• 82 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by lavaman77 (565 posts) -

Seriously, i only heard of them recently and im so much in love. Their Album and EP is so perfect and amazing! it feels like the best era of music is back, THIS is what music should be like. It pisses me off so much that they're barely known, they have so much talent and can easily take the title of the Beatles of our generation. If you haven't heard their music you owe it to yourself to do so. I really hope this band becomes popular because they're easily the most talented band i've seen in years, they've manged to breath new life into old music which i thought was going to stay dead for good. Seriously check them out, you'll be breathless.

#2 Posted by SamFo (1562 posts) -

The Beatles of our generation? With one album... yeah sure....
Anyways they were pretty big here (In australia) for a while after the release of innerspeaker.
But seriously, they have one album that did very well.
I'd say commercially and critically they have everything they deserve so far.

Online
#3 Posted by lavaman77 (565 posts) -

@SamFo said:

The Beatles of our generation? With one album... yeah sure.... Anyways they were pretty big here (In australia) for a while after the release of innerspeaker. But seriously, they have one album that did very well. I'd say commercially and critically they have everything they deserve so far.Q

In terms of talent, they definitely have a very strong potential of being the next beatles. Can you really name any band that sounded so close to the beatles other than Tame Impala?

#4 Posted by SamFo (1562 posts) -

Well for a start, I don't think Tame Impala sounds like the Beatles. I guess it's Psychadelic rock, so alot of the Beatles more psychadelic tracks (Tomorrow Never Knows, Within you, Without you) bear some resemblance.
 
 But I'd say Dr Dog or the Young Veins/Panic at the Disco have far more in common with the Beatles, I don't think they are better though.
 In terms of evolving that sound I think Animal Collective do a better job than Tame Impala.

Online
#5 Posted by benspyda (2051 posts) -

They are pretty great band. Beatles of our generation is a bit far though.

#6 Posted by believer258 (12201 posts) -

@lavaman77 said:

In terms of talent, they definitely have a very strong potential of being the next beatles. Can you really name any band that sounded so close to the beatles other than Tame Impala?

If one band does something good and original, and another band sounds just like them, then the original is the better band. Calling them "the Beatles for the modern age" doesn't really do much for them. The Beatles have come and gone. No, I would much rather see a band that does something different.

And by "different", I don't mean anything done almost completely with a computer. Can we have our real instruments back, please?

#7 Posted by Veektarius (5024 posts) -

You can't sound like the Beatles and be the Beatles of our generation, because our generation is not the '60s. I like the songs though.

#8 Posted by Chuggsy (556 posts) -

Doesn't sound very great to me, not my type of music. But that's not the point.

Listen, don't go promoting a band and taking it personal when everybody doesn't love them. It's pointless and immature. There are thousands of bands you don't know and that you would think are the best thing ever. Don't get too hyped when you find one.

#9 Posted by 9cupsoftea (651 posts) -

They were very well known about 2 years ago when their album came out.

#10 Posted by SamFo (1562 posts) -
@9cupsoftea said:

They were very well known about 2 years ago when their album came out.

this.
Online
#11 Posted by Loose (411 posts) -

The Beatles comparison seems like a massive leap. I mean they sound like an indie-pop band, which there happen to be a lot of. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I'm not hearing anything particularly groundbreaking here.

#12 Posted by lavaman77 (565 posts) -

@SamFo said:

Well for a start, I don't think Tame Impala sounds like the Beatles. I guess it's Psychadelic rock, so alot of the Beatles more psychadelic tracks (Tomorrow Never Knows, Within you, Without you) bear some resemblance. But I'd say Dr Dog or the Young Veins/Panic at the Disco have far more in common with the Beatles, I don't think they are better though. In terms of evolving that sound I think Animal Collective do a better job than Tame Impala.

I just think that they capture the 70's so damn well that i can't help it but think of the beatles.

@believer258 said:

@lavaman77 said:

In terms of talent, they definitely have a very strong potential of being the next beatles. Can you really name any band that sounded so close to the beatles other than Tame Impala?

If one band does something good and original, and another band sounds just like them, then the original is the better band. Calling them "the Beatles for the modern age" doesn't really do much for them. The Beatles have come and gone. No, I would much rather see a band that does something different.

And by "different", I don't mean anything done almost completely with a computer. Can we have our real instruments back, please?

