Controversial Music Opinions...

[Krazy]

And for the tenth time... FUCK YOU Weezer for making an identical cover to Toto’s Africa.

How is this song all over the radio still????

[Alabaster Creature]

And for the tenth time... FUCK YOU Weezer for making an identical cover to TotoÂ’s Africa.

How is this song all over the radio still????

Rock radio is notoriously cliquey and hard to break into, see this piece: which is about the specific and meaningful obstacles women face in getting on the radio, but gestures toward how difficult that task for anyone. That Weezer is already in that ecosystem probably helps a lot. Though honestly the machinations of the modern commercial rock industry feels more inexplicable than ever. Enough so apparently that 'Africa' in itself was a surprise hit for the band, and is now a crucial part of narrative about how cover songs are the new hotness.

This particular song is an extra weird case, because it's grassroots status as a fan campaign. Which itself only happened because Africa specifically has a somewhat inexplicable grip on music culture at the moment.

So, a lot of poorly understand systems of influence are clearly colliding to make this happen. You're definitely not imagining that this all a little strange.

[kaydraven]

I like P!nk for what she is, but the pricing for her shows are fucking insane. Shit’s rediculous.

Huge Pink fan right here! Though I didn't really enjoy her last album, it did a great job showing just how amazing her voice is. I think she's really come into her own as a talented singer compared to when she first came out with Can't Take Me Home.

[henryeatscereal]

I think Florence and the Machine is kind of in a weird spot with regards to the tastes of alternative audiences at large. Aesthetically they do not have any sharp edges (or they are not sharp enough) in an era when enough of the underground has been co-opted that it renders our collective ideas of what a "credible" musician should sound like a bit tweaked and increasingly narrow. They are not quite baroque or arty enough to have the relative alt credibility of say Arcade Fire (or at least the Arcade Fire of yesteryear).¹ In this specific regard I guess they are kind of in a similar space to the Black Keys, a mainstream commercial face of alternative music that is not that widely beloved by many people in that many actual underground scenes.

It's clear that Florence Welch is a very competent songwriter, and though I am increasingly dubious about notions of "authenticity" in music (at least on the broadest thematic levels), it does not seem she's posing too much, if really at all, in her work to make it more palatable to audiences on the scale she reaches. As somebody that writes songs, I can see that the band's work is tightly written with a sensitivity to how instrumentation and arrangement affect how a song is ultimately articulated. Writing anthems so big they actually start to cross-over into banality is hard, I wish I could do it. Though, this leads to me listening to her music in order to put it under the knife, to see how it works, not because I get something in my gut or my feelings from it.

Their music seldom really cuts at me. I do not often care much for "indie rock" bands² that achieved commercial success after the 90s. For a long time many of them seemed incurious and aesthetically unadventurous. Nothing about it felt like it had any chance of falling apart, it was tasteful, but only because it reiterated what we already knew to be tasteful. That's how the argument might go. I have come around on this recently for various reasons, but my ingrained taste still does not incline me to liking music in that broadly defined space. Florence in the Machine falls in this space for me, as uselessly huge as it is. I might speculate that other people on this board are having similar aesthetic stumbling blocks with their work.

You bring very interesting points, i do like Florence but i can't say i LOVE her music.
Funny thing is that a few years ago i was indifferent towards her music, i started to pay attention when she did the "Jackson" cover on the "MTV Unplugged" album.
I bought "How, Big How Blue, How Beautiful" and i was hooked, i found out she's very talented and reminded me to other female writers i like like Tori Amos, Natalie Merchant and Fiona Apple.
But something was "missing"i liked her songs but i didn't think she stood out from "the rest".
I think she has great lyrics and she does feel like an honest artist, but there's something missing about her, i can't put my finger on it...

[tremolo]

Slash is overrated.

I find him to be a caricature of himself. And his playing, while still good, is not as good as it was 20 years ago. He seems so locked within a very limited style that anything outside of those boundaries seem like a huge challenge and that he is not willing to put the effort.

[Space Suicide]

Slash is overrated.

I find him to be a caricature of himself. And his playing, while still good, is not as good as it was 20 years ago. He seems so locked within a very limited style that anything outside of those boundaries seem like a huge challenge and that he is not willing to put the effort.

It's a dated sound.

[GulDukat]

Slash is overrated.

I find him to be a caricature of himself. And his playing, while still good, is not as good as it was 20 years ago. He seems so locked within a very limited style that anything outside of those boundaries seem like a huge challenge and that he is not willing to put the effort.

