Opinions that are held by the majority you don't agree with.. .

[jsem]

All of those albums suck. Sorry

Would you care to elaborate? Are there any songs of theirs you like at all? Just curious.

[Outcrier]

That would have to be my dissent from where the majority stands, as I've stated earlier. I don't wanna come off as though I hate Radiohead either. Kid A and OKC are good, but when people refer to them as the "best albums ever" is where I draw a bit of a line and have to disagree.

That's perfectly fine, each one has their viewpoints in these matters.

[puppyonacid]

From Hard Day's Night to Let It Be it's all gold, some of the best pop and psychedelic music ever (only two bands rivals this consistency, Pink Floyd and Radiohead Queen).

Fix'd. Not even sure about Floyd (whom I love). Isn't Momentary Lapse of reason is kinda universally considered guff?

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

That Jimmy Page is revered as some super awesome, technically superior guitar player - generally by Led Zep fans and people that don't play an instrument.

JP was OK for what they did but he wasn't a patch on Clapton, Hendrix, Gilmour or May.

And for that matter; Led Zep were nothing special either. A few great songs but nothing so amazing that warrants the pedestal they're on.

I think Page is a great guitar player. He's just boring as all hell. Same with Zep really.

[puppyonacid]

Kinda how I feel really. I'm not dissing the guy really. I love Nuno Bettencourt right and Nuno is a huge Jimmy Page fan.

It's all just opinion and they must be as revered as they are for good reason. I just do not get or see what that reason is.

[orcus116]

Page was just all kinds of sloppy.

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

Oh and to touch on The Beatles: Revolver is awesome. Abbey Road is pretty great. The White Album is too long but has some neat tunes. And Sgt. Pepper's is a bunch of bad/mediocre songs ended by a masterpiece song. Basically how I feel about their highest revered 4.

But my opinion of them has improved. I used to dislike them. Now I just think they're pretty alright.

[snapple]

I like the British release of Rubber Soul a lot. Mostly because of I've Just Seen a Face.

[son_ov_hades]

All of those albums suck. Sorry

I love it when young kids bash old albums.  They may not be your cup of tea, hell, I was born only for 2 Beatles albums but that's just plain silly to say that.

It has nothing to do with them being old or me being young, I'm not that young anymore. Most of the music I listen to was made before I was born. It has everything to do with them being bad. I have no problem with someone liking The Beatles, I didn't say anything along the lines of "you have bad taste if you like Sgt Peppers". So how is it silly to say they suck? Obviously it is an opinion, as all music discussion is.

All of those albums suck. Sorry

Would you care to elaborate? Are there any songs of theirs you like at all? Just curious.

As I said, Abbey Road and Let It Be are fine albums. These albums are much better because the band had basically broken up and had stopped giving a fuck. Neither are in my collection but I can listen to them without wanting to turn off the stereo. The early albums are unlistenable to me, bad cheesy pop music and horrible imitations of Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly.

Revolver is really dull and while nothing is instantly offensive to the ear, it just bores the shit out of me. Sgt Pepper's is one of the most convoluted messes ever recorded. Pretty much they took the approach of "no idea is a bad idea", a lot of them were bad ideas. A Day In The Life is actually the only song I like on that album, and even then it isn't great.

The White Album just drones on forever! Its a real chore to get through it, even though it has some good songs. Back In The USSR and Blackbird are cool, and While My Guitar Gently Weeps and Revolution 1 are very good. The rest of the album goes from boring to irritating, Revolution 9 is one of the worst "songs" I've ever heard.   

Yellow Submarine is laughably bad. This album is the result of the band and everyone around them believing the hype and thinking anything they release would be gold. I truly can't even listen to this one.

[Chino]

I think the whole college basketball tournament is stupid. There, I said it.

[Kotowboy]

Saying something " sucks " or " is shit " without an explanation or " in my opinion " is the same as telling someone they're wrong for liking it.

Example :

" I love The Beatles "

" They're shit. " 

Vs.

" I love The Beatles "

" Oh I don't. They're just not my thing is all. " 

[Chino]

Saying something " sucks " or " is shit " without an explanation or " in my opinion " is the same as telling someone they're wrong for liking it.

Example :

" I love The Beatles "

" They're shit. " 

Vs.

" I love The Beatles "

" Oh I don't. They're just not my thing is all. " 

What about the Shitty Beatles?

[BlobVanDam]

What about the Shitty Beatles?

Are they any good?

[son_ov_hades]

Saying something " sucks " or " is shit " without an explanation or " in my opinion " is the same as telling someone they're wrong for liking it.

Example :

" I love The Beatles "

" They're shit. " 

Vs.

" I love The Beatles "

" Oh I don't. They're just not my thing is all. " 

So on a music forum where the vast majority of the discussion is opinion I have to put "imo" at the end of every sentence?

[Kotowboy]

What about the Shitty Beatles?

Are they any good?

It's not just a clever name...

[Kotowboy]

Saying something " sucks " or " is shit " without an explanation or " in my opinion " is the same as telling someone they're wrong for liking it.

Example :

" I love The Beatles "

" They're shit. " 

Vs.

" I love The Beatles "

" Oh I don't. They're just not my thing is all. " 

So on a music forum where the vast majority of the discussion is opinion I have to put "imo" at the end of every sentence?

Yes otherwise you're stating it as fact. You don't have to put IMO at the end of every sentence - just don't go " THIS IS SHIT ." and leave.

[son_ov_hades]

Everything is an opinion imo. It should be obvious in a thread like this as the first word in the title is OPINIONS imo. The Beatles suck imo. Is that better imo? imo

[Chino]

How many opinions could an opinion opinion if an opinion could opinion opinions.

[Outcrier]

The point is that you say that they suck but you don't care to elaborate why.

[Outcrier]

From Hard Day's Night to Let It Be it's all gold, some of the best pop and psychedelic music ever (only two bands rivals this consistency, Pink Floyd and Radiohead Queen).

Fix'd. Not even sure about Floyd (whom I love). Isn't Momentary Lapse of reason is kinda universally considered guff?

8 out of their 14 albums are considered classics so this one don't overshadow the others i guess  (Hey, i was saying majority opinion, you can't do what you did with Radiohead  )

[robwebster]

Saying something " sucks " or " is shit " without an explanation or " in my opinion " is the same as telling someone they're wrong for liking it.

Example :

" I love The Beatles "

" They're shit. " 

Vs.

" I love The Beatles "

" Oh I don't. They're just not my thing is all. " 

So on a music forum where the vast majority of the discussion is opinion I have to put "imo" at the end of every sentence?

If you really think "imo" is the only way to make a constructive and forthright opinion distinct from a destructive outburst, I'd say you're a pretty careless writer!

I mean, I'm not the semantics police, do what you like. But posts are basically a self-portrait, and for me, ugly posts like that make me think, "Ugly mind." I don't know if you genuinely think everything you believe is objectively correct, but as long as you write like you do, I regret that that's what you're telling me about yourself! It's your own character you're defaming, is really what I'm saying, and that's a shame, if you think you've got something interesting to say (Which, if you've pressed "Reply," you presumably do!) that you just plain can't be bothered to do it any credit.

[Kotowboy]

Cheers, Rob!

[Kotowboy]

How many opinions could an opinion opinion if an opinion could opinion opinions.

0p1n10n5.

That many.

[Jaffa]

Personally, none of son_ov_hades' posts have seemed even remotely ugly to me - and I love The Beatles.  Sure, he did say 'those albums suck' pretty dismissively, but only in response to someone implying that he should love those albums and that not loving them must be an April Fools joke.  I would say he had every right to be a bit flippant in that context.  And outside of that, I think he's done a pretty fair job elaborating on his opinion. 

Then again, maybe I'm biased.  I'm kind of fed up with the internet's focus on semantics.  Even if he did just say that 'The Beatles are shit', so what?  This is a thread dedicated to people expressing their disagreement with majority opinions.  To me, it kind of goes without saying that everything expressed here is going to be an opinion.  I don't know why anyone would jump to the conclusion that any post here is meant to express objective truth. 

[robwebster]

Personally, none of son_ov_hades' posts have seemed even remotely ugly to me - and I love The Beatles.  Sure, he did say 'those albums suck' pretty dismissively, but only in response to someone implying that he should love those albums and that not loving them must be an April Fools joke.  I would say he had every right to be a bit flippant in that context.  And outside of that, I think he's done a pretty fair job elaborating on his opinion. 

Then again, maybe I'm biased.  I'm kind of fed up with the internet's focus on semantics.  Even if he did just say that 'The Beatles are shit', so what?  This is a thread dedicated to people expressing their disagreement with majority opinions.  To me, it kind of goes without saying that everything expressed here is going to be an opinion.  I don't know why anyone would jump to the conclusion that any post here is meant to express objective truth.

