why do you hate tame impala /mu/?
>>61470478
They're a watered down version of what was already done better in the 60's.
>>61470523
why is that necessarily a bad thing if they make palatable music?
lame impala
>>61470552
It's not necessarily, but it doesn't give me a reason to listen to them. I don't hate Tame Impala like your question implies, I just think they're generic.
>>61470841
They're not generic. It's different from 60's psych and it's also modern and new.
DUDE PSYCHEDELIC BRO LMAO
one of them looks like a girl but isn't and that make me confused
I'm new to /mu/, how is it possible that you can say that this board hates X band and they all just accept it? Is this board a /pol/ tier circlejerk?
>>61470478
Kevin Parker is just David Foster Wallace in disguise
>>61470890
>They're not generic. It's different from 60's psych and it's also modern and new.
>They're not generic. It's not generic from 60s psych and its also new and new.
This is what you said.
The band is the definition of 6/10.
So I don't hate them but I never have any circumstance where I'd prefer to listen to them.
Kevin Parker is damnation by faint praise personified. But he's a good producer.
>>61470948
no, we're an [s4s]-tier memejerk
they make good pop music thats it. we dislike it when people try to make them some god tier psych band
kevin himself consider them pop. which is what they're
i dont really dislike them or "him" tbqh
i just think that like, 80% of their or "his" music is pretty safe played, generic, and boring, but there are some good jams here and there.
is their fucking fanbase and marketing that tries to portray them or "him" as the fucking ULTIMATE TRIPPY ACID MUSIC RAWK BAND/MANE that makes me mad
I honestly realy like them, I think the last album wasnt as good but the others were great
>>61470890
>responds to someone calling generic music "generic" with the most generic response possible
because they a successful musicians and I am not
>>61470552
>palatable
I find it funny that this is the best thing you could think of about their music.
It's okay though, I can't think of anything better, either. They're patable but they certainly aren't good.
>>61470890
>>61470974
Nothing that you've said is a good reason to dislike them. I've heard a ton of old 60's psych, it's good but this is new and it also has features of modern music that were not present back then in the same form.
>>61471027
How dare enjoy a band more than you do.
>>61470478
Partly their incredibly mediocre songwriting, partly their incredibly obnoxious fanbase.
Morgan Delt pretty much did what Innerspeaker and Lonerism were trying to do, but a lot more creatively and resulted in a much better product.
A better question would be why the FUCK DOES MU HATE THE FLAMING LIPS?????????
>>61471109
that's absolute bullshit
Because mu is generally a hivemind in what it hates/likes. Tame impala is in the "hate" realm, with Indie pop with 60s neo-psych. A death sentence on mu.
>>61471035
>>61471088
It's new music as in I haven't heard it before because it's new. It's different from 60's psych because it has characteristics that are present in modern music which weren't present back then. Do you need someone to be pretentious in order to understand them?
>>61471132
don't
saying this will only incur more shitflinging
>>61470948
yes
>>61471136
You guys and /pol/ really have accomplished something where you are more of a circlejerk than reddit without a points system to facilitate it.
>>61471132
because moo is full of plebs
>>61470478
because they're popular
>>61470948
Yep. pretty much. The narrative occasionally changes just so someone can be edgy again, something that never happens on /pol/ (ie being liberal, non-anti-Semitic, or not racist).
>>61471132
Because Flaming Lips = babby's first indie/psychedelic rock
It's pop music that somehow gets mixed in with psych rock for some reason.
In a perfect world I wouldn't mind if tame impala dominated top 40. but because of ppl like op who cherishes hes indie/hipster cred they will end up like james murphy.
hopefully his next record goes even more mainstream pop so all the wannabe hipsters can fuck off
remember when people liked Arctic monkeys until they made a hit? Just you wait tame impala is nxt
>>61471198
Jesus fucking christ is it so much to ask to want varied music discussion and sharing without a points system?
>>61471090
>>61471137
These posts are exactly why everyone hates your shitty redditcore memeband. Kill yourself.
>>61471137
no, I need someone to not write like a ten year old when they describe them
>>61471259
>Just you wait tame impala is nxt
see: elephant
>>61471255
So because they aren't "underground" they make bad music?
>>61471259
It gets mixed in with psych rock because it is psych rock. It is also popular.
>>61471282
>>61471288
You two could not make it anymore obvious that you are angsty contrarian teenagers.