I find his work outside of GN'R to be very hit-or-miss. I absolutely love his 2010 album, the one with several guest singers and I liked Velvet Revolver and the first Snakepit album. I'm not too crazy about his three albums with Myles Kennedy and the Conspirators. First, I wish Slash would find another singer. Myles sounds good, but has no personality and is very generic, imho. And the material is, meh. Slash sounds awesome and the songs have potential, but he needs an Axl Rose or Scott Weiland to take it to the next level. You are right, Slash is not challenging himself--the Conspirators material sounds like tired, meat-and-potatoes 80's rock. think if Axl, Slash and Duff (and hopefully Izzy) worked on some new material it would have to potential to be great.

Don't know if I'd call Slash overrated though, he's awesome when he's with the right people. He's just not Prince or Hendrix, who were not only gifted guitar players but also great songwriters.

[ManBurning]

Nirvana is the most over-rated band ever. There I said it. (Not sure if it's been said before already or not. I don't have time to sift through 147 pages lol)

[Mantra]

^i feel like it has been said before, but that's alright.

i wouldn't say they're overrated, nor would i say they're underrated. they're simple RATED, pure and simple, if you really think about it, with profound philosophical intellect.

nirvana has a certain simplicity that makes them really appealing, but that same simplicity can work against them and make them a bit dull, maybe?

[Mantra]

sometimes i see kids walking around my college wearing nirvana t shirts, and they cant be older than like 18 or 19, and sometimes i wonder, what does nirvana mean to them? i can't possibly be the same thing that it meant to me when i was kid...or maybe it is? i think about how fucking xxxtentacion talked about being influenced by nirvana, and i wonder what is happening, that is, what is happening in this moment of history with this generation and its relationship to this fairly antiquated rock music? i don't understand it, but i think it's interesting, or at least has some potential for some interesting opening new doors.

[GulDukat]

sometimes i see kids walking around my college wearing nirvana t shirts, and they cant be older than like 18 or 19, and sometimes i wonder, what does nirvana mean to them? i can't possibly be the same thing that it meant to me when i was kid...or maybe it is? i think about how fucking xxxtentacion talked about being influenced by nirvana, and i wonder what is happening, that is, what is happening in this moment of history with this generation and its relationship to this fairly antiquated rock music? i don't understand it, but i think it's interesting, or at least has some potential for some interesting opening new doors.

If someone was born in 2000, Nirvana can be lumped in with The Who or The Doors, another rock (arguably classic rock) band before their time. It's kind of weird for me (I'm 39) to think of Nirvana like that, because I remember when they were the hottest new thing.

It does speak to their music and legacy though, Nevermind and In Utero are great fucking albums.

[Louie_Cypher]

If someone was born in 2000, Nirvana can be lumped in with The Who or The Doors, another rock (arguably classic rock) band before their time. It's kind of weird for me (I'm 39) to think of Nirvana like that, because I remember when they were the hottest new thing.

It does speak to their music and legacy though, Nevermind and In Utero are great fucking albums.

i agree when ever discussing things of this nature of must put the time mood of the nation, for lack of a better word, most clubs that had live music no longer had live acts and were switch to dj, and spinning records. radio was dying, and most people were getting thier music from MTV. here comes nirvana, who weren't polished or "gimmicky" no elements of rap or scratching they felt straight forward and "honest" and weren't out of LA. in a way nirvana was kind of Americas answer to punk. although they could play their instruments and Kurt was a great writer. so while i do kind of feel they were over hyped the did start a movement and change musical history.
-louie

[halo eighteen]

Nirvana is the most over-rated band ever. There I said it. (Not sure if it's been said before already or not. I don't have time to sift through 147 pages lol)

I'm probably inclined to agree with this assessment now, being that I never actively seek out listening to their music anymore. It remains on my iPod, so the occasional song plays on shuffle but that's really about it. I got into them late 93/early 94 just a few months before Kurt died (Nevermind was my very first CD purchase. I also recall getting Bleach the day before news broke that he was dead). So I think even though it was a brief amount of time, it really was my gateway to getting into more grunge/alternative/heavier acts. At that time I was probably just strictly into a variety of things that MTV would frequently air. I do realize that's kind of a contradiction, since Nirvana were getting played 60 times a day on that channel then.

So I mean, back to the overrated thing - yeah, there's definitely better bands out there and I think they were just really fortunate to be in the right place at the right time. They were monumental in my discovering other stuff like Downward Spiral though, which completely changed my life. So it's hard for me to really bash Nirvana.

[onthewall2983]

Slash is overrated.