Not necessarily, i feel that Tame Impala exceeds the beatles big time in this genre. Tame Impala are using a mix of computer and real instruments so i don't know why you think they're only doing it with a computer, When they mix up the two it really makes for an amazing experience.

@Chuggsy said:

Doesn't sound very great to me, not my type of music. But that's not the point.

Listen, don't go promoting a band and taking it personal when everybody doesn't love them. It's pointless and immature. There are thousands of bands you don't know and that you would think are the best thing ever. Don't get too hyped when you find one.

Music is horrible these days so can you really blame me for being hyped? it's hard to find any good band these days. I'm not really taking it personal but im bugged about how skilled bands barley get any exposure and garbage bands get pushed and advertised in every way possible. These guys actually have talent and bringing back a fantastic era of music.

#13 Posted by laserbolts (5368 posts) -

@Loose said:

The Beatles comparison seems like a massive leap. I mean they sound like an indie-pop band, which there happen to be a lot of. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I'm not hearing anything particularly groundbreaking here.

This basically sums up how I feel after listening to these 2 songs. I mean they aren't bad by any means but nothing really special either.

#14 Edited by believer258 (12201 posts) -

@lavaman77 said:

Not necessarily, i feel that Tame Impala exceeds the beatles big time in this genre. Tame Impala are using a mix of computer and real instruments so i don't know why you think they're only doing it with a computer, When they mix up the two it really makes for an amazing experience.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that. I meant, generally, a lot of what seems to be getting popular is done completely, or at least predominantly, with a computer. At least here in America. I guess I was anticipating someone giving me a band suggestion like that? I don't know, stupid thinking was involved. Sorry.

EDIT: And I happen to like music these days, just not really the stuff that's incredibly popular.

#15 Posted by Aetheldod (3733 posts) -

Thanks duder ... Im digging this , if it is of any consolation Im a Black Metal headbanger (altho from time to time I put o some Ironbutterfly , Semirami, beatles and Cat Stevens)

#16 Posted by lavaman77 (565 posts) -

@Loose said:

The Beatles comparison seems like a massive leap. I mean they sound like an indie-pop band, which there happen to be a lot of. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I'm not hearing anything particularly groundbreaking here.

Name a couple of indie pop bands that sound like them. The beatles comparison is close, go and listen to their tracks when they were dabbling in psych-rock.

@believer258 said:

@lavaman77 said:

Not necessarily, i feel that Tame Impala exceeds the beatles big time in this genre. Tame Impala are using a mix of computer and real instruments so i don't know why you think they're only doing it with a computer, When they mix up the two it really makes for an amazing experience.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that. I meant, generally, a lot of what seems to be getting popular is done completely, or at least predominantly, with a computer. At least here in America. I guess I was anticipating someone giving me a band suggestion like that? I don't know, stupid thinking was involved. Sorry.

EDIT: And I happen to like music these days, just not really the stuff that's incredibly popular.

That's true sadly which is why i wish more bands like TI existed. I personally lost hope in music entirely these days, it wasn't until a friend posted one of their songs where i completely had my faith restored. These guys are a fantastic example of what real music should be like.

#17 Posted by downtime58 (224 posts) -

Music is horrible these days so can you really blame me for being hyped? it's hard to find any good band these days. I'm not really taking it personal but im bugged about how skilled bands barley get any exposure and garbage bands get pushed and advertised in every way possible. These guys actually have talent and bringing back a fantastic era of music.

I don't know man - I like Tame Impala, but they are one of many great bands - maybe you just need to broaden your horizons a bit - the best stuff is rarely played commercially on the radio anymore - with the Internet, great bands are far easier to find online than on Top 40..

There's lots of great rock bands that incorporate elements of 60's and 70's rock - just to name a few: Girls, The Drums, The Black Keys, Woods, The Walkmen, Ariel Pink's Haunted Grafitti - and as for the Beatles comparison, I'd say Sloan has Tame Impala beat for proximity to sound.

#18 Posted by Loose (411 posts) -

@lavaman77 said:

@Loose said:

The Beatles comparison seems like a massive leap. I mean they sound like an indie-pop band, which there happen to be a lot of. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I'm not hearing anything particularly groundbreaking here.

Name a couple of indie pop bands that sound like them. The beatles comparison is close, go and listen to their tracks when they were dabbling in psych-rock.