>>61470948
Elitism is essential to uphold board quality. It's mostly a lost art by now but a lot of us still do our part to drive fans of shitty teenager music like Tame Impala, Blink-182 etc. off the board.
>>61471137
>Do you need someone to be pretentious in order to understand them?
It's probably difficult to tell with the deafening roar of the point rushing right over your head, but when you listen to the music, what EXACTLY are the characteristics that are present in modern music that were not present back then?
>It's new music as in I haven't heard it before because it's new
I don't like kevin's voice. Or that garageband synth and drums.
>>61471255
I'm sad you exist.
>>61471259
Yeah but Arctic Monkeys are actually shit, Tame impala can actually write a decent pop song with a fair variety of ideas
>>61470478
http://strawpoll.me/6443989
>>61471314
You couldn't make it more obvious that you're an underage moron. Again, kill yourself.
>>61471308
Not him but I don't really like the Flaming Lips anymore because their output is really mediocre and they keep spending their time on cover albums with mainstream pop stars.
>>61471315
Adopting tactics used by /a/ when their board is wall-to-wall flavor of the month garbage is not a good strategy. Try something else.
>>61471308
except they were underground for a lot of their career and not a lot of people care
>>61471109
He's really good
>>61471294
no that only became big in Aussie land. I'm talking on some the weeknd,arctic monkey levels where commercials and every top 40 radio station is playing ur shit. when that happens I guarantee you tame impala threads will go away
>>61471314
no it's pop music stop trying to mix it with psych rock like goat,king gizzard and the lizards,
>>61471333
yes I agree 100% kevin makes good pop music better then AM. i just used them as examples of reaching the mainstream audience that worships tswift,katy perry and the rest.
once that happen the hipsters who like to think tame impala is DUDE PSYCH will go away
>>61471333
>Tame impala can actually write a decent pop song
[citation needed]
>>61471315
Being elitist about music is a pretty sophomoric and immature trait to have. Blink and Tame Impala have nothing in common besides being popular and being forms of rock music.
>>61471340
Do you need to talk about why you're a bitter little pussy anon?
>>61471376
Rock music being popular doesn't change the fact that it is rock music.
>>61471321
The modern pop funk element is conspicuously missing from 60's psych. I reiterated my point in a simplistic way because you had trouble understanding it.
>>61471351
>their output is really mediocre
the Terror was fantastic
>>61471393
see: Lonerism
and Currents, and oh while we're at it why not Innerspeaker too. Show me one band that blew up in the last 5 years on the same level as Kevin for pop songs
>>61471308
You don't have to be underground to make interesting or adventurous music. Flaming Lips do neither. They're a very safe band for making you and your friends think you're listening to something creative.
>>61470478
theyre ok but im just not into psych rock
too boring
>>61471412
>The modern pop funk element is conspicuously missing from 60's psych.
So you're explicitly referring to their most recent album, and not their discography, which is principally lacking in that particular element? How many posts did it take to get to you actually discussing an element of the music outside of terms like 'modern', 'new', and 'different'?
However, the integration of 80s pop with 60s pop is not innovative or new, so once again I find myself wondering exactly is innovative about Tame Impala
>I reiterated my point in a simplistic way because you had trouble understanding it.
>It's new music as in I haven't heard it before because it's new
>>61471274
Its not like there is no good discussion, it just all comes from the lense of an artificial opinion. Just insert your own opinion as you rage and all will be well
>>61471445
>Show me one band that blew up in the last 5 years on the same level as Kevin for pop songs
Fun., Mumford & Sons or any of the other shitty pop rock bands on the radio you probably love
>>61471412
>Rock music being popular doesn't change the fact that it is rock music.
case and point. It's pop music but since you dislike that crowd you keep calling it "rock" this is why tame impala still hasn't reached the audience that needs their music because of elitist people like you. tame impala needs to dominate top 40 and change pop music forever, they're the modern day beatles
>>61471453
Sonically they're the most interesting straight up pop/rock band I've ever heard.
>>61471473
>So you're explicitly referring to their most recent album, and not their discography,
Their new album is part of their discography you moron.
>However, the integration of 80s pop with 60s pop is not innovative or new
So you admit that it is different from 60's psych. Anon this is going to work out much better for you if you stop being condescending while simultaneously being wrong.
>>61471530
? I'm not elitist. I like Tame Impala a lot and I also like pop music. Tame Impala is rock music but it is also pop. You can't say it's not rock music because it's popular.
