Controversial Music Opinions...

[thefragile_jake]

Now that we're talking about "Arcade Fire" i consider "Neon Bible" superior to "Funeral"...

It really is, Neon Bible was the record that turned me into a fan. Funeral is a fine album and worth it's praise...but I wholeheartedly agree with NB being the better overall album.

[r_z]

I think Dire Straits might be one of the most underrated bands ever. Knopfler gets his due among guitar geeks, and somewhat as a singer/songwriter considering the talent he's been seen alongside since he's gone solo (James Taylor, Van Morrison, and Emmylou Harris). They weren't metal or alternative but managed to carve their own path and be one of the biggest bands of the 80's.

But they aren't in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (not that it matters much personally, but a potential DS reunion would be good enough reason to be excited to see them inducted), despite their songs still being on the radio and in movies/TV. I'll go one step further by saying that their much-lauded Brothers In Arms isn't their best record, it's 1982's Love Over Gold.

I agree with you here. I was kind of raised on Dire Straits as my dad's been a huge fan back in the 80's. One of my earliest memories is listening to the beginning of Water Of Love while staring at the spinning label from the vinyl. Still giving me chills to this day. The magic of music.



so yeah, I know their music by heart and agree with you, that Lover Over Gold is their strongest album. It's got the same pop appeal as their earlier albums while more daring for its arrangements and production. With Brothers In Arms they started getting a bit too kitschy, I think. Something Knopflers solo stuff is suffering from a great deal, in my opinion.

Also, if you haven't already, try getting your hands on a copy of their Wembley performance in 1988 in honor of (at the time still imprisoned) Nelson Mandela. Clapton on rhythm guitar.
It's never been released officially, but there are torrents floating around.

I can see, why bands like The Cure were openly bashing them. In a way their music was "safe" and retro... not taking too many risks. I always admired Knopflers modesty and integrity though. He always seemed like the opposite of the extraverted pop star of the 80s, which I liked. There's a chance he subconciously became the role model for what I was looking for in artists I was going to admire later on. I can't stand overtly arrogant, self indulgent or bragging artists.

[Jinsai]

Dire Straits have their moments I guess, but Money for Nothing is one of the most obnoxious songs I've ever heard.

[Space Suicide]

Dire Straits have their moments I guess, but Money for Nothing is one of the most obnoxious songs I've ever heard.

Well, it was the first song to air on MTV when it was relevant and just began. That's enough of a mile stone even for a ho hum song like it is.

[Charmingly Miserable]

Well, it was the first song to air on MTV when it was relevant and just began. That's enough of a mile stone even for a ho hum song like it is.

Wait. Was it their first song to appear on MTV or the first song ever to pop up on MTV? Wasn't The Buggle's Video Killed the Radio Star the first song on MTV?

[r_z]

It was the first song aired on MTV Europe.

[Space Suicide]

Wait. Was it their first song to appear on MTV or the first song ever to pop up on MTV? Wasn't The Buggle's Video Killed the Radio Star the first song on MTV?

Yeah, I don't know why I typed that honestly. I got jumbled when I posted it. The man above me is right though. I should've clarified it better.

Me: Stupidity Mistake level over 9000!!!

[Charmingly Miserable]

Me: Stupidity Mistake level over 9000!!!

Omg. Don't worry about.

[Louie_Cypher]

Probably not controversial but damn The Fixx were and are still a great band that never really got any love. Cy's vocals are still awesome, and I think Jamie's guitar playIng is so under rated.

[kel]

i like miley cyrus. i think her vma performance was polarizing. i think she just killed it on snl.

you betta werk, gurl.

[onthewall2983]

I can see, why bands like The Cure were openly bashing them. In a way their music was "safe" and retro... not taking too many risks. I always admired Knopflers modesty and integrity though. He always seemed like the opposite of the extraverted pop star of the 80s, which I liked. There's a chance he subconciously became the role model for what I was looking for in artists I was going to admire later on. I can't stand overtly arrogant, self indulgent or bragging artists.

I agree. Modesty and integrity can get you so far, and currently nowhere in terms of reaching the widest audience possible. Arrogant, self-indulgent braggarts will make more money than someone who's just a good singer or instrumentalist now. Fortunately some talent still seeps through and people like Mark, who want nothing more than to do their best work possible can still record and tour and make a good living at it. But for me, not enough.



Very cool program on Mark and his guitars, with former Straits bassist John Illsley tagging along.

[aggroculture]

American Millennial Metal (ie, lamb of god, avenged sevenfold, Killswitch Engage, etc) is pretty much unlistenable.

It remains a mystery to me why after the 90s, heavy metal got...lighter. In the 90s heavy metal got heavier than ever: death metal, industrial metal, the second wave of black metal, doom/crust, even nu-metal: EyeHateGod, Fudge Tunnel, Godflesh, Carcass, John Zorn/Naked City/Painkiller, Morbid Angel, Ministry, Pantera, Fear Factory, Korn (yes, in 1994 Korn were a new level of heavy), Deftones, Slipknot, Mudvayne. You had all this experimentation and downtuning and cross-pollination with other genres, from noise to hip-hop to goth to pop to jazz.
Then in the 00s...fucking Trivium, Shadows Fall, Killswitch Engage. Hey let's go back to the shitty sounds of the 80s and mix them with an even shittier sound: emo.
It's fucking tragic, and the press lapped it up. Metal has no business being this lightweight.
Now is hardly better, metal is still stuck in this retro rut. It's either weak-ass high-end thrash, or hipster retro-doom. Metal is now almost an entirely inwardly-looking genre, only looking to previous metal (or hardcore) for inspiration. Metal right now feels like a used/vintage/thrift store of old metal bit parts and memorabilia. I am a little tired of hearing 80s wailing vocals or 70s Sabbath boogie rock riffs.
While I appreciate the heavier, rawer sounds of your Trap Them or Nails, are they really doing anything Napalm Death or Converge didn't already do? No.
The only areas I see some experimentation in right now are djent, a genre born from ripping off one band: Meshuggah, who are pretty much still the heaviest metal band going (and come from the 90s); and the post-metal/black metal/shoegaze scene (Isis, etc).

[Kid Charlemagne]

But at the same time aspects of the cyrus backlash reek of blatant neo puritanism - suddenly we've got a problem with that sort of thing? Pretty sure similar shit has been shoved in our faces since madonna, but the media's sanctioned disgust seems to act as an enabler for some. How funny that sinead o'predictable guilt ridden failed catholic should chime in.

"it's really not my religious brainwashing resurfacing as rationalised pseudo feminism, but i think you should cover up and remember that your body is for your boyfriend. I've totally come to this conclusion on my own. No really"

I'm not defending cyrus and I find her act tasteless and naff. It's just weird that people are resorting to tasteless and faintly misogynist outbursts as a response to tasteless and overtly misogynist display

Dead wrong. The thing about Miley Cyrus is that it's deeply annoying. I hadn't given a thought to her VMA performance, but ever since she's reappeared, it's this nonstop hodgepodge of all Miley all the time. What she's doing isn't new or even interesting, it's boring and she's boring and her music is boring, yet we have people (including some on this very board) who enjoy it in a ironic sense which is pitiful, and she's trying way too hard to be something she's not, just like Gaga and Katy Perry. She's another shitty popstar in all sense and anyone falling behind her and backing her is a goddamn fool because she's playing everyone. I couldn't care less of her physical appearance or attractiveness, because she's very plain to me, but it's not the point. The point is that they're trying so hard to market and push her as some kind of badass who doesn't care and ruining her life. For fuck sake she's 20 years old and playing off her label I guarantee you, on her own, she wouldn't be as ridiculous.

[frankie teardrop]

Probably not controversial but damn The Fixx were and are still a great band that never really got any love. Cy's vocals are still awesome, and I think Jamie's guitar playIng is so under rated.

i LOVE the fixx.

[miss k bee]

Dead wrong. The thing about Miley Cyrus is that it's deeply annoying. I hadn't given a thought to her VMA performance, but ever since she's reappeared, it's this nonstop hodgepodge of all Miley all the time. What she's doing isn't new or even interesting, it's boring and she's boring and her music is boring, yet we have people (including some on this very board) who enjoy it in a ironic sense which is pitiful, and she's trying way too hard to be something she's not, just like Gaga and Katy Perry. She's another shitty popstar in all sense and anyone falling behind her and backing her is a goddamn fool because she's playing everyone. I couldn't care less of her physical appearance or attractiveness, because she's very plain to me, but it's not the point. The point is that they're trying so hard to market and push her as some kind of badass who doesn't care and ruining her life. For fuck sake she's 20 years old and playing off her label I guarantee you, on her own, she wouldn't be as ridiculous.

