30 Seconds to Mars is just generally a good band--not too heavy, good lyrics, etc. In like 15 years, they'll probably be what the Rolling Stones or the Beatles are today, amirite?

30STM are shit. Jared Leto is a massive cunt who hardly cares for his fans.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh damn. To each their own.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But he's a sexy cunt.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No he isn't. You want sexy, go look at Matt Bellamy, he's sexy

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Ew no. Now Matt Tuck on the other hand, hell yes.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Not to sound gay. But oh my god Matt Tuck.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Not to sound awkward, but his teeth are nice as hell. Seriously.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

He has amazing legs.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

He's just amazing. Man of my dreams<33

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Comparing 30stm to the Rolling Stones or Beatles is like comparing shit to Godliness.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I only compared them to the Rolling Stones or the Beatles in the sense that they will be like the classics. Not comparing talent or anything.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But they're classics because they have talent. Lots of it, in fact.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I really like 30 STM but they're nowhere as near popular/well known/genuinely talented in music as other famous bands

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I do like some of their songs, and honestly I don't know that many, but some of the lyrics seem a bit stupid to me.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

30STM is awesome, but they aren't like The Beatles or Rolling Stones. (And I don't mean they aren't awesome like the Beatles or Rolling Stones, I mean that the Beatles or Rolling Stones aren't awesome like them.)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Wait, so why aren't the Beatles and Rolling Stones awesome? They're two of the greatest bands in the world, in my opinion.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

In //my// opinion, they aren't awesome. I just don't like their music.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Any particular reason? I'm not trying to argue here, just curious.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Just not really what I'm into, that's all. I prefer other bands/artists over them.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Just because a band is famous and world-renowned, that doesn't mean everyone on earth has to like them. Some people might hate them in fact. Personally, I can't say that I've ever listened to a Beatles song all the way through. Its just not my taste. But that's okay because that's the beauty of life. I don't need to like something just because everyone else does. In fact, I can love a band that everyone else hates. That's just life. A person's taste in music doesn't define who they are or how they should be perceived by others.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The thing is, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were ridiculously popular in their primes. 30 Seconds to Mars hasn't experienced anything remotely NEAR that kind of popularity.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No. Just... No.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

They're totally different types of bands, so they can't really be compared.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Um.. "I only compared them to the Rolling Stones or the Beatles in the sense that they will be like the classics. Not comparing talent or anything."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But they won't be like classics. I was referring to "type" as The Beatles and Rolling Stones were extremely famous and on every magazine cover at one point, while 30STM is lesser known.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It was easier to be the "it" band back then though. There are so many types of music, so many bands, and so many different tastes nowadays that it's crazy hard to be as big as older bands.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

There were many bands back then too. It's hard to be like bands back then because now people are just fine if a band has no natural talent, but has a good lyricist and uses auto time. Back then it was hard to be the "it" band unless you had a load of talent. Hence the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Of course you're right about that, but personally, I think most music that is made today and is widely accepted by a large group of people sounds the same and people have no natural talent. While 30STM aren't as good as the Rolling Stones or the Beatles, they're still better than other bands today. I don't know a bunch of songs by 30STM but the ones I do know are genuinely good and at least apply to real-life situations. They're motivational on some levels, too. Overall, I think they're a good band, and as far as I'm concerned, that's all that matters.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

One if the main reason the Beatles and Stones are classics is because they helped pioneer a genre. 30 seconds to mars did not as far as I know.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What I like about them is they make their albums and songs an experience instead of just random individual tracks thrown together. I don't know if I'd go so far to say that they'll be the next Beatles though

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Most artists make their albums and songs an experience instead of random individual tracks thrown together. Stop listening to bad music

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Sorry, what exactly qualifies as bad music?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Music that I dislike

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Because that's totally how things work.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah I don't listen to bad music. Most artists can't effectively pull off a whole experience. The ones that can are pretty great

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Thats not to say artists that don't create a whole experience are bad though.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I've never heard 30 Seconds to Mars, but I think it's safe to assume they're nowhere near the Rolling Stones or the Beatles. Actually, the reason I disagreed with this post is because you categorized the Rolling Stones with the Beatles. I love of the Rolling Stones, but you don't just throw them in with -the Beatles-. The Beatles. Like do you listen to the Beatles? OMG. I feel like you were just thought, hey, what are two bands that are old-ish and classic that I don't appreciate as much as I should?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Also, side-note... the Beatles were FIFTY years ago, and the Rolling Stones were almost as far back. Not fifteen. Those are incomparable legacies.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I never said the Beatles or the Rollong stones were 15 years ago, I was just saying 15 years from now. ALSO. I never said they were even the same category of music. All I was comparing 30STM to was that the two bands are in fact classics, regardless of the era they came from and that 30STM could one day be a classic as well.

by Anonymous 12 years ago