Don't talk to me like I don't know my Beatles kid. I'm not saying that they don't have anything in common with post-Revolver Beatles sonically, but calling them "the Beatles of our generation" is a pretty bold claim for many many reasons.

As for bands sounding like them; spend a few minutes on Pitchfork or Stereogum and I'm sure you'll find a group that's at least vaguely similar in concept, even if they don't stick quite as closely to a Beatles-esque formula. I'm not hugely familiar with the groups that play this particular brand of indie-pop as it does not cater to my preferences, but I can assure you that there are quite a few similar bands out there.

#19 Posted by Tim_the_Corsair (3065 posts) -
@lavaman77

Seriously, i only heard of them recently and im so much in love. Their Album and EP is so perfect and amazing! it feels like the best era of music is back, THIS is what music should be like. It pisses me off so much that they're barely known, they have so much talent and can easily take the title of the Beatles of our generation. If you haven't heard their music you owe it to yourself to do so. I really hope this band becomes popular because they're easily the most talented band i've seen in years, they've manged to breath new life into old music which i thought was going to stay dead for good. Seriously check them out, you'll be breathless.

This public service announcement brought to you by the guitarist's mum.
#20 Posted by TheHumanDove (2523 posts) -

I got bored. But at least you didn't link dubstep.

#21 Posted by lavaman77 (565 posts) -

@downtime58 said:

Music is horrible these days so can you really blame me for being hyped? it's hard to find any good band these days. I'm not really taking it personal but im bugged about how skilled bands barley get any exposure and garbage bands get pushed and advertised in every way possible. These guys actually have talent and bringing back a fantastic era of music.

I don't know man - I like Tame Impala, but they are one of many great bands - maybe you just need to broaden your horizons a bit - the best stuff is rarely played commercially on the radio anymore - with the Internet, great bands are far easier to find online than on Top 40..

There's lots of great rock bands that incorporate elements of 60's and 70's rock - just to name a few: Girls, The Drums, The Black Keys, Woods, The Walkmen, Ariel Pink's Haunted Grafitti - and as for the Beatles comparison, I'd say Sloan has Tame Impala beat for proximity to sound.

I'll check out those bands, i highly doubt they'll impress me as much as Tame but thanks for the suggestions.

@Loose said:

@lavaman77 said:

@Loose said:

The Beatles comparison seems like a massive leap. I mean they sound like an indie-pop band, which there happen to be a lot of. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I'm not hearing anything particularly groundbreaking here.

Name a couple of indie pop bands that sound like them. The beatles comparison is close, go and listen to their tracks when they were dabbling in psych-rock.

Don't talk to me like I don't know my Beatles kid. I'm not saying that they don't have anything in common with post-Revolver Beatles sonically, but calling them "the Beatles of our generation" is a pretty bold claim for many many reasons.

As for bands sounding like them; spend a few minutes on Pitchfork or Stereogum and I'm sure you'll find a group that's at least vaguely similar in concept, even if they don't stick quite as closely to a Beatles-esque formula. I'm not hugely familiar with the groups that play this particular brand of indie-pop as it does not cater to my preferences, but I can assure you that there are quite a few similar bands out there.

Watch out we have a bad-ass over here!

I realize that the Beatles are far more massive and talented than Tame. However Tame is easily the best band i've heard in years, they've brought back the amazing enthusiasm and excitement that i used to see in music. If they fall off the radar we won't see another band like them for years -- that's if we're lucky and horrible pop artists don't rule over music.

@TheHumanDove said:

I got bored. But at least you didn't link dubstep.

BRR BRRAA BZZZZTTT CLANK CLANK BRRRRRRRR

I can't believe there is a genre for my PS2 sound when it hangs.

#22 Posted by EVO (3941 posts) -

I'll avoid this Beatles vs. Tame Impala battle and just say they're my favourite band, and Innerspeaker is one of my favourite albums. I saw them support Yeasayer a few years ago and I walked out of that gig more impressed with their performance. Been a fan ever since.

#23 Edited by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -

They are barely known because they aren't signed to a major record label......a lot of talented bands don't get attention, its not something that's out of the ordinary.....and you seem content on thinking this is the greatest band of all time, but I would suggest you start looking for more bands to listen to....use last.fm to find similar artists, check out music sites like sputnik music or pitchfork.....modern music doesn't suck, you just haven't been looking enough to find other good modern artists.

#24 Posted by PeasantAbuse (5138 posts) -

Maybe they should have chose a better band name.