I find him to be a caricature of himself. And his playing, while still good, is not as good as it was 20 years ago. He seems so locked within a very limited style that anything outside of those boundaries seem like a huge challenge and that he is not willing to put the effort.

I've been reading Mick Wall's book on G&R that came out last year. While Axl was quite clearly punching out of his league trying to become an innovator in music, and while it can be read as a symptom of whatever power trip he's seemingly always been on as an adult, one can't blame him for the simple idea that he didn't want to become the guy who did "Welcome to the Jungle" for the rest of his life. Not to say that Slash wants to be that guy either, but from interviews and reading the book he clearly became more comfortable with staying in his own lane. To his point it worked well enough when Velvet Revolver became a hit band for awhile, before they hit their own walls and disintegrated before our very eyes too.

[tremolo]

I've been reading Mick Wall's book on G&R that came out last year. While Axl was quite clearly punching out of his league trying to become an innovator in music, and while it can be read as a symptom of whatever power trip he's seemingly always been on as an adult, one can't blame him for the simple idea that he didn't want to become the guy who did "Welcome to the Jungle" for the rest of his life. Not to say that Slash wants to be that guy either, but from interviews and reading the book he clearly became more comfortable with staying in his own lane. To his point it worked well enough when Velvet Revolver became a hit band for awhile, before they hit their own walls and disintegrated before our very eyes too.

I have divided feelings about the whole thing... I know that Axl became the laughing stock after GNR disbanded in the 90’s, while Slash kept a reputation as a rock hero, but I had lots of respect for Axl for keeping his integrity and moving on to keep pushing things forward, experimenting sonically, blending different influences, etc, while Slash lost some of that good rep in my eyes for collaborating with pop acts, some of which were just your typical one-hit wonders or business projects without a real artistic core.

Now, 20 years later, it seems like Axl is comfortable just being “the welcome to the jungle guy” and I see Slash’s collaborations as just a musician puting his craft to use at any chance he got, and I don’t see anything wrong with that.

Still, since this was originally about Slash’s playing, I miss his soulful more bluesy style with those long sustained notes as opposed to the fast picking and bland boring noodling he seems to be enjoying nowadays.


And to add fuel to the fire, and back to the controversial opinions, despite this “reunion tour” being extremely successful and lucrative, the quality in general has been very sub-par.

[GulDukat]

I have divided feelings about the whole thing... I know that Axl became the laughing stock after GNR disbanded in the 90’s, while Slash kept a reputation as a rock hero, but I had lots of respect for Axl for keeping his integrity and moving on to keep pushing things forward, experimenting sonically, blending different influences, etc, while Slash lost some of that good rep in my eyes for collaborating with pop acts, some of which were just your typical one-hit wonders or business projects without a real artistic core.

Now, 20 years later, it seems like Axl is comfortable just being “the welcome to the jungle guy” and I see Slash’s collaborations as just a musician puting his craft to use at any chance he got, and I don’t see anything wrong with that.

Still, since this was originally about Slash’s playing, I miss his soulful more bluesy style with those long sustained notes as opposed to the fast picking and bland boring noodling he seems to be enjoying nowadays.


And to add fuel to the fire, and back to the controversial opinions, despite this “reunion tour” being extremely successful and lucrative, the quality in general has been very sub-par.

I've enjoyed most of Slash's work outside of GN'R, especially his excellent 2010 album, and the Conspirators stuff is rocking fun. That said, Chinese Democracy is just a much more interesting album than any post-GN'R project from any of the other members. It's not for everyone, but at least Axl tried to color outside the lines. Plus, even with Slash and Duff back, Axl plays a good five or so songs live, so he's stood by his work. I'd really like Axl to empty the vaults, to see what else he recorded from 1997-2008, during those sessions.

As for the GN'R reunion tour, they play for 3.5 hours and explore their whole catalog. What else could they do (apart from debuting new material)?

[tremolo]

I've enjoyed most of Slash's work outside of GN'R, especially his excellent 2010 album, and the Conspirators stuff is rocking fun. That said, Chinese Democracy is just a much more interesting album than any post-GN'R project from any of the other members. It's not for everyone, but at least Axl tried to color outside the lines. Plus, even with Slash and Duff back, Axl plays a good five or so songs live, so he's stood by his work. I'd really like Axl to empty the vaults, to see what else he recorded from 1997-2008, during those sessions.

As for the GN'R reunion tour, they play for 3.5 hours and explore their whole catalog. What else could they do (apart from debuting new material)?

