The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I knew I liked them but I'm listening to them more recently and they rule.
Errm that is all
Although they sing about love too much
Errm that is all
Although they sing about love too much
Page:
Ok Mikelar, sorry about the previous post and not making sense, but I’m ill with a trapped nerve in my chest and shoulder and writing through a haze of various prescription painkillers at the moment.
It should have read along the lines of “Liking Marilyn Manson, the Venga Boys or BonJovi is *NOT* very different to liking The Beatles in the slightest”
The Beatles were pop music, as are IMHO, the previously mentioned bands (especially Marilyn b’oody Manson).
I don’t like their music. Simple as that.
I have listened to them. Repeatedly, for hours on end when over at a friends house who was a massive fan of them and Lennon’s later work. I listened to them while at school with a mate who was the same. It drove me mental. I’ve had Sg peppers, the white album, revolver, 1, rubber soul, abbey road, lennon legend, imagine etc etc etc forced upon me through no choice of my own.
I simply do not like their music. I find the hod-carrier percussion irritating, the lyrics poor and the music monotonous. I hate the earlier “cute” love songs, the false hippy spiritually. Lennon following the hippie ideal from his luxury apartment (admittedly nothing to do with the music.)
As far as I’m concerned, the music had no *balls* whatsoever. It pandered to the lowest common denominator and the market at the time.
over-rated insipid c’ap.
The only sad thing about Lennon being shot in 1980 was that he wasn’t shot in 1950. That way, I woudn’t have had to suffer hours and hours of his c’ap music.
It should have read along the lines of “Liking Marilyn Manson, the Venga Boys or BonJovi is *NOT* very different to liking The Beatles in the slightest”
The Beatles were pop music, as are IMHO, the previously mentioned bands (especially Marilyn b’oody Manson).
I don’t like their music. Simple as that.
I have listened to them. Repeatedly, for hours on end when over at a friends house who was a massive fan of them and Lennon’s later work. I listened to them while at school with a mate who was the same. It drove me mental. I’ve had Sg peppers, the white album, revolver, 1, rubber soul, abbey road, lennon legend, imagine etc etc etc forced upon me through no choice of my own.
I simply do not like their music. I find the hod-carrier percussion irritating, the lyrics poor and the music monotonous. I hate the earlier “cute” love songs, the false hippy spiritually. Lennon following the hippie ideal from his luxury apartment (admittedly nothing to do with the music.)
As far as I’m concerned, the music had no *balls* whatsoever. It pandered to the lowest common denominator and the market at the time.
over-rated insipid c’ap.
The only sad thing about Lennon being shot in 1980 was that he wasn’t shot in 1950. That way, I woudn’t have had to suffer hours and hours of his c’ap music.
FYI pretentious moron, I've listened to plenty of Beatles albums, never through choice. I actually feel nauseous listening to that crap.
And given that some fine man took it upon himself to assassinate their chief songwriter, I can only assume that some people around during the beatles heyday weren't overly impressed with their music either.
As I said, you want to love it, fine. You want to hail it as the be all and end all of music, fine. I'm not goin to stop you. What angers me is your idiotic pretentious stupidity at believing that my opinion is invalid for not sharing your love of the beatles. Furthermore, your stupid assumption that because I don't like them, I haven't listened to them is just plain dumb.
As for namecalling, that's what I resort to every time I'm talking to idiots, so don't take offence.
And given that some fine man took it upon himself to assassinate their chief songwriter, I can only assume that some people around during the beatles heyday weren't overly impressed with their music either.
As I said, you want to love it, fine. You want to hail it as the be all and end all of music, fine. I'm not goin to stop you. What angers me is your idiotic pretentious stupidity at believing that my opinion is invalid for not sharing your love of the beatles. Furthermore, your stupid assumption that because I don't like them, I haven't listened to them is just plain dumb.
As for namecalling, that's what I resort to every time I'm talking to idiots, so don't take offence.
couple of typos but you get the point
Pandaemonium wrote:
> mikelar wrote:
> Liking Marilyn Manson, the Venga Boys or (for cying out loud) Bon
> Jovi is very different to liking The Beatles, you really don't
> understand.
>
> stop embarrassing yourself.
>
> No, it doesn’t. I hate The Beatles too. Weak, insipid c'ap.
No it doesn't what? You're not making sense. As I posted before, you opinion means very little until you take time to listen to some Beatles ablums.
