? Some of the pop gems the Beatles put out were stripped down perfection--including the one you just posted, Lou. I know you posted it ironically, but the truth is it is a wonderful lyric that works perfectly in the song and conveys some powerful feelings and ideas.

And I don't think the Beatles became good lyricists only after they started chatting with Dylan in Greenwich vllage either. "I want to hold your hand" is as fantastic a lyric as "Penny Lane is in my ears and in my eyes / There beneath the blue suburban skies /
I sit, and meanwhile back / In Penny Lane..." Amazing!

al-Qa'bong

Hang on.  I just read that post o' mine.

Maybe Little Richard was expressing his inner Dadaist.

"Hugo Ball" - "Karawane"

Cueball Cueball's picture

I think Ray Davies lyrics for the Kinks were far superior overall to almost anything the Beatles did in the pop format. Just because it is pop doesn't mean that it must be vacuous. For the most part the Beatles are charming but vacuous. It is no accident that it was the Kinks, and not the Beatles, or the Who, or the Rolling Stones that were banned for four years from playing in the USA by the AFM.

This by the Bad Brains in the late 70's is also a favourite of mine, in this rare late 70's footage recently released in the 2006 movie American Hardcore.

Rock should be about rebellion, and aside from shabby haircuts there really was not much rebellion in the full Beatles ensemble, other than glimpses of flower-power moralizing from John Lennon.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I always found Paul Macartney to be too cute by half, definitely not rebel material.

Fidel

Cueball wrote:
Rock should be about rebellion,...

The Beatles did get on the hippie bandwagon in the 60s apparently with producing psychedelic music. It was described as a time of real hope that change would come. That generation really believed that the world was undergoing a transformation for the better, and it was because people of all walks of life were willing it to happen. Hendrix smashing his guitar to bits at Monterey was supposed to be symbolic of destruction of the old ways and starting anew. Some say French youth contributed to more political change with protests in that country than anything the hippies did. I think it was all positive. I think hippies protesting war was infectious in the states and caused people of all age levels to join the protests in new and interesting places, like in front of the Pentagon and US Military bases. The hawks really didn't like that much. It was probably the last time that the US Government was afraid of the American people.

Jingles

Quote:
I'm both a Beatles fan AND a soldier in the KISS Army.

I'm a Beatles fan, but I was drummed out of the KISS Army for insubordination. 

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

There are numerous bands/artists from the 60s whose best songs are arguably better than most or all of The Beatles best songs.

However, The Beatles come out ahead musically on three accounts: consistency, innovation, and variety. The Beatles maintained a level of consistency over eight years that no other band/artist could match, and as such The Beatles have more great albums (and fewer weak ones) than most other groups of the period. The Beatles also repeatedly pushed the boundaries of rock music beyond what had previously been done, leading to one of the most varied bodies of work of any band in any period, even if many of their innovations were subsequently employed to equal effect by other bands.

That and The Beatles were smart enough (and were making enough money from record sales) to withdraw from live perfroming once they began recording music that used extra instruments and studio techniques that could not be replicated live, so we are not saddled with a bunch of vastly inferior live versions of their more complext studio work of 1966 to 1969.

Fidel

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chqfe3lYdFw]Paul on[/url] his initial reluctance to drop acid and expand his mind. I think the guitar riff(Paul on base?) in Day Tripper made the song. Way cool.

For years when I was young I thought they were referring to "a day trip" as the English refer to it. Most all of the fun spots on the coast are within about a day's drive from any of the farthest cities and towns by dooble decka bus.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Left Turn wrote:

There are numerous bands/artists from the 60s whose best songs are arguably better than most or all of The Beatles best songs.

However, The Beatles come out ahead musically on three accounts: consistency, innovation, and variety. The Beatles maintained a level of consistency over eight years that no other band/artist could match, and as such The Beatles have more great albums (and fewer weak ones) than most other groups of the period. The Beatles also repeatedly pushed the boundaries of rock music beyond what had previously been done, leading to one of the most varied bodies of work of any band in any period, even if many of their innovations were subsequently employed to equal effect by other bands.

