I like smoking weed and listening to The Beatles.

That's fine

>>72124380
ok

File: NumanCars.jpg (25KB, 314x319px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 314x319px

>>72124380
I like smoking weed and listening to Gary Numan.

>>72124391
looks like reviewbrah

>>72124422
He does :) Bless them!

I'm smoking weed and listening to The Rolling Stones right now

File: pond_the-weather_packshot-600.jpg (104KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 600x600px

/psy/ general?

Is anyone else hype for this? All of the singles have been 10s

>>72124503
Is excited but also scared. If it doesn't have enough Shiny Joe songs then I think it might not be great

File: stop.jpg (11KB, 289x283px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 289x283px

Whoa, drugs are not cool, stay in school kids :)

File: iPO6lkD.png (800KB, 1230x507px) Image search: [Google]

800KB, 1230x507px

>>72124672

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles.

>>72124739
You critic-heads piss me off

i miss when I was 14 and could go smoke weed and come home and play tf2 all afternoon