Controversial Music Opinions...

[bobbie solo]

Well, But PJ wasn't dangerous in the way Nirvana was. PJ is great, so these are not disses. I love them. But they were, even then, a pretty straightforward rock n roll band, with some crunchy/grungy guitars, some harder songs (Why Go, Animal, Blood) and some edginess. But there is still a gleam there compared to the uglier Nirvana material. Nirvana was basically a noisy, screamy punk band that had some catchy songs & chill songs that just took hold. "Grunge" seemed to have more underground elements (punk, metal, college/indie music) to it, and Nirvana has more of these qualities in their music than PJ. You can play almost any PJ song for your parents and they won't wince. But try this and see how you fare:



or



There's other reasons of course. Nirvana was considered (somewhat incorrectly) to be Kurt's brainchild, while PJ was/is admittedly more a collaborative band. MTV pushed Nirvana a bit more than PJ. Kurt was also pushed as a bit of odd sex symbol more than Eddie. Sure it's goofy and superficial, but this did sway the impact to the masses back then.

[GulDukat]

Big Star...eh. Never "got" them.

[frankie teardrop]

Big Star...eh. Never "got" them.

i don't love their first record, but i'll be damed if their later material isn't some of the most heartbreaking music ever recorded:

[GulDukat]

How about?

[video=youtube;vsQ977u8Wuk]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hkwdkUXQ1yo/video]

If that won't make you want to drink, what will?

[Prettybrokenspiral]

Was going to post this in the Marilyn Manson thread, but when I went there I saw that Leviathant had locked it. WTF was that all about?

Anyone remember this clip? Twiggy was the best part; his outfit and mannerisms were utterly hilarious back in those days

[Space Suicide]

Was going to post this in the Marilyn Manson thread, but when I went there I saw that Leviathant had locked it. WTF was that all about?

Anyone remember this clip? Twiggy was the best part; his outfit and mannerisms were utterly hilarious back in those days

I always loved this interview. The entire thing was so fucking stupid haha. Both parties were idiotic.

[Prettybrokenspiral]

I always loved this interview. The entire thing was so fucking stupid haha. Both parties were idiotic.

lol pseudo-morals work real well on the talk shows for the weak..

Do you think those two parents really lost their son to a moshing incident, or were they just props for Donahue's ratings? I've never heard of anyone being pushed off a stage and dying like that before..

[ldopa]

YAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

[elevenism]

there are plenty of bands/artists that make me feel physically ill when i hear them (not exaggerating, i have visceral reactions to a lot of sound, and music especially) - james taylor in particular. but nothing makes me feel as gut-wrenchingly awful as "walking on broken glass" by annie lennox. that song comes on and i immediately get a headache, feel like i'm going to vomit, and feel a putrid anger welling up inside of me. it's terrifying to be around me in the presence of that song.

i don't feel the same way but dude that is utterly fucking hilarious
@Jinsai , i agree about prick. That song (and others on the eponymous record) is on par with the ballads on The Wall and such and remind me a lot of what would have happened if Bowie was in Pink Floyd and produced by Trent Reznor. I thought that prick was the Cat's Ass when that album came out. I guess they never really caught on. I have always wondered what happened to that guy. I know they put out a second album-do you know if it's any good?

[elevenism]

Sorry for double post, but re all this metallica talk: i liked metallica when i was a kid mostly because i thought i was supposed to. They even had a nightly "Mandatory Metallica" half hour or so every weeknight on the Rawk station in dallas. I went to see them in 1994 and they put on one hell of a show.

As i got a little older, i listened to them less frequently, but i still think they had some great records, especially Master of Puppets. They are at their best when they do songs about war. I wish they would make more music like Disposable Heroes and One and Battery and For Whom The Bell Tolls.
They have the ability to create these great evocative battlefield soundscapes.

[aggroculture]

Prick: I loved that album to bits and didn't understand why Prick also didn't become a global superstar like Manson.
The second album is good, but not in the same league: I feel it lacks TR's industrial magic.


He also put out some Lucky Pierre stuff, which I liked, but again, not in the same league as Prick's S/T.

[botley]

Prick: I loved that album to bits and didn't understand why Prick also didn't become a global superstar like Manson.

Prick is one of my favourite acts too, but I see why it didn't catch on: Kevin has a peculiar and unique vision that isn't for everybody. The self-titled Prick album (and, to a certain extent, The Wreckard) were also the product of many, many rounds of development and production, not to mention songwriting spanning over decades of work. You just cannot become a superstar on that timetable, sadly. But for diehards, the results are always worth it!