>>61471521
You're not even trying, that's cool though.
Just go right on and prove my point.
>>61471530
>tame impala needs to dominate top 40 and change pop music forever, they're the modern day beatles
Thats actually a pretty good point, and I realy like them.
>>61471562
read this please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music
>>61471620
I know what pop music is, nothing in there changes what I said.
>>61471351
Why is it not a good strategy? Avoid irrelevant arguments like "/a/ uses it" this time.
>>61471412
>Being elitist about music is a pretty sophomoric and immature trait to have.
You seem to have missed the point for said elitism. Read my post again.
>Blink and Tame Impala have nothing in common besides being popular and being forms of rock music.
You forgot
>both make terrible, derivative pop music
>both have obnoxious fanbases comprising mainly teenagers with little to no musical knowledge
Why would you want fans of these bands on a board for music discussion? How do they benefit such an online society, exactly?
>>61471445
>see: Lonerism
Heard it. It's terrible.
>that blew up in the last 5 years
Why is this relevant?
>>61471547
This is why I can barely hold a conversation with you. You're asking a board that prides itself on listening to extremities of experimental & out-there music why they hate a non-experimental band that you describe as "most interesting." You aren't going to understand why people on here hate the Flaming Lips for not being challenging enough when your boundaries of what constitutes "interesting" include an uninteresting band.
>>61471655
>Heard it. It's terrible.
ok god of /mu/, calm your tits
>Why is this relevant?
well if you'd like to provide me with some other pop band from the last 5 years that I should be wasting my money on, based on some actual well-formed, well articulated opinion, instead of petty meme-hate then go ahead
>>61471655
Anon you sound like a miserable and insufferable prick with strictly obscure musical taste. A board full of people like you would be a shitty place for music discussion. I know people who have played music for a decade, and have done it professionally, they are in their 20's and they enjoy Tame Impala.
>>61471530
>tame impala needs to dominate top 40 and change pop music forever, they're the modern day beatles
I mean I really like Tame Impala too but to claim that they deserve the kind of reverence as the Beatles (or to imply that they've innovated in any capacity comparable to the Beatles) is hilarious.
>>61471724
Not that I agree with the elitist (I personally realy like Tame Impala) but playing music for an extended period of time doesn't provide you with musical knowledge, you get that from listening to music, not playing it.
>>61471109
No, I prefer Morgan Felt but that's not the case
>>61471655
>both make terrible, derivative pop music
One guy says they aren't derivative, one says they are, so what exactly makes them derivative? who does the 80s synth/60s psych? Who mixes the 60s psych sound with modern elecronica?
>both have obnoxious fanbases comprising[sic] mainly of teenagers with little to no musical knowledge
[citation needed]
Also, your idea that musical knowledge has anything to do with fandom and preference and that somehow has a bearing on what originally a "why do they suck" line of replies is retarded.
>>61471700
>a board that prides itself on listening to extremities of experimental & out-there music
[citation needed]
there's a fucking shiteload of pop fans on /mu/ - there you have half your flaming lips fanbase sorted
then to appease people who prefer the kind of stuff you listed, they fuck around with their instrumentation, sometimes to the point where it makes no sense (see: zaireeka) they were an underground rock band doing weird shit for years, and they almost bankrupted themselves making an album that stands up to the best pop has to offer and is a totally new concept, and it still gets shit on
>>61471713
Ariel pink
>>61471753
another case and point on why you indiefags always ruin things with your elitistism. If tame impala can dominate the airwaves like the beatles did .music starting from top 40 will change again.big labels only push shit that brings them lots of money. but that'll never happen because you retards are scared of somebody liking ur "epic" band. faggots
we need ppl like taylor swift,katy perry,rihanna to be washed up already
>>61471788
>playing music for an extended period of time doesn't provide you with musical knowledge, you get that from listening to music, not playing it.
>>61471788
The guy he replied to said that Tame Impala fans don't know anything about music.
>>61471836
I misunderstood my bad
>>61471806
Not forgetting the weird shit they did on the Terror and Embryonic, too
>>61471825
I actually fucking love ariel pink (House Arrest is GOAT) but his 2000's output is better than his 2010s. We'll call it equal
>>61471832
I know people who play in a band for years and dont know shut about music because they only listen to things very similar to what they play
>>61471832
Acdc have been playing 50+ years
I don't like the vocals and I don't like the drums
>>61471901
Anon I guarantee that you don't play music or you're not that good at it.