That and The Beatles were smart enough (and were making enough money from record sales) to withdraw from live performing once they began recording music that used extra instruments and studio techniques that could not be replicated live, so we are not saddled with a bunch of vastly inferior live versions of their more complex studio work of 1966 to 1969.

I disagree. Again the Kinks were entirely consistent, innovative, and various, while at the same time finding ways to challenge society at a deeper level than the Beatles consistently, innovatively and in a variety of ways. It has been argued that were it not for the 4 year ban, their impact would have been recognized to a far greater extent. I think there is a certain justice to that, however, Ray Davies willingness to go places that it is inconceivable that the Beatles would have ever gone probably would have undermined some of their popular appeal.

All kinds of people were experimenting with the musical form of electric guitar, and sound recording, and while Sargent Peppers Lonely Hearts Club band could be considered a breakthrough recording in terms of engineering, its overall impact on modern music is totally overshadowed by Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd, and no musician had more impact on electric guitar styles than Jimmy Hendrix.

The effect of the last can be heard on almost every single rock record since.

6079_Smith_W

@ Fidel

Hendrix used to set fire to his guitar and pound it on stage to make sound.

The Who - Townsend in particular, were known for trashing instruments.

And I don't think music has to do or be any one thing at all.

Revolutionary and inspirational music mean different things to different people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvUU5x1u3gs

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Frank Zappa was right when he sang about 'phoney hippies' going to Frisco to get stoned,get crabs and go home.

I think the hippie movement in the U.S. was just a trend to most,just like any other fad from before and after.

I think they were all genuine in their stance against the war and in not wanting to get drafted...Who can blame them.

But the rest of it,the socialist part of it,they were talking out of their asses.

The hippie youth movement,like their ideals,was a faux revolution....If the hippies were genuine and for real,how the hell has America become MORE conservative in 2011 than in 1961?

Afterall,the hippies are now the establishment...But they had a hell of a party and now that they're too old to rock and roll,no one has a right to their lifestyles and ideals (hey it was the 60's,there was a war going on..I'm sure everyone has heard that excuse ad nauseum)

Alot of the old British musicians were quite serious about their ideals...Including John Lennon...Or Robert Wyatt,etc...

I think it's also very sad that the Dead Kennedys have jumped aboard the corporate cash in train as well...

There's not many,if any,visionaries and/or revolutionaries with as much influence as a John Lennon had before he died left in this world..

It sort of makes me wonder if Mark David Chapman was a Republican....Hinckly too.

6079_Smith_W

@ alan smithee

Well as inspirational a person and as fine a musician as Lennon was (and he certainly was that), he wasn't god, and he put in his time as a drunken, nasty fuckup.

I am sure some consider John Coltrane, Joni Mitchell, Paul Robeson, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Phil Ochs, Pete Seeger, Buffy Saint-Marie, or Beethoven to be just as inspirational.

And there's a problem with trying to draw exact parallels between music, politics, and lifestyle.

Frank Zappa also considered his friend Captain Beefheart to a disorganized fuckup. Yet for all his political work and great talent Zappa was in his shadow when it came to artistry and brilliance.

Fidel

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Fidel

Hendrix used to set fire to his guitar and pound it on stage to make sound.

The Who - Townsend in particular, were known for trashing instruments.

I watched a documentary on HNN, and it's basically what they said about it.

Whatever the case, I think his guitar playing was revolutionary. He was a guitar god in England and yet redneck lunch counters back home wouldn't serve him. The hippies wanted all that, and a lot more, changing for the better.

6079_Smith_W

@ Fidel

He was that. Here's part of a great interview of him with Dick Cavett (it's all there on youtube, in bits and pieces).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_IaCLTdWIc&feature=related

and speaking of which:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1KZGPYjleE&feature=related

(the headline is kind of unfair)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq5u1p3M2-w&feature=related

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

@6079_Smith_W

No,Lennon wasn't god but I find it fascinating that Lennon's death came at the dawn of the Reagan revolution.