[onthewall2983]

Marilyn Manson's next album is a "violent surprise"

[GulDukat]

Stone Temple Pilots 2001 album, Shangri-La De Da, was a masterpiece. One of the best albums of the 00's and one of the best rock albums I ever heard.

[Jinsai]

I'm just waiting for someone to say that they actually really like the new Corey Feldman song. It's going to happen.

[henryeatscereal]

Stone Temple Pilots 2001 album, Shangri-La De Da, was a masterpiece. One of the best albums of the 00's and one of the best rock albums I ever heard.

I don't think it's one of the best rock albums ever, but i do think it's a great and very underrated album, "Hollywood Bitch" and "Bi-polar bear" are awesome songs.
The next self titled album was also very underrated...

[implanted_microchip]

I'm just waiting for someone to say that they actually really like the new Corey Feldman song. It's going to happen.

Surrounded by angels, Corey Feldman shocks us all, coated in black garb, a hooded figure closer to a pariah or a demon than the once-adored child actor we all came to know and love. Bizarre convulsions suggest demon possession -- could this be a religious statement?

As the hood is thrown backward, the truth of the matter is revealed -- unnaturally long hair dangles from his mane, suggesting only the most Faustian of bargains, a deal with the Devil gone awry. Can his angels bring him back to the light? Or is this darkness only his own?

Breathy vocals suggest a frantic energy, nervousness pervading atop smooth beats that would suggest anything but. He begins to point directly into the camera, seeing us in our judgment, the kind of judgment that sends a man to Hell, the kind of judgment he knows he will soon face after the end of this grand performance, a statement so nuanced and self-aware that it will fly over the heads of most --

-- oh fuck it, I tried, dude

[theimage13]

Marilyn Manson's next album is a "violent surprise"

Yeah. When you buy the deluxe edition (appearing to be a throwback to the metal lunchbox era), customers are met by a spring-loaded squirrel with a knife taped to its back. Mind you, seeing as the squirrel wasn't given adequate life support, it's dead when your get the package. But still, a lifeless knife-wielding squirrel being launched at you when you open the new album could certainly be labeled a "violent surprise".

[ziltoid]

As much as I like Nirvana I prefer Screaming Trees a whole lot more. I'd rather listen to The Melvins, Soundgarden or Screaming Trees over Nirvana any day.
I can appreciate what Nirvana did and enjoy their music from time to time but they just don't do it for me like the other bands I mentioned.

Also I don't understand the hate for The Beatles.
Maybe there is a parallel between Nirvana and The Beatles when it comes to changing their era of music and sudden surge of fame but I don't honestly know why so many people hate them.
Oh and I don't care for The Monkeys. They seem like a wannabe generic version of The Beatles. I know. They started as a wannabe The Beatles band and gained fame but I don't care for or like their music.

Edit: I also wanted to add that with an exception to a handful of songs I do not care for The Smashing Pumpkins at all.

[eversonpoe]

As much as I like Nirvana I prefer Screaming Trees a whole lot more. I'd rather listen to The Melvins, Soundgarden or Screaming Trees over Nirvana any day.
I can appreciate what Nirvana did and enjoy their music from time to time but they just don't do it for me like the other bands I mentioned.

Also I don't understand the hate for The Beatles.
Maybe there is a parallel between Nirvana and The Beatles when it comes to changing their era of music and sudden surge of fame but I don't honestly know why so many people hate them.
Oh and I don't care for The Monkeys. They seem like a wannabe generic version of The Beatles. I know. They started as a wannabe The Beatles band and gained fame but I don't care for or like their music.

Edit: I also wanted to add that with an exception to a handful of songs I do not care for The Smashing Pumpkins at all.

while i acknowledge the importance of them, i dislike the beatles for several reasons -
1) john lennon was an abuser
2) they weren't THAT good; while they have some great songs and were innovative, they're not the most amazing musicians or band ever
3) overexposure; when i was a kid, i could listen to them any time, but i got pretty sick of them pretty fast
4) john lennon was an abuser

[Khrz]

1) john lennon was an abuser
4) john lennon was an abuser

Yeah right ok, you might want to separate the art and the artist though, not many fantastic creators are fantastic human beings, Picasso was a dick, Céline was an anti-semitic nutcase, Henry Miller a fucking creep and Anaïs Nin a selfish narcissist... You do you, I can respect that, but when it comes to artists it's like an rpg character sheet : lots of points in creativity frequently means lack of stats in human nature.

