Not sure why people are being so aggressive. There's nothing wrong with anything on that list. Except 311.

Can you think of another type of sentence it would be?

I feel like the Beatles 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 fits this well, for a couple of reasons. First, the Beatles grew in such a cohesive way, and the albums have such a clear divide on these two albums. You hear something happening at the end of the first one, but you put on the second and hear Strawberry Fields Forever and it's like a different band. Second, both albums have several important non-album singles. So there's a little added that you don't get just by listing to their albums.

The correct way, which is all I've ever learned, is even easier than the wrong way. Simple isn't bad (Satisfaction?), but Smoke on the Water is pretty easy.

Workingman's Dead? American Beauty? Europe 72? What the fuck are you talking about?

I hope you don't think it has a melody that can be sung in the shower.

Many of the great songwriters have done their work in teams. Would it somehow make her songwriting more legitimate if she had done it without help?

Can you post a video of you singing Revolution 9 in the shower?

I don't know if people will be listening to the Beatles or citing them as an influence in 200 years, but people will absolutely still know Paul McCartney's name for his historical significance alone.

People have been writing songs built around one short hook for decades (Sweet Caroline? Dancing Queen?)

Lizzo didn't record that song for Tik Tok. People put it in videos because that part of the song is catchy. It's a good song and a good album.

I was listening to a lot of new music at that time, and I have never heard of them.

I don't think most people who "don't care for opera" also recognize that the singers are exceptional. The quality of singing ability is not the reason they don't like it.

People have been getting famous through crappy one hit wonders that they may or may not have written since the beginning of the modern music industry. Nothing is different now. Nobody doing that in the past or today will ever become Michael Jackson famous doing it.

I don't really know what the label "rock artist" means. He's made rap and rock music. The fact that it sucks doesn't mean he's not a "rock artist."

No, not in the least. Whether a song is a "hit" is defined by how successful and well known a song is, not how good it is. Probably the most common definition in the United States is that it reaches the Top 40 on the Billboard Hot 100.

I will always consider Exile on Main St. to be the greatest summation of American music - rock, R&B, country, gospel, blues - recorded by a British band in the south of France.

It's not good or bad. It means you listen to that band a lot.

I love them, but "music that wasn't heavily produced" is a pretty bizarre defense of the Beatles.