> Just because you happen to think they are the greatest band on the
> planet doesn’t automatically make them so.
I never said they were the greatest band.
> I absolutely despise Oasis for the record too.
That means nothing.
> I probably listen to music you would hate. I don’t force my opinions
> on you do I?
I'm not forcing opinions on anyone, i'm saying if YOU'RE going to have an opion on the subject then at least know what you're talking about. I'm sure you probably do listen to music i don't like but i wouldn't pan the band if i hadn't sat and listened to at least HALF their albums. Even if i didn't like them, id give reason to my opion as opposed to meaningless shunning such as "Weak, insipid c'ap". Understand?
Insane Bartender wrote:
> mikelar wrote:
> stop embarrassing yourself.
>
> Fatuous peasant. Your moronic half-wit ejaculation hardly needs
> rebutting. It makes you look stupid enough.
I'd take you more seriously if you didn't stoop so low as to start such petty, pretentious name calling, we're not in a playground. You really are making a fool out yourself.
Either discuss the topic or leave, don't start throwing verbal gobsh*te around in a vain attempt to make yourself look even remotely knowledgeable on the subject.
> mikelar wrote:
> Liking Marilyn Manson, the Venga Boys or (for cying out loud) Bon
> Jovi is very different to liking The Beatles, you really don't
> understand.
>
> stop embarrassing yourself.
>
> No, it doesn’t. I hate The Beatles too. Weak, insipid c'ap.
No it doesn't what? You're not making sense. As I posted before, you opinion means very little until you take time to listen to some Beatles ablums.
> Just because you happen to think they are the greatest band on the
> planet doesn’t automatically make them so.
I never said they were the greatest band.
> I absolutely despise Oasis for the record too.
That means nothing.
> I probably listen to music you would hate. I don’t force my opinions
> on you do I?
I'm not forcing opinions on anyone, i'm saying if YOU'RE going to have an opion on the subject then at least know what you're talking about. I'm sure you probably do listen to music i don't like but i wouldn't pan the band if i hadn't sat and listened to at least HALF their albums. Even if i didn't like them, id give reason to my opion as opposed to meaningless shunning such as "Weak, insipid c'ap". Understand?
Insane Bartender wrote:
> mikelar wrote:
> stop embarrassing yourself.
>
> Fatuous peasant. Your moronic half-wit ejaculation hardly needs
> rebutting. It makes you look stupid enough.
I'd take you more seriously if you didn't stoop so low as to start such petty, pretentious name calling, we're not in a playground. You really are making a fool out yourself.
Either discuss the topic or leave, don't start throwing verbal gobsh*te around in a vain attempt to make yourself look even remotely knowledgeable on the subject.
mikelar wrote:
> stop embarrassing yourself.
Fatuous peasant. Your moronic half-wit ejaculation hardly needs rebutting. It makes you look stupid enough.
> stop embarrassing yourself.
Fatuous peasant. Your moronic half-wit ejaculation hardly needs rebutting. It makes you look stupid enough.
mikelar wrote:
> Liking Marilyn Manson, the Venga Boys or (for cying out loud) Bon
> Jovi is very different to liking The Beatles, you really don't
> understand.
>
> stop embarrassing yourself.
No, it doesn’t. I hate The Beatles too. Weak, insipid c'ap.
Just because you happen to think they are the greatest band on the planet doesn’t automatically make them so.
I absolutely despise Oasis for the record too.
I probably listen to music you would hate. I don’t force my opinions on you do I?
> Liking Marilyn Manson, the Venga Boys or (for cying out loud) Bon
> Jovi is very different to liking The Beatles, you really don't
> understand.
>
> stop embarrassing yourself.
No, it doesn’t. I hate The Beatles too. Weak, insipid c'ap.
Just because you happen to think they are the greatest band on the planet doesn’t automatically make them so.
I absolutely despise Oasis for the record too.
I probably listen to music you would hate. I don’t force my opinions on you do I?
Insane Bartender wrote:
> The Beatles were complete rubbish. you like them. Fair enough. Some
> people like Marilyn Manson, or Red Jerry, the Venga Boys, or even Bon
> Jovi. Doesn't mean that they are lesser beings for not liking the
> same stuff you do you pompous twát.
Liking Marilyn Manson, the Venga Boys or (for cying out loud) Bon Jovi is very different to liking The Beatles, you really don't understand.
stop embarrassing yourself.