[Krazy]

Interesting subject. For some fans athletes and celebrities can do anything they want and they really don't give a shit as long as the product/performance is good, they can look away or maybe not even follow that subject. Others do care if the human side is a POFS or not.

I can see both sides. Most of us don't even know what our co-workers are really like outside of the work environment.

[GulDukat]

Nonsense. The Beatles are/were the greatest band of all-time.

[ziltoid]

I somewhat agree with Khrz. Artists shouldn't get carteblanche for their actions especially if they are abusive towards other people. Fans that can separate an artists work and action while not trying to excuse said artists actions or condoning them is fine by me. As well as criticizing those artists for their abhorrent behavior is also fine. What I dislike is blind fanaticism that disregards that behavior. The artists should be held to the same standard as anyone else. I also believe that if the artist recognizes bad behavior and tries to correct it and shows remorse and understands why it's wrong that it can lead them to maturity. While certain actions can be unforgivable I believe that they can be given a second chance. I also have to mention that sometimes reports of artists actions can be amplified and exaggerated. I would those reports with skepticism until there's actually proof of horrible actions. Many past and recent artists fall under these circumstances. Just take a look at Nick Olivery or Phil Anselmo. I can forgive Nick somewhat while not being able to forgive Phil ever.
The question that I go back and forth on is, after finding out that a person is an asshole or does something bad does it affect my outlook on that persons art? For me it's sometimes yes and sometimes no.
Its kind of like when I found out that Jimi Hendrix use to abuse his girlfriends or when I found out that James Brown use to abuse his wife it destroyed my view on those artists.

[Khrz]

I used to love Manson until I realised he was essentially dickless, I still enjoy the art and its bite even though I'm aware the guy has no teeth.
Also, why judge the Beatles on Lennon alone, have McCartney, Starr and Harrison done such terrible things, or are they grouped in an "abuser bandmates" box of shame?
As I said, I can understand how some issues can influence and destroy how you view an artist's work, but especially when it comes to a band, I find it a bit ridiculous. Say you can't respect Lennon, don't say it's a reason why the Beatles suck...
It's not even like his work advertised or reflected who he was. Of course it questions how genuine said work really was, but that's a good rule of thumb to question art anyway. An artist is not his work. Shitty human beings can make great pieces of art, which we can enjoy despite the artist. Frank Miller is a reactionary piece of shit, I still love Sin City for what it is

To me this is just a misguided understanding of what art is. People idolise pop stars even though they have no idea who they are. Somehow they confuse the artist and their art. Embracing the person because of their art or rejecting the art because of the person is equally disingenuous to me.

[WorzelG]

On this subject there was a UK band called Lost Prophets (they played Reading 2007 when NIN did and Trent poached Ilan Rubin from them). Their singer Ian Watkins was found guilty of terrible things involving children and the band split and couldn't recover from that (of course he was the vocalist which makes things more difficult because a singer has the most personal stamp on the music). I wonder if that would have fucked Ilan's career through guilt by association.

[Jinsai]

good thing that Lost Prophets made laughably shitty music, so I never had to feel conflicted about liking them.

Generally though, barring something atrocious like the thing with Lost Prophets, I separate the art and artist. It's hard with some cases... I consider Polanski to be a fucking monster, but I can't say that I don't think Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby are absolutely genius works of art.

With Lennon, it's important to remember that many of the reports of his physical violence towards women are remembered due to his open and unprovoked discussion about his violent past. If he hadn't brought it up on several occasions and owned up to how shitty he was in the past, it wouldn't be such common knowledge. But yeah, he was a violent man, and he was known for being dismissive of his first son, and he once gleefully mocked disabled people on a tv performance, and he beat the shit out of a friend because he thought he'd made a joke "calling me a queer, so I battered his bloody ribs in."

So... sure, in his younger years he was definitely a full on bastard. Whether he subdued that side of himself or just got better at concealing it as he got older, we'll probably never know for sure. The music is great though, and he wasn't the only song-writer in the band. At least half of the truly incredible Beatles songs were written by Paul. They may not have been the greatest virtuoso musicians, but I never really got into music on that level. I was much more interested in their experimental forays and inclusion of non-traditional instruments into pop/rock. They created the modern concept of the album and elevated the concept of what pop music could be. I'd say they deserve the love they get as brilliant songwriters, and their influence on culture and music is hard to overstate.