He did wield alot of influence on alot of his generation...And yeah,he was a basket case when he drank but that's a common theme for alot of people.

And although people can name others as a source of inspiration,only a coveted few could influence conscienceness..Lennon being one.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I liked Lennon and Harrison, really disliked Macartney, and didn't know what to think of Ringo. I thought Ringo was a bit of a doofus, actually.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Right on, Cueball. I totally agree with you.

Cueball Cueball's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Fidel

Hendrix used to set fire to his guitar and pound it on stage to make sound.

The Who - Townsend in particular, were known for trashing instruments.

That is what you take away from Hendrix?  Hendrix transformed the way the electric guitar was played. Burning guitars and trashing instruments was just part of the show.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Feedback was first intentionally used on "Anyhow, anyway, anywhere" by the Who, causing the original master to be sent back from production in the US because the label thought it was a "mistake".

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

I always found Paul Macartney to be too cute by half, definitely not rebel material.

No, he's not.  And he was generally at his worst as a songwriter when he tried to imitate Lennon in that regard.

Having said that, Paul has gone his own way on a few issues that matter to him - I'm thinking of his vegitarianism and animal rights activities.  I don't necessarily see eye to eye with him on that stuff, but you can't say he's always taken the popular, easy path.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Lou Arab wrote:

Having said that, Paul has gone his own way on a few issues that matter to him - I'm thinking of his vegitarianism and animal rights activities.  I don't necessarily see eye to eye with him on that stuff, but you can't say he's always taken the popular, easy path.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought his wife dragged him into those causes.

6079_Smith_W

Cueball wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Fidel

Hendrix used to set fire to his guitar and pound it on stage to make sound.

The Who - Townsend in particular, were known for trashing instruments.

That is what you take away from Hendrix?  Hendrix transformed the way the electric guitar was played. Burning guitars and trashing instruments was just part of the show.

No. I was just commenting on Fidel's statement that he used to smash up guitars.

I happen to agree he was a groundbreaking guitarist. My comment had nothing to do with that at all.

(edit)

And never mind. I just found one clip of him trashing his guitar (Monterey Pop). I didn't think he had quite the same reputation for it, nor did it with the same regularity as Townsend did.

Fidel

alan smithee wrote:
But the rest of it,the socialist part of it,they were talking out of their asses.

I'm with Raul Duke on this one. I think history is hard to know because of all the hired bullshit. But I do think there were genuine lefties in the 60s. Modern day diggers, for example, were there in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury/Haight-Hashbury district. They wanted everything everywhere to be freely accessible for everyone. I was there for a little while in the late 1990s, but sadly I didn't see any of the beautiful flower people. Saw lots of homeless though.

jas

Unionist wrote:

Well, have you?

I'm pretty sure I've said something of this nature at least once in my life.

ebodyknows ebodyknows's picture

I had all their albums when i was 16.  I moved on!  Seeing their ridiculously larger than life poster images around the last few weeks doesn't so much make me hate them as it makes me despise the music industry.  As John said they were just a band. STOP making them so big!

al-Qa'bong

Yeah, you and Clint Eastwood, right...punk?

 I have just about all the Beatles records, as well as most of the Stones records, but I never listen to them anymore; but I still listen to the Kinks.

  I like the  lyrics to "Apeman"

 

Quote:
I think I'm sophisticated
'Cos I'm living my life like a good homosapien
But all around me everybody's multiplying
Till they're walking round like flies man
So I'm no better than the animals sitting in their cages
in the zoo man
'Cos compared to the flowers and the birds and the trees
I am an ape man

I think I'm so educated and I'm so civilized
'Cos I'm a strict vegetarian
But with the over-population and inflation and starvation
And the crazy politicians
I don't feel safe in this world no more
I don't want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore and make like an ape man