#25 Posted by Tim_the_Corsair (3065 posts) -
@TheHumanDove

I got bored. But at least you didn't link dubstep.

Skrillex is the new Beatles.

Discuss.
#26 Posted by Chuggsy (556 posts) -

@lavaman77 said:

@Chuggsy said:

Doesn't sound very great to me, not my type of music. But that's not the point.

Listen, don't go promoting a band and taking it personal when everybody doesn't love them. It's pointless and immature. There are thousands of bands you don't know and that you would think are the best thing ever. Don't get too hyped when you find one.

Music is horrible these days so can you really blame me for being hyped? it's hard to find any good band these days. I'm not really taking it personal but im bugged about how skilled bands barley get any exposure and garbage bands get pushed and advertised in every way possible. These guys actually have talent and bringing back a fantastic era of music.

Music is awesome these days, some of the best it has ever been. Avoid the top 40 and actually try looking around. There are so many fucking good bands and just by saying "music is horrible these days" you've proven how childish you are.

#27 Posted by Little_Socrates (5715 posts) -

On the first song, they sound to me like they're desperately clawing after the vocal style of the Beatles' psychedelic era and the band behind it is boring. They're not very tight, the mix is bad, the drummer doesn't have as much ingenuity as Starr, the solo was extremely meandering on the first track. The riffs are pretty average, and the band allows them to take undeserved focus. On the second, they seem to have even lost the restraint the drummer was willing to carry in terms of volume, and unadulterated indie pop is flowing into my earholes. The vocalist is still working so hard to fuse the vocal style of John and Paul (with a heavy emphasis on John) that he's forgotten to write his own damn song or sing with an original voice.

The Beatles won the world's heart with their simplicity and originality, not their pretentiousness; the pretentious analysis of The Beatles was only reasonable after they took the world by storm with "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "Yesterday." The Black Keys embarrass these two songs. Hell, Pearl Jam, Oasis, and early My Chemical Romance outclass this, and My Chem is unadulterated nostalgia-clawing. Hell, Jet doesn't make this look totally foolish, but it is way more original.

Basically, if you wanted a band to roughly imitate The Beatles' Revolver-era style and nothing else, you wouldn't find TOO many bands trying this damned hard to directly copy them that did it with any skill. I would argue that Revolver already exists and is still far, far beter than this, and the "next" Beatles has already come in the form of Queen. Who's next? We'll see, but it won't be these guys unless they seriously jump ship from the course these two songs sail.

TL;DR: I did not dig it.

#28 Posted by Elliefightslions (12 posts) -

@SamFo said:

The Beatles of our generation? With one album... yeah sure.... Anyways they were pretty big here (In australia) for a while after the release of innerspeaker. But seriously, they have one album that did very well. I'd say commercially and critically they have everything they deserve so far.

This,

They had some fair play on JJJ in Australia (One of the bigger radio stations ). While yes the album was good I would never go as far as saying they are the next Beatles, You may as well as be saying that 'Liturgy' is the new 'Mayhem'.

Online
#29 Posted by Red (5994 posts) -

Just because a band tries to sound like the Beatles doesn't make them as good as the Beatles. It's like saying a picture of the Grand Canyon is better than seeing it for yourself.

#30 Posted by Doctorchimp (4055 posts) -

@lavaman77: You don't become the "Beatles of Our Generation" by sounding like the Beatles 50 years after they came out...

And even then Oasis fucking did the exact same thing.

Also the Beatles are overrated....yeah that's right, Pink Floyd is way better.

#31 Posted by Hot_Karl (3309 posts) -

My friend is finally getting me into Tame Impala. I'm still a ways away from listening to them, but there's potential.

#32 Posted by McGhee (6075 posts) -

There are so many bands trying to sound exactly like the Beatles that it's become its own genre.

#33 Posted by I_smell (3925 posts) -

Yeah these guys do sound like The Beatles!
 
 
Pretty boring aswel.

#34 Posted by dekkadekkadekka (743 posts) -

Nope, not my cup of tea. Kidneythieves however...

#35 Posted by ShaggE (6710 posts) -

@lavaman77 said:

Music is horrible these days so can you really blame me for being hyped? it's hard to find any good band these days. I'm not really taking it personal but im bugged about how skilled bands barley get any exposure and garbage bands get pushed and advertised in every way possible.