>>61471918
Correct.
>>61470974
>Kevin Parker is damnation by faint praise personified.
holy shit, hit the nail on the head.
>>61471944
True
>>61471944
You're actually insufferable
Enjoy your regurgitated pop rock, it's easier to swallow that way, fucking bird brain
>>61471918
>>61471944
not that I disagree but having music knowledge doesn't necessarily mean that you write music that reflects that.
>>61471806
You've still failed to illuminate how the Flaming Lips could be considered "out-there".
I'm also not sure why I'm supposed to care that they bankrupted themselves.
>>61471968
Do you not see how ridiculous this is?
What if someone who watched a lot of dance videos and performances told someone they knew more about dancing than someone who had done the same and also had been dancing for 10 years? It's just so fucking ridiculous.
>>61471980
Enjoy not having friends and having an undeserved air of superiority because you go out of your way to consume obscure audio media you pussy faggot.
>>61472008
I wasn't arguing that man. I was saying that someone who can actually create and perform an art form is more qualified to criticize it than someone who has only been a critic.
>>61471825
>we need ppl like taylor,katy perry,rihanna to be washed up already
You literally sound like an edgy 14 year old. I'm not sure how stating that Tame Impala objectively isn't as influential or innovative as the Beatles and that your comparison sucked is somehow keeping Taylor Swift and Katy Perry in the top 40.
>>61471713
Why is it important that they be from the last 5 years? There isn't much good music of any kind from the last 5 years, especially not psychedelic pop. That's like saying "Huh, I really haven't heard very many good fugues for harpsichord composed between 1988 and 1992. Can anyone recommend me some?"
If you really want recs, I'm not a huge fan of Animal Collective but I think they're due to release something in the next few months and it'll almost definitely be leagues better than Tame Impala.
>>61471724
My taste isn't especially obscure. Also, I don't see why a board full of people who actually attempt to come up with rational, thoughtful arguments to defend their positions would be a shitty place for music discussion.
Skip to 2:15 if you embed
https://youtu.be/86PBHzU5ozk?t=2m15s
sounds like day tripper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rwzgztB2GQ
Lonerism/Tame Impala is the continuation of The beatles sound, its reincarnation if you will.
>>61472019
> What if someone who watched a lot of dance videos and performances told someone they knew more about dancing than someone who had done the same and also had been dancing for 10 years
To know about and to know how to are two different things
>>61472043
I'm not sure that's how it works. That's like saying that only actors, directors, and producers are qualified to criticize movies.
>>61472119
And knowing how makes you know about on a deeper level. If you played music you would understand that.
>>61472128
That's not analogous to what I said or implied.
>>61472113
>"reincarnation"
>implying it isn't just ripping them off
>>61472085
cry more indiefag
>>61472143
>That's not analogous to what I said or implied.
That's exactly what you said and implied.
>>61472173
Less qualified =/= not qualified
>>61472016
They are a pop band for the majority of their career - I concede. But on all of their albums, apart from a few of the early ones, they've always put their back into making orginal sounding instrumentation, more so than any other band I've ever heard. The reason they're not shoving their experiments in your face is because (up until the last 5 years, I agree), they had a concept of subtlety, I think that makes them worthy of praise. And even then you have Zaireeka, The Terror, and Embryonic to appease those who want less pop, and more studio experiments from guys who know how to do it, because they've been doing it for the last 30 years.
>>61472152
Tame Impala get hate because their fans are worse than tool and radiohead fans combined
>>61472193
Okay, how about this: saying that someone who can't play an instrument is less qualified to criticize music than you is like someone like George Lucas saying "direct a movie, then I'll listen" to anyone who criticizes the shitty Star Wars prequels.
>>61472089
I love animal collective and they've done fuck all in the last 5 years of any note.
I don't have too much faith in their next record desu.
I honestly believe that if you're criticising what is rather easily enjoyable pop rock with a good degree of original song-writing structure and pop ability, you should at least bring someone forward who's doing something better than they are.
they make horrible music
>>61472264
And just because George Lucas doesn't like what you like doesn't change the fact that he knows way more about making movies than you ever will.
>>61472197
I guess I also hate the Flaming Lips because of how unremarkable they are. I listened to Embryonic blind of their other material (I asked someone what their most "experimental" album was) and it was easily one of the most plodding, monotonous, and boring albums I've listened to in recent memory.
>>61471805
>One guy says they aren't derivative, one says they are, so what exactly makes them derivative?