I'm an ape man, I'm an ape ape man
I'm an ape man I'm a King Kong man I'm ape ape man
I'm an ape man
'Cos compared to the sun that sits in the sky
compared to the clouds as they roll by
Compared to the bugs and the spiders and flies
I am an ape man

In man's evolution he has created the cities and
the motor traffic rumble, but give me half a chance
and I'd be taking off my clothes and living in the jungle
'Cos the only time that I feel at ease
Is swinging up and down in a coconut tree
Oh what a life of luxury to be like an ape man

I'm an ape, I'm an ape ape man, I'm an ape man
I'm a King Kong man, I'm a voo-doo man
I'm an ape man
I look out my window, but I can't see the sky
'Cos the air pollution is fogging up my eyes
I want to get out of this city alive
And make like an ape man

Come and love me, be my ape man girl
And we will be so happy in my ape man world
I'm an ape man, I'm an ape ape man, I'm an ape man
I'm a King Kong man, I'm a voo-doo man
I'm an ape man
I'll be your Tarzan, you'll be my Jane
I'll keep you warm and you'll keep me sane
and we'll sit in the trees and eat bananas all day
Just like an ape man

I'm an ape man, I'm an ape ape man, I'm an ape man
I'm a King Kong man, I'm a voo-doo man
I'm an ape man.
I don't feel safe in this world no more
I don't want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore
And make like an ape man.

 

 

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Cueball wrote:

Left Turn wrote:

There are numerous bands/artists from the 60s whose best songs are arguably better than most or all of The Beatles best songs.

However, The Beatles come out ahead musically on three accounts: consistency, innovation, and variety. The Beatles maintained a level of consistency over eight years that no other band/artist could match, and as such The Beatles have more great albums (and fewer weak ones) than most other groups of the period. The Beatles also repeatedly pushed the boundaries of rock music beyond what had previously been done, leading to one of the most varied bodies of work of any band in any period, even if many of their innovations were subsequently employed to equal effect by other bands.

That and The Beatles were smart enough (and were making enough money from record sales) to withdraw from live performing once they began recording music that used extra instruments and studio techniques that could not be replicated live, so we are not saddled with a bunch of vastly inferior live versions of their more complex studio work of 1966 to 1969.

I disagree. Again the Kinks were entirely consistent, innovative, and various, while at the same time finding ways to challenge society at a deeper level than the Beatles consistently, innovatively and in a variety of ways. It has been argued that were it not for the 4 year ban, their impact would have been recognized to a far greater extent. I think there is a certain justice to that, however, Ray Davies willingness to go places that it is inconceivable that the Beatles would have ever gone probably would have undermined some of their popular appeal.

All kinds of people were experimenting with the musical form of electric guitar, and sound recording, and while Sargent Peppers Lonely Hearts Club band could be considered a breakthrough recording in terms of engineering, its overall impact on modern music is totally overshadowed by Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd, and no musician had more impact on electric guitar styles than Jimmy Hendrix.

The effect of the last can be heard on almost every single rock record since.

Ok, I'll agree that the jury is still out on whether the Beatles were the most musically innovative band of the 60s.

In a nutshell, the Beatles get as much attention as they do today because of their popularity, because their songs and albums are fun to listen to, and because their story makes a compelling narrative. The Beatles were the most popular band in the world from 1964 to 1966. They were instrumental first in bringing the Liverpool sound to a national audience in Britain in 1962-63, and then to the United States and the world in 1964. They were also the "first" band to do a number of things.

They produced a relatively large body of work over an eight year period. That body of work is reasonably consistent at a relatively high level of quality, at least up until the middle of 1967, and their work after mid 1967 is varied enough to make up for any decline in consistency in the minds of most listeners. Their work evolved considerably over the course of their career, and along with their producer George Martin, became quite good at making full use of the studio to produce relatively complex music (by pop music standards). Finally, the group's demise at the end of the 60s provides a compelling end to the story of The Beatles.