> The Beatles were complete rubbish. you like them. Fair enough. Some
> people like Marilyn Manson, or Red Jerry, the Venga Boys, or even Bon
> Jovi. Doesn't mean that they are lesser beings for not liking the
> same stuff you do you pompous twát.
Liking Marilyn Manson, the Venga Boys or (for cying out loud) Bon Jovi is very different to liking The Beatles, you really don't understand.
stop embarrassing yourself.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> If you think The Beatles are "toss" you simply don't have
> ears. There a difference between not liking something (taste) and
> totally discrediting it. But then, it's so cool and controversial to
> hate The Beatles - fight the system!
Arrogant retard. People have opinions, just like you do. If everyone agreed on liking the same things, it would be a very bland world.
The Beatles were complete rubbish. you like them. Fair enough. Some people like Marilyn Manson, or Red Jerry, the Venga Boys, or even Bon Jovi. Doesn't mean that they are lesser beings for not liking the same stuff you do you pompous twát.
> If you think The Beatles are "toss" you simply don't have
> ears. There a difference between not liking something (taste) and
> totally discrediting it. But then, it's so cool and controversial to
> hate The Beatles - fight the system!
Arrogant retard. People have opinions, just like you do. If everyone agreed on liking the same things, it would be a very bland world.
The Beatles were complete rubbish. you like them. Fair enough. Some people like Marilyn Manson, or Red Jerry, the Venga Boys, or even Bon Jovi. Doesn't mean that they are lesser beings for not liking the same stuff you do you pompous twát.
Very_Metal wrote:
> Peter Venkman wrote:
> The Beatles are great, as is Goldeneye.
>
> *lmao*
> BEST. ARGUEMENT. EVER!!! :)
>
> although i'm split here, i like goldeneye, but don't like 99% of the
> beatles stuff...
> plus McCartney gets on my pecs... did you hear he's had the credits
> rearranged on all beatles pressings now, so it reads
> "McCartney/Lennon"??
> unbelievable eh? he really should just accept that he played 2nd
> fiddle and no amount of Royal honours will change that.
you really don't have a clue. A) Paul only wanted the songs that he wrote (where he sings lead) to be changed to McCartney/Lennon B) The "Played 2nd fiddle" proves you know nothing about McCartney's role in The Beatles.
And to whoever else said The Beatles are toss, either listen to Revolver, Rubber Soul, Abby Road, Sgt Peppers to name a few and THEN decide whether you like The Beatles or not because your opinion means nothing unless you've sat and listened to these albums either that or be quiet.
> Peter Venkman wrote:
> The Beatles are great, as is Goldeneye.
>
> *lmao*
> BEST. ARGUEMENT. EVER!!! :)
>
> although i'm split here, i like goldeneye, but don't like 99% of the
> beatles stuff...
> plus McCartney gets on my pecs... did you hear he's had the credits
> rearranged on all beatles pressings now, so it reads
> "McCartney/Lennon"??
> unbelievable eh? he really should just accept that he played 2nd
> fiddle and no amount of Royal honours will change that.
you really don't have a clue. A) Paul only wanted the songs that he wrote (where he sings lead) to be changed to McCartney/Lennon B) The "Played 2nd fiddle" proves you know nothing about McCartney's role in The Beatles.
And to whoever else said The Beatles are toss, either listen to Revolver, Rubber Soul, Abby Road, Sgt Peppers to name a few and THEN decide whether you like The Beatles or not because your opinion means nothing unless you've sat and listened to these albums either that or be quiet.
Peter Venkman wrote:
> The Beatles are great, as is Goldeneye.
*lmao*
BEST. ARGUEMENT. EVER!!! :)
although i'm split here, i like goldeneye, but don't like 99% of the beatles stuff...
plus McCartney gets on my pecs... did you hear he's had the credits rearranged on all beatles pressings now, so it reads "McCartney/Lennon"??
unbelievable eh? he really should just accept that he played 2nd fiddle and no amount of Royal honours will change that.
> The Beatles are great, as is Goldeneye.
*lmao*
BEST. ARGUEMENT. EVER!!! :)
although i'm split here, i like goldeneye, but don't like 99% of the beatles stuff...
plus McCartney gets on my pecs... did you hear he's had the credits rearranged on all beatles pressings now, so it reads "McCartney/Lennon"??
unbelievable eh? he really should just accept that he played 2nd fiddle and no amount of Royal honours will change that.
Page: