{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/14/2015 6:02:54 PM
5
There's a reason that 80.4% of the Rolling Stone's top 500 songs of all time are from 1960 - 1989. They are amazing. 1990 through current has 5% or 25 songs.
English
-
Well I would argue thats nostalgia. And considering the average age of a Rolling Stone reader and a Rolling Stone writer those numbers make sense. Also, nothing to do with my point.
-
Modificato da Der Sheff: 9/14/2015 6:20:09 PMRolling Stone's the magazine, not the band. They take in to account replay requests. Classic rock is flat out better than anything put out, today. Sorry, bud.
-
Also, replay requests? Based on what, radio? You mean that out dated technology used primarily by... older people?
-
Modificato da Der Sheff: 9/14/2015 6:38:05 PMI see what you're saying: out with the old and in with the new. Otherwise we would see more songs from the 1600's or prior. Matter of taste. Perhaps the top 500 was a poor reference. Still, I would say classic rock has yielded the best music ever, in the sense that what you had recorded was what you had live and without some sort of auto tuning.
-
Are you -blam!-ing kidding me? How could you misconstrue my response as thinking I was talking about the -blam!-ing band?