Jacob Two-Two

I don't want to elevate four musicians from Liverpool to some god-like status. The right people come along to fill a space in the social framework when great changes are ready to happen and become emblematic of those changes, like Newton for phyisics. But let's be serious here. Pop music as we know it was invented in the sixties, and the Beatles were the bearers of that flag. They were the primary vehicle by which music was redefined and the model that everyone has been copying, consciously and unconsciously, ever since, and they filled that role for a reason. They were brilliant, brilliant songwriters.

The Kinks, the Who, the Stones, Pink Floyd. All fantastic bands, all ground-breaking and consistently excellent. I adore each of them, but none can compare to the Beatles. I do not believe for one second that people are still singing their songs on a daily basis (I was singing "Happiness is a warm gun" at work today, as chance would have it) because they're just so common and overplayed. People still connect with their music and will continue to do so because their songs are a joy and a pleasure. If anything, they suffer from being too ubiquitous. Having heard them all their lives and listened to the echoes of them in decades of artists since allows certain individuals who hate to be thought of as conformist or stagnant to overlook their genius and dismiss them as merely a marketing phenomenon, like Elvis. Familiarity breeds contempt, I suppose.

There are smarter bands, definitely. There were bands who were more innovative, in one way or another (though not by much, I would argue), and personally speaking, there are bands and artists that I have had more intense love affairs with. But there is no other band that I can return to over and over and never tire of, transported every time by the simple, sweet, melodic perfection of each and every one of their dozens and dozens of songs. There's just no comparison. They are the band of the modern age and will remain so until somebody completely redefines popular music all over again. That may be a very long time indeed.

 

Unionist

What a pleasure, Jacob. Thank you.

 

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

Lou Arab wrote:

Having said that, Paul has gone his own way on a few issues that matter to him - I'm thinking of his vegitarianism and animal rights activities.  I don't necessarily see eye to eye with him on that stuff, but you can't say he's always taken the popular, easy path.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought his wife dragged him into those causes.

I believe she may have.  But Linda died years ago and he is still active in those causes.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Let's not forget the Beach Boys. Laughing I still listen to their early albums, almost 50 years later.

Caissa

I think Boom Boom is referring to Ms. Mills.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Mills

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Caissa wrote:

I think Boom Boom is referring to Ms. Mills.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Mills

Indeed.

Ripple

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytjSNap3BCk]Here, here, Jacob Two-Two![/url]

KenS

I havent looked back in this thread. But my reaction to the thread title was "yea, I said I didnt care for them when they came around."

Part of that would be avisceral reaction to the mania around them. Part that like BB, I was into the BeachBoys.

But I did also like the "British invasion". Dave Clark Five and Yardbirds for me. And the Beattles just didnt click. [Cant watch the YouTube, but maybe al-Q is saying something similar.]

i REALLY liked Frank Zappa then, but I probably only knew about them in 1964 because I had Frank Zappa Senior as a teacher. Zappa was on another planet [Senior and Junior], but they liked the Beattles.

I came around to the Beatlles when they really branched out, and grew to like the earlier pop stuff that hadnt clicked for me when it came out.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I saw Zappa play in Ottawa. Weird, and wonderful. Same with Cap'n Beefheart - great music. I've never grown tired of listening to the Beach Boys - when I need something light, I listen to them. I think, overall, my favourite band back then was Cream. They were awesome, man. I think I worn out three copies of their double LP. Same with Hendrix's Are You Experienced? - gawd, that was an amazing album.

6079_Smith_W

@ KenS

Hmmm.... the perennial Beach Boys/Beatles question. I have a couple of friends who are heavily into the Beach Boys. I can appreciate Brian Wilson's musicianship, but they have never turned my crank.

Also, despite The Beatles' iconic status I think there are quite a few bands which were much less well-known, yet had much more far-reaching effect, and/or were more ahead of their time:

 

Roxy Music

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVeEBMJt8vs

Yardbirds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU5zqidlxMQ

The Velvets

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrRVaYF-O4U

Stooges

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd0nL2Fz11I

Throbbing Gristle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8klW9trVTQ

(speaking of Dark side of the Moon)

Kraftwerk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c81X6BiI0Y

Last Poets

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M5W_3T2Ye4

Just a few.