The VMA performance was a whole load of showbiz fuss over nothing, now they just working it and working it for more publicity, v.boring.

[Sutekh]

Dead wrong. The thing about Miley Cyrus is that it's deeply annoying. I hadn't given a thought to her VMA performance, but ever since she's reappeared, it's this nonstop hodgepodge of all Miley all the time. What she's doing isn't new or even interesting, it's boring and she's boring and her music is boring, yet we have people (including some on this very board) who enjoy it in a ironic sense which is pitiful, and she's trying way too hard to be something she's not, just like Gaga and Katy Perry. She's another shitty popstar in all sense and anyone falling behind her and backing her is a goddamn fool because she's playing everyone. I couldn't care less of her physical appearance or attractiveness, because she's very plain to me, but it's not the point. The point is that they're trying so hard to market and push her as some kind of badass who doesn't care and ruining her life. For fuck sake she's 20 years old and playing off her label I guarantee you, on her own, she wouldn't be as ridiculous.

What I described doesn't apply to everyone criticising her - I did qualify it quickly at the start when I said "...aspects of the cyrus backlash" rather than "the cyrus backlash" in a general sense.

although I don't really see how she's playing anyone... It's lurid pop trash sold as lurid pop trash... Surely people don't read anything into that stuff (getting a sinking feeling now)

[Kid Charlemagne]

What I described doesn't apply to everyone criticising her - I did qualify it quickly at the start when I said "...aspects of the cyrus backlash" rather than "the cyrus backlash" in a general sense.

although I don't really see how she's playing anyone... It's lurid pop trash sold as lurid pop trash... Surely people don't read anything into that stuff (getting a sinking feeling now)

First off, let me apologize if I came off like an asshole on this reply, I just reread it and it looks more angry than how I read it in my head. That said, what I meant by "playing everyone" is the mere fact how all of the sudden we're lead to believe she's this oversexed singer who's giving the middle finger to authority. This is the same artist who had an album three years ago called "Can't Be Tamed", which flopped and now she's repackaged with new producers and a Bridgette Nielsen haircut with the same basic message. So while not necessarily you think it's clever, because I know you and most people reading this are much smarter than that, there's a shit ton of people, and some on the board who think she's cutting edge and that this is new for her, and it's not. So there's tons of people falling into it and that's my main concern. Honestly, when she's pushing 30 and aging horribly, who's going to continue to care about her? Not her label, not the people liking her ironically and unironically, and to me, that's depressing.

[Sutekh]

It's terrible yep... It's the standard of discourse falling in all areas that lead people to herald suff that really isn't remarkable

It seems like whenever someone says some bullshit like "The Beatles are overrated," it usually turns out that they've never actually sat down and listened to an entire Beatles album.

We've had this before - certainly some people just attempt to slay a sacred cow in order to cut a dash, but the beatles are overrated in some senses - they are routinely credited with pioneering things they didn't, and IMO pretty much nothing on this earth is good enough to warrant the constant exposure and mentions they get in the British press.

just as there are contrarian tryhards who dismiss the beatles in an attempt to appear ahead of the curve, you get mindless followers who will big up the beatles beyond the call of duty. Lost count of how many times I've heard the beatles credited with inventing things like psychedelic rock and even rock music itself. So while the beatles aren't overrated in a general sense (although what does that even mean/entail) in some senses they certainly are.

there is certainly a muso imperative to insist the beatles are objectively good and anyone who dislikes or plays them down is somehow stupid or just posing - this sort of thing is routinely imparted and is pretentious as fuck

[Jinsai]

We've had this before

Yes, we've gone over this before, and I'm still holding to the point that if we're going to call a band "overrated" because some people credit them with things they didn't do, then every hugely popular band is overrated, and the distinction is utterly meaningless.

However anecdotal it may be, I'm telling you, nine times out of ten, when a fan of rock music tells me they hate the Beatles or dismisses them as "overrated," they admit they haven't even sat down and listened to an entire album. I don't consider it "pretentious as fuck" to point that out.

[aggroculture]

Is that really a test, though? Being Devil's Advocate here.
I hate hate hate The Rolling Stones, I think they are overrated as fuck, in that I think they don't deserve their extreme popularity.
I think their music is annoying and trite.
But I've never sat down and listened to a whole Rolling Stones album. I base my opinion on the songs I hear, by them, all the time in public places.
Do the non-single album tracks balance out the shitty hits?

[frankie teardrop]

i'm not sure i agree that you need to have listened to an entire album of a band to dismiss them (i know, for example, not to touch certain styles/genres/artists based upon immensely disliking what i've heard)... but that said, if you're going to take up such a controversial stance about one of the world's most cherished bands, you should at least have given it the old college try.

[aggroculture]

If I were to sit down with (or dance along to) a Rolling Stones album (either before dismissing them further or actually beginning to dig them), which one should it be?

[frankie teardrop]

sticky fingers followed by let it bleed.

[Jinsai]

The thing with the Rolling Stones though is that they were an insane hit machine. I love their albums, but I don't view them as being as essential to "getting it" as I do with The Beatles. If you honestly can sit down and listen to a "greatest hits" collection by the Rolling Stones and walk away unimpressed, then they just might not be for you.

That said, I'd still suggest actually sitting down and listening to some of their albums if you actually care about rock music... because they're kind of important.

If you don't like Sticky Fingers or Let it Bleed, I'd still recommend you give Exile on Main Street a try. That said, I was listening to their singles collection on Spotify a while back, and it reminded me (in a holy shit kind of way) just how tremendous their "hit single" output was. Even if it's not your kind of thing, I don't understand how someone couldn't at least appreciate how iconic it is.

[Sutekh]

I don't consider it "pretentious as fuck" to point that out.

I didn't say it was pretentious as fuck to point that out - I said it was pretentious as fuck to assume anyone who doesn't like the beatles is stupid or a poser. If they admit to you they haven't listened to an entire album, then you aren't assuming they're stupid, are you? You know for sure

You're making a distinction between "popularly receive false credit" and "overrated". Does it really exist? You're also misrepresenting what I'm saying - I'm not saying if anybody anywhere gives them credit they shouldn't, that makes them overrated, i'm saying that they are frequently and popularly credited with innovating things that they didn't (and when we speak in terms of whether things are over or underrated, we speak in terms of the level of popular acclaim) and that means that in some senses they are overrated - in this case they are sometimes overrated as innovators.


if that is not the proper way of stating the facts, then what is?

Overrated is a term that be applied specifically as well as generally - "beer is overrated" (which could refer to taste, effects, more or both) is an example of more generalalised application and "steve vai is overrated as a pioneer of guitar technique" would be a very specific one.

So to sum up

This distinction does exist - you can be overrated in a sense, or overrated generally

and finally the fact that you often hear people say the beatles invented or pioneered rock music or boybands or pop music or psychedelia etc is what makes it a phenomena which you could describe as overrating - as opposed to 1 person living in a hut in the woods thinking dr dre invented headphones, which as you say is not significant enough to indicate popular misconceptions are leading to overrating

I don't think i've explained it properly before (as your post shows you describing a perspective that wasn't the one i was trying to get across), this is my best shot, if it still seems wrong by all means tell me how

[Jinsai]

You're making a distinction between "popularly receive false credit" and "overrated". Does it really exist?

Actually yes. You'll find that most of the time people say something is overrated, it's because they don't like it as much as it seems everyone else does. Other versions of "overrated" are relative to the place and setting where the opinion is offered. It would actually seem that the most popular "controversial opinion" in this thread is that the Beatles are overrated, so this is becoming increasingly meta.

In addition, if someone is actually appraising the band's body of work when they are calling it "overrated," the opinion is either informed or it isn't. It's worth noting that if you're trying to come to a conclusion on that point, it helps to have actually listened to the band's albums.

And yes, even in this thread, we've had people say "they're overrated" right before admitting that they've never listened to an album. This is something I run into all the time. I'm not saying everyone is coming from this perspective, just that a lot of people are. The majority of people I hear this opinion from in fact, and they are usually not assessing the band and how "overrated they are" in the same sense that you are.

For every person out there who says something like "The Beatles were the first band to use distorted guitars" there's someone out there saying something like "derp, fuck the Beatles, they're just a boy band, and they weren't really that influential." There's the counterweight. Besides, it's hard to accept that one of the absolutely most influential rock bands of all time is "overrated" just because a bunch of misinformed people think they invented psychedelic rock.