To criticise them properly I'd have to listen to them again, and I'm not about to pause Wayne Shorter just so I can prove some teenagers wrong on an Iranian camel-grooming message board, but based on what I remember from the last time I listened to Lonerism, it was mostly forgettable pop numbers slathered in reverb with some predictable harmonic progression or pentatonic guitar riff repeated ad nauseum while Jeff Parker or whatever his name is whines about having no friends over it. Literally just compare them to almost any psychedelic pop band from the 60s.
>who does the 80s synth/60s psych? Who mixes the 60s psych sound with modern elecronica?
Animal Collective, for a start.
>Also, your idea that musical knowledge has anything to do with fandom and preference and that somehow has a bearing on what originally a "why do they suck" line of replies is retarded.
It's a generalisation. I can't think of any reason why someone would like Tame Impala unless they hadn't heard better psych and don't know enough music theory to realise how clichéd their songwriting is, so it's reasonable to assume the majority of their fanbase is musically illiterate.
Also, I have a bad habit of responding to specific posts and ignoring the chain of replies that lead up to it, but this thread was originally about why /mu/ hates Tame Impala, not what makes them bad (which is obviously subjective).
>>61472305
You're failing to make me understand how he (or you) are more of a critical authority than I am. Someone can go to culinary school for 10+ years learning to be a top chef, but I can still call their food shit if it tastes bad and be 100% right.
every TI thread on /mu/ comes down to retatded arguments about whether it is or isn't "psych". It's all pop music you retards. All of it. There's pop music way more experimental and innovative than tame impala, them being acknowledged as psych rock specifically (which is also pop music) would not give them any more cred.
>>61472322
not a fan of tame impala but all the posts in this thread saying to go listen to animal collective instead of tame impala like one is an improvement over the other are a little misleading, technically both bands make psychedelic music but they don't really sound the same at all
>>61472347
Anon, you will never find someone who goes to culinary school for 10 years that isn't capable of making or understanding good food. That person would have to be literally fucking retarded.
>>61472293
>I love animal collective and they've done fuck all in the last 5 years of any note.
I feel inclined to agree, but I can't think of anything better within your limited timeframe.
>I honestly believe that if you're criticising what is rather easily enjoyable pop rock with a good degree of original song-writing structure and pop ability, you should at least bring someone forward who's doing something better than they are.
Well that's lucky, because I'm not criticising that, I'm criticising Tame Impala :^)
>>61472364
the argument has moved on from that
But thanks for your input, it's always a good time for a retard replay
>>61472364
>le conflating "pop music" and "popular music" meme
Fuck off.
>>61472396
>you will never find someone who goes to culinary school for 10 years that isn't capable of making or understanding good food
Wow, I mean I've been trying to be polite here but you're starting to sound really REALLY dumb. School and/or technical ability does not automatically yield talent or authority.. If that were the case, everyone should just throw their entire record collections in the trash and listen exclusively to Yngwie Malmsteen and Renaissance-era classical music.
>>61472396
i would argue that Kevin Parker is literally fucking retarded
and i can criticize for it but you cant because i have a degree in psychology and you dont
>>61472306
>you personally thinking they're unremarkable is a reason to "hate" a band
Fuck outta here
>>61472414
Hehe you got me
>>61472477
>School and/or technical ability does not automatically yield talent or authority..
Over someone without either, yes it does. If you and your identical twin were given two different jobs, one of learning how to play music for the next 10 years while critiquing it, and the other just critiquing it. The musician will know more about music after 10 years. This isn't a groundbreaking or controversial idea anon.
>>61472523
I actually do have a degree in psychology lmao
>>61472527
>you personally thinking they're unremarkable is somehow not a valid reason to not like a band
fixed
>>61472574
The musician would know a lot about theory and orchestration but they wouldn't know fuck all about musical scenes/genres/trends/cliques/genres/modern history or anything of value, just scales chords and timber (texture)
I actually love Tame Impala and Currents is one of my favorite "background music" albums at the moment. I'm not saying they're amazing or groundbreaking in any way, I just dig their sound
>>61472574
That's just where our opinions differ - you think that, because someone KNOWS more about something, that makes their critique of that field more valid. I can understand the logic behind that - being more well-informed generally makes someone smarter about something - but that logic simply doesn't apply to everything. Knowing more about playing music definitely makes you more of an authority on criticizing a band's use of music theory & technical ability, but someone who has never picked up an instrument in their life can just as easily say a band you like isn't very enjoyable and be on equal footing as you. I have no way of claiming that one of us is "right" and the other is "wrong" because both of us are using subjective opinions, but I can say that neither of us is more valid than the other in our opinions.
On an unrelated note, I can say that I've been to restaurants whose food tasted terrible that had chefs who went through years of culinary school. Education and experience make the likelihood of creating something good much higher, but they don't make impossible to make something bad.
>>61472322
>slathered in reverb
hey there anthony
>predictable harmonic progression or pentatonic guitar riff repeated ad nauseum
some are predictable, i'll give you that. His music rarely abuses pentatonic wanking though, so that's bullshit. I agree they(he)'s overrated, but he produces tasteful pop music with great arrangements, a cohesive and well developed sound and a well defined sense of mood and atmosphere.
>>61472438
I'd love to see you explain the difference.
>>61472669
>musical scenes/genres/trends/cliques/genres/modern history
Anon that is the most superficial bullshit about music. If we're listening to a song and you think its genre, clique? or genre history is more important than how the song fucking sounds, this isn't going to work. I give up on you.
>>61472797
>timber and tone are more important than interpretation
I disagree
>>61472762
Popular music = music for commercial consumption, as opposed to traditional or art music
Pop music = music that follows pop song formats codified by American composers in the mid-1900s
Simple as that.
>>61472729
Having an opinion on something isn't the same as criticising it you fucking moron.
>>61472892
your mom is for commercial consumption
>>61472937
>>61472950
>tame impala fans
>>61472892
And you fail to see any overlap or confusion between those two things? Worlds apart, those two, yeah?
>>61473043
I can hear you backpedaling from here.
>>61472937
I fail to see the difference you fucking moron.
Tame Impala is hands down the best band in the world right now. They are not pretty good, they are pretty incredible. But more than just how good they are, They represent the first ripple in a massive change that we are about to go through musically as well as culturally. I think that over the course of the next 10 years we are going to see a sort of mini-renaissance similar to what we saw in the late 50s-60s post war.
>>61473087
Well I'm sorry to tell you this but it looks like you're a fucking moron. Jesus Christ.
>>61473091
Keep dreamin dip shit
Tame Impala are one of those bands you'll like during your whole life.
>>61473129
I like Tame Impala but I'm convinced these types of comments are b8.
>>61473091
>>61472085
you're dumb. he's not saying that Tame Impala is as innovative and influential as The Beatles, he's saying that bands like Tame Impala could change the music industry, given they get popular enough. You're a dumb fuck that jumps onto the first meme he can think of
>You literally sound like an edgy 14 year old
wow so fucking original, ass clown.
dude lcd lmao
we are a gud band
>>61473316
So calling them "the modern day Beatles" wasn't comparing them to the Beatles? I can see why he would've been mistaken to point out the contrast between Tame Impala and The Beatles in that case.
>>61473426
you can compare a something to another thing without implying that they share all the same attributes. he clearly stated the similarities he saw between the two bands, you're the one that mentioned anything having to do with the bands being equal in quality. you're essentially arguing against a point that no one made.
>>61473509
>you can compare a something to another thing without implying that they share all the same attributes
Your point being?
>he clearly stated the similarities he saw between the two bands
Where?
>you're the one that mentioned anything having to do with the bands being equal in quality
I definitely didn't, I'm pretty sure the guy you initially responded to didn't, either.
>you're essentially arguing against a point that no one made.
Wrong again.
>>61473583
>your point being?
that just because he compared The Beatles and Tame Impala for one thing, doesn't mean he thinks they are similar in all regards.
>Where?
"music starting from top 40 will change again"
"tame impala needs to dominate top 40 and change pop music forever, they're the modern day beatles"
granted, it is a bit much to actually call them the modern day beatles. but his point is that they could change the pop music industry by making it a bit less about the money, kind of like The Beatles did. notice how he hasn't really mentioned the quality yet?
>I definitely didn't, I'm pretty sure the guy you initially responded to didn't, either.
he literally mentioned a a comparison between Tame Impala and The Beatles that implies they are equal in influence and innovation. He was the first to mention it. "or to imply that they've innovated in any capacity comparable to the Beatles"
he never said that Tame Impala has innovated at any level near The Beatles, his point is that they have potential to change the industry to be less greedy (whether i agree with him or not is another thing).
>Wrong again.
get fucked retard