Errr... that's how it's always been. The reason past decades of music seem so great is because everybody made an effort to forget about the metric asston of complete tripe. Music hasn't gotten any worse, the only thing that's different is that today's shit hasn't been flushed yet. And that's not even taking subjectivity into account... one man's "Human Clay" is another man's "Rubber Soul", and both have every right to think so. (well, maybe not with "Human Clay"... there is no justification in letting Scott Stapp's voice exit your speakers)

#36 Posted by Grimace (376 posts) -

They sound like someone smashed MGMT, Priestess and Wolfmother together.

#37 Posted by CaptainCody (1521 posts) -

@Little_Socrates said:

On the first song, they sound to me like they're desperately clawing after the vocal style of the Beatles' psychedelic era and the band behind it is boring. They're not very tight, the mix is bad, the drummer doesn't have as much ingenuity as Starr, the solo was extremely meandering on the first track. The riffs are pretty average, and the band allows them to take undeserved focus. On the second, they seem to have even lost the restraint the drummer was willing to carry in terms of volume, and unadulterated indie pop is flowing into my earholes. The vocalist is still working so hard to fuse the vocal style of John and Paul (with a heavy emphasis on John) that he's forgotten to write his own damn song or sing with an original voice.

The Beatles won the world's heart with their simplicity and originality, not their pretentiousness; the pretentious analysis of The Beatles was only reasonable after they took the world by storm with "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "Yesterday." The Black Keys embarrass these two songs. Hell, Pearl Jam, Oasis, and early My Chemical Romance outclass this, and My Chem is unadulterated nostalgia-clawing. Hell, Jet doesn't make this look totally foolish, but it is way more original.

Basically, if you wanted a band to roughly imitate The Beatles' Revolver-era style and nothing else, you wouldn't find TOO many bands trying this damned hard to directly copy them that did it with any skill. I would argue that Revolver already exists and is still far, far beter than this, and the "next" Beatles has already come in the form of Queen. Who's next? We'll see, but it won't be these guys unless they seriously jump ship from the course these two songs sail.

TL;DR: I did not dig it.

Holy fuck, thanks for saving me the time to type that.

#38 Posted by Little_Socrates (5715 posts) -

@CaptainCody: I'm glad to hear we agree! At least, enough for you to throw in support without bothering to redact a few things.

#39 Posted by EVO (3941 posts) -

Man, fuck you guys. Tame Impala are awesome.

#40 Posted by Mr_Skeleton (5154 posts) -

Sounds like another Beatles wannabe to me.

#41 Posted by WilltheMagicAsian (1542 posts) -

This band is hardly "barely known."

#42 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

There's a shit load of great bands that are barely known. Some aren't known because they are in a genre that is not mainstream (hello black metal) and some aren't known because they are foreign. There's a plethora of other reasons too.

Actually let's be honest, you're probably not well known outside of the Internet unless you're one of the following: a hot boy band, a hot girl band, pop, soft rock or rap. Welcome to the mainstream perception of music!

Even the greats like N.W.A's Straight Outta Compton is basically unknown compared to shitters like Kanye West and 50 Cent.

#43 Posted by Swoxx (3008 posts) -

Meh, not my cup o tea, sounds like an inferior version of the Beatles.

#44 Posted by lavaman77 (565 posts) -

@Unknown_Pleasures said:

They are barely known because they aren't signed to a major record label......a lot of talented bands don't get attention, its not something that's out of the ordinary.....and you seem content on thinking this is the greatest band of all time, but I would suggest you start looking for more bands to listen to....use last.fm to find similar artists, check out music sites like sputnik music or pitchfork.....modern music doesn't suck, you just haven't been looking enough to find other good modern artists.

I said they're the best i've heard in a long time, there is no song on their album that i dislike. Believe me i am searching for more bands like this.

@Chuggsy said:

@lavaman77 said:

@Chuggsy said:

Doesn't sound very great to me, not my type of music. But that's not the point.

Listen, don't go promoting a band and taking it personal when everybody doesn't love them. It's pointless and immature. There are thousands of bands you don't know and that you would think are the best thing ever. Don't get too hyped when you find one.

Music is horrible these days so can you really blame me for being hyped? it's hard to find any good band these days. I'm not really taking it personal but im bugged about how skilled bands barley get any exposure and garbage bands get pushed and advertised in every way possible. These guys actually have talent and bringing back a fantastic era of music.

Music is awesome these days, some of the best it has ever been. Avoid the top 40 and actually try looking around. There are so many fucking good bands and just by saying "music is horrible these days" you've proven how childish you are.

Name some who sound just as good and exciting as this band who came out recently.

@Little_Socrates said:

On the first song, they sound to me like they're desperately clawing after the vocal style of the Beatles' psychedelic era and the band behind it is boring. They're not very tight, the mix is bad, the drummer doesn't have as much ingenuity as Starr, the solo was extremely meandering on the first track. The riffs are pretty average, and the band allows them to take undeserved focus. On the second, they seem to have even lost the restraint the drummer was willing to carry in terms of volume, and unadulterated indie pop is flowing into my earholes. The vocalist is still working so hard to fuse the vocal style of John and Paul (with a heavy emphasis on John) that he's forgotten to write his own damn song or sing with an original voice.

The Beatles won the world's heart with their simplicity and originality, not their pretentiousness; the pretentious analysis of The Beatles was only reasonable after they took the world by storm with "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "Yesterday." The Black Keys embarrass these two songs. Hell, Pearl Jam, Oasis, and early My Chemical Romance outclass this, and My Chem is unadulterated nostalgia-clawing. Hell, Jet doesn't make this look totally foolish, but it is way more original.

Basically, if you wanted a band to roughly imitate The Beatles' Revolver-era style and nothing else, you wouldn't find TOO many bands trying this damned hard to directly copy them that did it with any skill. I would argue that Revolver already exists and is still far, far beter than this, and the "next" Beatles has already come in the form of Queen. Who's next? We'll see, but it won't be these guys unless they seriously jump ship from the course these two songs sail.

TL;DR: I did not dig it.

Thank you for your opinion and i can see where you're coming from, however i have never said that this band is original . When i made the Beatles comparison really i was referring to their style and vocals being very simliar, honestly their two songs surpass a lot of songs that came out in the last 3 years. They're definitely not the Beatles of our generation in terms of originality but they've brought back a type of music that was pretty much dead, just by listening to their album i felt like i went back to the 70's.

You seem hell-bent on trashing the vocalist and the band though, that's honestly your opinion but i believe they have a lot of talent. I think the beatles psych-era wasn't that good but it gave birth to this so i guess i should be thankful.

But in the end i guess this band will probably die out and this type of music will be extinct.

#45 Edited by Ghostiet (5328 posts) -

It sounds like a less pretentious version of Of Montreal, but also lacking the punch they often have. No, they're not the new Beatles, they're not even the new best indie band of 2012.

And they're not "barely known", they just have one album. Pitchfork's fawning over such bands every 2 months, in fact, they did fawn over these guys.

#46 Posted by Vodun (2370 posts) -

@lavaman77: Yes, it is the best band which has ever existed and you are an awesome person for listening to them. You are also special, because no-one else listens to them. And all those that don't like them are stupid because they don't understand how amazing they are.

You are also very special because you are the first person in existence who has ever felt like this. It is not everyone, going through their early teens, that feels this way at some point about a band they just discovered.

You are a very very special little person.

#47 Posted by Little_Socrates (5715 posts) -

@lavaman77: You should really go listen to some Oasis and The Black Keys. They do this with originality and flair. I don't really like Oasis myself; they sometimes hit too close to home.

This style of music has not gone anywhere. It's just not on the radio that often.

#48 Posted by uniform (1838 posts) -

Is there dubstep versions of their songs?

#49 Posted by lavaman77 (565 posts) -

@Vodun said:

@lavaman77: Yes, it is the best band which has ever existed and you are an awesome person for listening to them. You are also special, because no-one else listens to them. And all those that don't like them are stupid because they don't understand how amazing they are.

You are also very special because you are the first person in existence who has ever felt like this. It is not everyone, going through their early teens, that feels this way at some point about a band they just discovered.

You are a very very special little person.

I knew i was! <3

@Little_Socrates said:

@lavaman77: You should really go listen to some Oasis and The Black Keys. They do this with originality and flair. I don't really like Oasis myself; they sometimes hit too close to home.

This style of music has not gone anywhere. It's just not on the radio that often.

I definitely will. I really wish it was on radio often as that's how most people hear of new bands and artists.

#50 Posted by Cirdain (3153 posts) -

I've always known Tame Impala. They're great.

WOOHHHH!!!!!