And I can think of harder-working bands who managed to not explode themselves, which after all, is half the job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni3NLVxtfaY&feature=related

 

Not to underrate the Beatles, but I think their influence is mostly through their own songs and persona. The most revolutionary way in which they changed music is their production - which was to a great degree the work of George Martin.

 

al-Qa'bong

Bah, the Beatles were Johnny, Georgie, Paulie Richie-come latelies in pop music innovation if ya ask me.

 

In There!  YouTube has some nice surprises sometimes.

I don't know Ms. Mills, but I dig Irving Mills.

al-Qa'bong

Ahead of their time; those guys?  They don't know from ahead of their time.

 

Rock and Roll

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Also, despite The Beatles' iconic status I think there are quite a few bands which were much less well-known, yet had much more far-reaching effect, and/or were more ahead of their time:

Just out of curiosity, three questions:

1. Which of the bands you listed had "much more far-reaching effect" than the Beatles?

2. Why is being "ahead of their time" something positive, apparently?

3.

Quote:
Roxy Music

">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVeEBMJt8vs

Other than the sequins, is there something enjoyable or memorable in this performance?

 

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

Why is being "ahead of their time" something positive, apparently?

 

I hear ya, brother, and how.

Slumberjack

For anyone tired of this Beatles thread, I'm thinking about starting a thread to discuss my very own favorite 'fab four.' 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b39L_Ayq-tE

KenS

Since I cant see the clip, who are your fab four?

Unionist

Metallica. Undecided

Apples, meet oranges.

Here's my fab four:

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyNdp4MVwQY]Rosamunde String Quartet[/url]

Papal Bull

I don't like [ening to] the Beatles (when I notice that my friend has a ton of the Kinks ready to be listened to)

 

VICTORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIA!

[/]
KenS

Thread drift.

Grade 8 math classroom. First day of school. New teacher. But its a big school and this is the baby boom in California, so there are always new teachers.

We are all in our seats. Grinning guy walks in and goes to the front.

"Hi. I'm Frank Zappa."

And he waits, obviously thinking  we are going to know who he is. [And this is 1964, a few years before Mothers of Invention, which kids like us would never have heard of anyway, even if there were records out.]

after a pause, and still grinning: "Frank Zappa Senior." another pause, "My son is a musician."

One kid raises his hand, but we all know he's never heard of the guy.

Pulls up his pant leg, and shows us his boots: "See, I wear fruit boots just like you kids." [We didn't.]

Quite the impression made.

Anyway, he brought tapes and would play them during lunch. I think only boys would come. And you know how 12 year old boys are- nobody eager to admit they liked this weird stuff. Zappa never said anything or looked around, just worked at his desk. About the only time he was quiet.

I liked the wildness. But I suspect that was about all I got. Rode my bike out to Zappa's studio, such as it was, to listen to the guys playing. Mostly, I think it was all pretty foreign to me. Probably enough for me then.

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
Metallica. Undecided 

Here's my fab four:

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyNdp4MVwQY]Rosamunde String Quartet[/url]

Oh yeah? Just for that....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qApYLIGfgfQ

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

How about that in-a-gadda-da-vida, eh? Laughing

 

 

 

(and The Simpson's take on it - "In The Garden of Eden, Baby" in the church, of all places! LaughingLaughing )

Papal Bull

WAIT. WHO IS HATING ON METALLICA?

 

THEIR FIRST FOUR ALBUMS ARE GOD DAMNED GOLDEN AND METAL. BECAUSE GOLD IS A METAL, ERGO THEY ARE METAL.

 

Also, given that I am all up on the metal wagon like there is no tomorrow - I gotta say, there are some mad sweet Canuck metal bands out there. Namely, THOR. Thunder on the TUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNDRA!

Pages

Topic locked