[onthewall2983]

And one of the saddest things about his death to me is that he was never able to do more to atone for those misdeeds. From what I read he did try to make amends with his first wife Julian as he got older.

And I know this probably is not the place to talk about it but though I think what Polanski did was fucked up, I truly think the trauma of being a child during the holocaust and losing his first wife and unborn child did him in in such a way mentally that it resulted in some pretty poor behavior on his part. Including the incident that almost saw him rightfully imprisoned over, were it not for a fame-hungry judge not able to do things the right way to the point that the opposing counsel in the case took a united front against him.

[allegro]

Lennon lived a very tortured life while growing up, people who lash out at others and are angry often do that because of their parents' divorce, being abandoned, all of the things that people like John Lennon experienced (we are beneficiaries of his tortured soul). He wrote about his experiences and the way that he was because he was ashamed of himself. Categorizing him as simply "an abuser" without taking his tortured self into account, or how he himself acknowledged that he knew he was acting out toward both males and females when he was young (note that this was considered "the norm" back then), and then how he became enlightened by a feminist (Ono) and then grew to be a very different person is certainly worthy of forgiveness. He expressed his shame, his growth, his truth, through his art. Let those without all faults and sin cast the first stone.

Also, the Beatles formed in 1960; their music has been cited as a HUGE influence by countless artists, from Sting to members of Kiss; from the Clash to the Beach Boys; their influence is SO strong, newer listeners as a whole have become jaded to the influence without even knowing it. From writing the majority of their own music (HIGHLY unusual back then) to what they did in recording studios (ground-breaking) to the cultural impact they had on the world, it's an influence that will never cease.

As a HUGE Beatlemaniac and historian, I can argue that John Lennon and Paul McCartney were EQUALLY IMPORTANT songwriters in the Beatles; most songs were co-written in some way, with each contributing in SOME way to most songs with few exceptions that I won't bother listing here. Paul had the "hopeful and light" side of songs, John the more realistic side.

Example:

Paul: "It's getting better all the time"
John: It can't get more worse"

John Lennon was a very complicated man, as are many artists of that calibre and genius. See the Bowie thread after Bowie died when we were discussing how he and his compadres were having sex with 14-yr-old groupies, and how Bowie was abusive to his ex-wife, or how Bowie was just full of shit when he was high on coke and blathering on about esoteric crap. It was a very different time. We can't put our idols on pedestals; that's dangerous stuff. They're humans.

John married Cynthia when both were very young. When Cynthia died, Yoko paid tribute to Cynthia.

Of all of the Beatles' solo albums, " " is still an album I play ON REPEAT. It's brilliant with its raw emotions. There is not one McCartney album that does that for me. Harrison's "All Things Must Pass" has some great songs on it, but I don't listen to it from beginning to end, then repeat. If you want to understand John Lennon, listen to " ."

[eversonpoe]

Say you can't respect Lennon, don't say it's a reason why the Beatles suck...

i didn't say the beatles suck, i said that's part of the reason i don't like them / i don't enjoy listening to them.

take this (fantastic) article my friend wrote about swans, for example:

http://www.mtv.com/news/2941144/swans-2/

the only swans i've listened to since the news came out was their newest album, which i wasn't able to enjoy. i felt no catharsis in it. in fact, one of the songs, which micahel wrote for his wife to sing as a rape revenge fantasy against her abuser, made me so uncomfortable in the light of the news that i almost threw up listening to it. and we don't even know exactly what happened in this situation, but it certainly colored the music for me.

i believe it's fine if you want to separate art from the artist, that's everyone's individual prerogative. but i am unable to do that, because i form DEEP emotional connections with the music that i consume. if its creator is known to have done something that i find morally reprehensible, why am i obligated to still enjoy/champion their work?

i get why people like the beatles. but i don't like them. and john lennon being an asshole is only one of the reasons. i hate all of paul's solo stuff (and wings) almost as much as i hate john's (plastic ono band is one of the least enjoyable records i've ever sat all the way through). ringo has always seemed pretty cool and is a perfectly solid drummer. george is the only one i really admired, and the only one whose voice i really like. so i have a TON of reasons for not liking the beatles. but a big part of it is knowing the kind of person lennon was.