[Halo Infinity]

Yes, we've gone over this before, and I'm still holding to the point that if we're going to call a band "overrated" because some people credit them with things they didn't do, then every hugely popular band is overrated, and the distinction is utterly meaningless.

This is why I've often found the word overrated to be very bold and unfounded sometimes. This is precisely what I was thinking. The word over-hyped can sometimes be used in addition to overrated, or just interchangeably. It reminds me of the time I knew a Guns N' Roses fan that actually told me Tool was overrated and over-hyped, when I'm sure he just wasn't into Tool.

[koz-ivan]

If you don't like Sticky Fingers or Let it Bleed, I'd still recommend you give Exile on Main Street a try. That said, I was listening to their singles collection on Spotify a while back, and it reminded me (in a holy shit kind of way) just how tremendous their "hit single" output was. Even if it's not your kind of thing, I don't understand how someone couldn't at least appreciate how iconic it is.

with the stones, yeah their 30-40 year old albums were tremendous, everything after that is forgettable.

[Sutekh]

Actually yes. You'll find that most of the time people say something is overrated, it's because they don't like it as much as it seems everyone else does.

???

people incorrectly using the term does not change the definition! You are correct, the term is often misused and does not mean "i don't like it as much as everyone else". I'm not failing to take into account people using it incorrectly, I'm just not discussing that particular issue. I'm not going to redefine "literally" as "emphatically" on account of the hoi palloi's misappropriations either

i don't know why you're pointing out that people in this thread are guilty of making assumptions (i never said they weren't and I never said your opinions were baseless) I don't know why you are giving me that potted defintion of "overrated" when I've already given a more comprehensive one that encompasses the one you are offering

and again, you seem to be thinking that I'm saying they're generally overrated because a bunch of misinformed people say they invented this and that. I'm not

I'm really sorry but it's evident I haven't got my point across effectively enough, you're repeatedly mispresenting my perspective and outlining things that are well established and not being overlooked.

i'm not saying you've got it all wrong and the people you criticise/dismiss actually probably do know what they're talking about, so there's no need to outline again how you've encountered people who haven't really listened to bands they dismiss... The first line of my previous post makes this clear & also makes it clear I wasn't personally attacking you when i described musos who feel the meed to crucify anyone who criticises or doesn't like the beatles

here is the cambridge defintion of overrated
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...tish/overrated

"If someone or something is overrated, they are considered to be better or more important than they really are"

and the example

"in my opinion, she's a hugely overrated singer"

this shows that the opinions of a few or even one person can amount to overrating. Personally I wouldn't consider one person's opinion to constitue overrating in the general popular sense we are talking about here, but it's worth bearing in mind that one person giving undue praise is all it takes for something to qualify as overrated in terms of definition. It is possible for a single person to overrate someing.

I really don't think people saying "the beatles were a boyband derp etc" is a counterbalance to the sheer amount of people who credit them with inventing rock music, heavy metal (see most critics when talking about helter skelter) etc etc. The former is the odd moron here and there, but the latter phenomena I describe is something you hear in both conversation AND the media/music press - and there's no denying rock journos both represent and influence common sentiment (which is why you hear the bullshit journos spout echoed down the line in casual conversation)

put simply it's way more usual to hear sgt pepper described as a "pioneering psychedelic concept album" (or somesuch half baked toss) than somebody saying "the beatles were just a boyband". This is overrating, and it doesn't need to be a mass phenomena to qualify as such (even though it is, but never mind)

the trouble is your definition of overrated is as incorrect as the people who use it to signify they don't like things as much as everyone else - for you a certain amount of people have to overrate something for it to qualify - this is not the case. Your issue with my describing the beatles as sometimes overrated in a certain sense is that you feel not enough people make the error I'm describing for them to qualify as overrated. But I'm not saying they qualify as overrated - period, i'm saying in some senses they are. You seem to think overrating can only exist in a general sense - this is not the case. It's certainly not the case that I'm saying the beatles are generally overrated.

[Jinsai]

the trouble is your definition of overrated is as incorrect as the people who use it to signify they don't like things as much as everyone else

I don't use the word overrated unless I'm talking about U2! Where are you getting my definition from?

I haven't called anyone (except U2) overrated. I just dislike the accusation in general.
Condense your point.