The internet is obsessed with semantics because semantics are exactly what language is - if you say one thing but mean another, you've not successfully transferred the message that was in your head onto the page!

Which is usually fine, but the internet is awash with people who genuinely do believe other opinions are ludicrous. They're not the majority, most people are perfectly pleasant and SOH is statistically likely to be a decent person, but they're a frustrating and vocal enough minority that I don't good faith can be relied upon. It's fine in a chat among friends, where everyone has a sense of everyone else, but I don't know who son_ov_hades is, I don't know he's not that armchair tyrant. If his posts land, grand, and in most conversations statements like that are usually absolutely fine, but when someone doesn't read it as it isn't written... I can't see how that's the reader's fault?

[King Postwhore]

S.o.h.  you are young enough.  We are talking about music 50 years ago not the 90's.  Now do I like music from the 40's?  Not all but it's not because I think they suck, I just don't like that style of music but to just come out and say "A band sucks" makes me laugh because of how influential they were and how as a band they grew in the 10 year span.

I do not like Nirvana.  Some song are cool but I do think they paved a way and were ever influential in the 90's but I'm not fond of their music.  I won't say they suck.

[Jaffa]

The internet is obsessed with semantics because semantics are exactly what language is - if you say one thing but mean another, you've not successfully transferred the message that was in your head onto the page!

The thing about language is that interpretation can be every bit as important as expression.  Reading comprehension is as much an art form as writing is. Yes, it's nice when people put a lot of effort into expressing themselves clearly (you know I have a lot of respect for you and the way you express yourself), but I think it would also be nice if people put the same amount of effort into the interpretation side of things. 

I could take any post in this thread - scratch that; any post in any thread ever, anything anybody's ever said around me - and read it in a negative light, if I really wanted to.  Instead, I choose to make a conscious effort to look for reasonable interpretations and sensible explanations that I can understand.  Hell, I'll use kingshmegland as an example (no offense, buddy!).  The negative interpretation: 'he's saying that s_o_h's opinion is literally laughable because the Beatles are objectively good and anybody who denies that is wrong, so s_o_h must just be too young to appreciate them.'  The reasonable, understanding interpretation: 'he's saying that just because you don't like a band doesn't mean they suck.'  I really think I could make a case for either interpretation based on the way he worded his post, but I'm choosing to go with the reasonable one, because it's... well, reasonable.  Why would I assume negative things about him when there's a perfectly reasonable alternative?

I guess I just feel like people on the internet are too quick to get stuck on semantics and force unnecessary confrontations rather than just making an effort to understand each other.

[King Postwhore]

It's like I don't even know you anymore Jaffa.

[Jaffa]

   You posted while I was typing, so when I went to post, it alerted me that there was a new reply.  I thought, "... You know what?  I can actually use that.  Sorry, king!"   

[Tom Bombadil]

I think the easiest solution to this is to just use the simple word "I".
"I think the Beatles suck" and "the Beatles suck" come off very differently. Nobody questioned when I said "I hate Queen" because it was obvious it was my personal opinion.

[Kotowboy]

" Queen suck " is saying Queen suck. End of.

" I think Queen Suck " means you think Queen suck.

It's a subtle difference.

[Jaffa]

EDIT:  Ignore this.  Sorry, got caught up silly arguing and almost (further) derailed the thread. 

[FlyingBIZKIT]

The point is that you say that they suck but you don't care to elaborate why.

Yep. My friend does this. He says Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin suck, but I ask him why, and he doesn't even explain.

[Outcrier]

Such as " Life Of Brian is the best Monty Python film ". When I think that Holy Grail is vastly superior.

Well, Holy Grail is considered their best film.

"2001 is Kubrick's best movie and a cinematic masterpiece." 2001: A Space Odyssey is boring as all fuck.  I find it to be a snooze-fest interspersed with some moments of absolute brilliance.  Kubrick directs the hell out of it, but all the slow-motion scenes of monkeys beating rocks or spaceships spinning to classical music is the cinematic equivalent to jerking off on the Mona Lisa.

This and Barry Lyndon are my favorites from him... i get what you say about 2001 but it's pure genius imo especially considering it's from 1968. When i saw it the 1st time, i wondered "how did they make this/that?" in near every scene and DAT ending sequence it's just glorious but yeah, the pace is very slow.

[Outcrier]

The point is that you say that they suck but you don't care to elaborate why.

Yep. My friend does this. He says Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin suck, but I ask him why, and he doesn't even explain.

I bet he doesn't even have heard an entire album of these bands.