^
That WAS controversial! I agree for the most part, except for With Teeth. Everything else, meh. Ghosts Especially. I suck, and I could have made it. A lot of the art that came with that was pretty boring too.
^
That WAS controversial! I agree for the most part, except for With Teeth. Everything else, meh. Ghosts Especially. I suck, and I could have made it. A lot of the art that came with that was pretty boring too.
Yeah, Ghosts bores me. I own it but haven't touched it since I got it, back in 2008.
Actually, he does listen to some current stuff. Most of the "oldies" playlists were played before the concerts. Check out his "current driving music" playlist, there's a LOT of contemporary stuff such as Simian Mobile Disco, SBTRKT, Tobacco and even Foster the fucking People.
Okay, here's my controversial opinion: I love Korn. Almost everything they've done, I love to bits (except a few albums I disliked a lot, such as Untouchables). And I looooved their last two releases.
Also, I love St. Anger. I know it's bad. I know WHY it's bad. I've seen the documentary. But I still love it for what it is.
I dislike Madonna. Not because she's super-famous or anything, I don't care at all about her celebrity status, but I never really got into her stuff.
Aerosmith. They do have some good tunes, but Steven Tyler is shit.
I love Audioslave.
King Diamond always sounded to me like a drunk Rob Halford.
I love Isis, they have some excellent tracks, but I cannot listen to any of their albums in one sitting without losing my focus. Ditto for Neurosis.
I can't get into old, "classic" heavy metal stuff. Ditto for many "classic rock" stuff. Yeah, I know a lot of the bands I listen to suck hard. But sometimes, I find "bad" music to be much more interesting than stuff everybody loves. And sometimes I just want incredibly dumb and loud stuff, like Excision.
And one more thing: James Blake? He sucks. Most overrated artist of the decade.
Whoa, that felt good.
To hobochic, I would recommend the following Morrissey tracks...
For a good time: "Glamorous Glue", "The Last of The Famous International Playboys"
For melting your heart: "Now My Heart Is Full", "You Should Have Been Nice To Me"
Just plain nice to listen to: "Everyday Is Like Sunday", "Jack The Ripper"
I am really sick right now but
I kinda like Audioslave
And for sheer unsurpassed lyrical brilliance, Maladjusted -
And, my personal favorite Moz track of all time, Ammunition -
I know these roads; an old hand understands. Above all, I know what's expected of me now, veering cliffwards. I don't need more ammunition, I've got more than I can spend. I don't dwell on things I'm missing. I'm just pleased with the things I've found.
Last edited by Ryan; 05-12-2012 at 10:40 PM.
Go for it. I want to see someone actually do this instead of brag about how they could make a better record.
And then you mention these guys...He refuses to be inspired by current artists.
...who are obviously inspired by past artists instead of current ones? Please.M83 and Big Black Delta and A Place to Bury Strangers
My controversial opinions:
Shitty bands and artists have always existed. MTV brought them into our homes for us to see, and social media has brought us even closer to them. The idea that there are more shitty bands and artists today then there were back in "the good ol' days" is a myth.
Rap music has been polluted by the "gangsta" mentality. Give me rappers who talk about real issues, joke around, or even do both at the same time. You can keep your cash, your bling, and your bitches.
Dubstep. I...don't get the appeal, especially when techno is so much better.
I hate the idea of having to hate a band just because they became popular. I like a lot of popular bands, and I like a lot of obscure bands. As long as the music is good and makes you feel something, why should the level of popularity bother anyone?
Pay me a few months of living expenses and I will do it as I pointed out. And I didn't say it would be better. I said I could do something of the same caliber. But nobody would care because I'm not Trent reznor...
And the other bands I've mentioned... They are obviously inspired by past bands. That's not an issue. But they take what's current and build upon it. They are far more exciting than anything Trent's doing.
Last edited by DVYDRNS; 05-12-2012 at 11:28 PM.
Chris Cornell has an okay voice in a very 1990s-alt-rock vein, but he's never in his career played to material that could put it to any kind of good use. Every band he's been in has the smell and taste of old boots netted in shit-foul sewage at the reclamation plant, and his solo material so uninspired and just so plodding it's a wonder anyone even still cares who the guy is at all. Part of this may stem from Cornell's not being a particularly good or interesting musician, another part's probably the problem of his lyrics (he could score third place in my high school talent show, maybe), and certainly his awful taste in music is a significant contributor. It also doesn't help that there's zero emotion in any of those moments where he's swinging for the fences.
Metallica? Man, it's not even controversial to talk shit about Metallica at all. They have an okay album, their first, and everything thereafter has been a waste of time. I know some people argue they've taken up the metal torch with gusto lately, but they haven't, and the people making these claims should be ignored as unworthy of attention.
It's a sweet mercy that I don't ever hear the name (or music of) 'Tori Amos' any more.
Last edited by Corvus T. Cosmonaut; 05-13-2012 at 12:27 AM.
Cornell's lyrics in Audioslave are laughable and almost nonsensical. He voice isn't as good as it was in Soundgarden, I think he blew it some time in the mid 90's.
They also really over produced. almost no life in any of the songs.
I really like Audioslave cause I get to hear the Rage band stretch their legs and do something different, they're real talented. Cornell just drops the ball.
I can only hope the new Soundgarden album doesn't ruin my favorite bands perfect discography.
I'm going to try to keep this short, but you boil most of your argument down to the fact that Trent's living in the past. Are you sure it isn't you? I don't mean that in a condescending way, but one of the most prevalent complaints I hear about older bands is that they were better in the past. Bands grow, change and evolve. Since you used NIN and Radiohead as examples, I'll expand my opinion on the two. The run of Fixed through Still contain the majority of my favorite halos, now that period was over ten years ago. Trent's life was in shambles and I doubt he would want to go to that place again. With Teeth my not be one of my favorite NIN moments, but it could be seen as a sober rebirth. Approaching things with a different mindset and putting space between those dark days. I'd rather see my favorite artists healthy and creative, than brilliant and self destructing. I feel the same about Radiohead, there's a line on Supercollider that goes "I have jettisoned my illusions I have dislodged my depressions". In Rainbows has become my favorite from them. It may not be their best, but it sounds free of pressure(which it wasn't), confident and human. I remember hearing Jigsaw Falling Into Place for the first time and thinking Thom Yorke is singing about being at a party and enjoying himself. That's a long way from most of the subject matter on OK Computer. They've grown, they've changed and now the talent comes out in different ways.
The Smiths have never really clicked with me ("How Soon is Now" aside, love Marr's sound on that one). Enjoy a bit of Moz's solo stuff, though.
Isn't Anything > Loveless
New Order > Joy Division
Republic is fucking amazing, on that note
Can't stand Oasis. Blur were millions of times more creative (and their songs were catchier too)
Not overly into Radiohead pre-Kid A
I feel really guilty whenever I illegally download an album (unless it's incredibly rare or unavailable). *Note: I'm not against it at all*
Bob Dylan is great. Watch the documentary "The Other Side of the Mirror." THE best live concert film ever made.
Also, the Beatles aren't overrated. They were awesome, they wrote and recorded some of the most amazing and revolutionary music ever, and they changed everything... Everything you like would sound dramatically different if it weren't for The Beatles. Sure, if they hadn't made their incredible music, we wouldn't have had to suffer through the derivative bullshit that Oasis tortured us all with, but otherwise I'm insanely grateful for The Beatles.
Anyway... U2 is extraordinarily overrated, but if they put all of their great tracks on one album, it would be one of the best rock albums of all time. The same could almost be said of The White Stripes. I don't like They Might Be Giants or Duran Duran. Van Halen always sucked.
A lot of pioneering and celebrated early electronic dance music is just meandering crap made by people who didn't know what they were doing and couldn't have given a fuck either way.
I think Bon Iver is boring. M83 was a better band before they started cashing in on fake 80s nostalgia. Sublime really weren't that great of a band, and I could give a fuck. Animal Collective are psychedelic posers. Daft Punk get too much credit. Bjork's newer music is strangely fascinating and incredibly boring at the same time. Most EBM sounds like bad early anthem trance with spooky moronic vocals. Ska sucks (with a couple exceptions).
I don't think MIA is as good as you think she is.
Florence and the Machine sounds like later Annie Lennox. I'm not going to say whether or not that's a good thing, but fans should at least admit it.
Pitchfork was right about Source Tags and Codes.
booooooooooo..... I'm on the fence on both of these issues, but still, boooooooooo, because.... I disagree.
Last edited by Jinsai; 05-13-2012 at 04:35 AM.
Agreed, the Beatles aren't overrated. It's not a matter of opinion. If the world were to export one single band's music-catalogue to alien civilisations it would have to be the Beatles. It's the recipe for all great pop/rock songwriting as we know it. If you don' get it you're probably not getting a ton of other things going on in your daily life.
Anyway, U2 are overrated as hell. Their only real contribution to the world is, well... not them writing and recording "Where the streets have no name". But them writing it, in order for Eddie Vedder to show up at a random Best Western in Arizona, a little tipsy and hanging with the local drunks, and performing the best version of "Where the streets have no name" ever, in karaoke:
Last edited by hobochic; 05-13-2012 at 04:22 AM.
Last edited by Jinsai; 05-13-2012 at 04:54 AM.
wow, I never knew that The Beatles were such a big influence on Lonnie Donegan, Robert Johnson, Pierre Schaffer... incredible to think they went back in time and invented transatlantic and delta blues as well as skiffle bands
Sorry for the sarcasm! but they did take a few cues
Do you seriously mean that? You do know there are no objectively "correct" opinions and even if there were it's highly questionable that we would even recognise them as such
Can you give me some examples of opinions that are "correct" to the point of transcending subjectivity? I mean this is silly, it's like saying coca cola is nice, and if you don't like it you are wrong or lying
Boy, October, Unforgettable Fire, Under A Blood Red Sky, War, Joshua Tree, Rattle and Hum, and Actuing Baby are all great albums. There's a reason they became such a big band, and around here the controversial position is to like them. Yeah, Bono acts a little douchey, and his band hasn't put any good albums out in forever, but at least the guy's out there trying to make a positive change.. we're all human, right? Well, Bono's REALLY human. haha Everything until Zoo Station is fucking awesome.
I think its actually true, but there's a rumor that when U2 were recording The Joshua Tree Brian Eno tried to erase the tapes for Where the streets have no name because the band were taking too much time with it. I wish he had done that with the last two Coldplay albums.
Except what was said was nothing like that... for it to be comparable, calling Coke "overrated' would have to make sense, and it doesn't.
Also, to say that The Beatles did nothing other than take an obvious cue from blues music is crazy. If you like any rock music from the past forty years, you owe a big "thank you" to The Beatles.
Last edited by Jinsai; 05-13-2012 at 05:08 AM.
Pay attention 007, my comments about objective knowledge weren't in reply to what you said (read it again) - and I didn't say they did nothing but take their cues from blues music... you said everything I listen to would sound different, but I listen to quite a few acts that predate the Beatles
And of course you can describe Coke as "overrated"... it's fizzy sugary shit and yet somehow it's the #1 beverage in the world, I would say it is overrated. Why can't you describe it as such?
The idea that Ozzy Osbourne is the greatest frontman for Black Sabbath irks me. I saw them live in the early nineties with Tony Martin as frontman and the early stuff sounded SO much better with him singing, okay not the greatest frontman but Ozzy just shambles about the stage shouting 'go fucking crazy' every few minutes AND his voice is shit, so what is so much better about him?
I thought it would be obviously implied that I was referring to bands that came after the Beatles. In case it wasn't, let me clarify... I wasn't implying that musicians who came before were using psychic powers.
Because when I follow this unnecessary analogy far enough, I feel sick.And of course you can describe Coke as "overrated"... it's fizzy sugary shit and yet somehow it's the #1 beverage in the world, I would say it is overrated. Why can't you describe it as such?
You make a totalising statement like "everything you listen to would be different" except by that you meant not everything. You are hard work :P
Anyway where did I say they weren't influential? Like I said in my first post, there really is no need to point out to me what place The Beatles occupy in music history, it's patronising
(saying keep up 007 isn't though :P :P )
It's not hard work to realize I'm not saying Beethoven was influenced by The Beatles.
Their undeniable influence is a huge consideration when you call them "overrated."Anyway where did I say they weren't influential? Like I said in my first post, there really is no need to point out to me what place The Beatles occupy in music history, it's patronising
ok?(saying keep up 007 isn't though :P :P )
But again even though they are hugely influential & an awesome band, this doesn't mean it's a fact that they are good.
By overrated I mean people often give them credit for things they didn't start... I'm glad you acknowledge music before The Beatles but nonetheless you are implying that rock music was jack shit before The Beatles, which isn't true, is giving them a bit more credit than they deserve, which qualifies as overrating
and it's a sentiment I hear again and again and again, so while they deserve to be highly rated, I think it's fair to say they are overrated in a sense