The 1997-2008 era is the holy grail... there are many reports of lots of recorded material. I’d love to listen to that!

About the tour... the length doesn’t mean much to me. I’d rather get a 2hr show than a 3.5hr one where almost 1/3 of it is covers. Quality over quantity for me. The setlist has been pretty static and after a few months it became stale, but I can get over that. My main thing against this tour is Axl’s voice (mostly how he struggles to hit the right notes, not talking about “the rasp” or “mickey”, or super high pitch) and how Slash didn’t seem to care enough to prepare properly for the CD songs. Let alone how expensive and prohibitive the tickets have been.

[DVYDRNS]

Brain Dump / Rant coming:

I think metal is pretty much garbage these days. Its so tacky and stupid. there's nothing dangerous about it. Its all regurgitated crap.

I think A Perfect Circle sounds ultra dated, and i have zero desire to see them anymore or even listen to their back catalogue. when at one time i was a huge fan. I think its because the whole project sounds like a protools training session. I think Billys magnificent playing has been dumbed down so hard by being chopped up and polished to perfection. Which is his choice, so yea. I also think Maynard is a blowhard. But i don't blame him for hating his fans. I hate his fans too.

I think Tobacco is crap. I don't think pressing a spacebar and putting some disturbing visuals behind you, should allow you top open for a band like Nine Inch Nails.

I think rock is dead, because everyone allowed it to die, by making it safe and polished in the late 90's and 2000's

I think Nirvana caused the death of rock and alternative rock. Not on purpose, but because after Nirvana Unplugged, we got a boat load of wanna be angsty acoustic douche bags that tried to cash grab on that sounds success. I mean if everyone truly loved Nirvana, we'd have more bands like Incesticide and In Utero. But no. we got all these mom friendly shit bands instead.

I think i grew up in a time when music was vastly more interesting. I mean come on. Bjork, Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Cars, Stevie Ray Vaughn, David Bowie. None of these artists sound like each other, yet they were all massively popular. I can't tell the difference between one of the popular 21 swift dragon Ableton Live songs on the radio or spotify playlists these days.

If nine inch nails came out today, nobody would care.

Ableton live killed modern electronica and industrial.

just about every current industrial band is pure garbage. its all vibe and no actual song writing. and the vibe isn't even that good. its all digital garbage. and im sorry , but you can tell the difference between digital plugins and real analog synths and drum machines. if all you care to invest in your art is a 300 dollar laptop and pirated software, you aren't entertaining to me. Because i can tell. Everyone wants huge success with little to no work or talent.

Bands that are interesting that SHOULD be considered industrial?

Health, Zola Jesus, A Place to Bury Strangers, Etc

I don't go to concerts to see laptops, if 90 percent of your performance is a laptop, you suck and you shouldn't be allowed to play shows.

Music isn't about creativity and talent anymore. Its about selling a product. And everyones buying into it.

[Space Suicide]

Brain Dump / Rant coming:

I agree with a majority of the stuff you posted but there's some I take offense to and want to refute but I won't because this is an opinion thread and not what you should do.

[DVYDRNS]

it won't hurt my feelings. we're allowed to have some different opinions!

[BRoswell]

I don't think pressing a spacebar...

You do realize that he does a lot more than that when he performs, right?

I think i grew up in a time when music was vastly more interesting.

You and every other generation thinks that. It's not true.

Music isn't about creativity and talent anymore. Its about selling a product. And everyones buying into it.

If you only consider Top 40 shit music, then yeah, but there's plenty of people out there making new and interesting music.

I guess my controversial opinion is that people who say music is terrible these days don't dig deep enough.

[DVYDRNS]

"You do realize that he does a lot more than that when he performs, right?"
Yea i was dumbing it down a bit. I saw him open in bakersfield. and i was vastly underwhelmed. There was nothing interesting about it.

"You and every other generation thinks that. It's not true. "
Point taken. and agree'd upon. But that's why its my opinion.

"If you only consider Top 40 shit music, then yeah, but there's plenty of people out there making new and interesting music."
Once again. fair point. I agree with this as well. I am talking about top 40 music. But i'll go far as to say, Nine Inch Nails. Depeche Mode and The Cure, were at one time considered top 40.

Top 40 didn't use to mean, "Catered to the masses and built for ad revenue"

[BRoswell]

Point taken. and agree'd upon. But that's why its my opinion.

If you agree, then why hold that opinion?

Top 40 didn't use to mean, "Catered to the masses and built for ad revenue"

Oh yes it did.

[Space Suicide]

Brain Dump / Rant coming:

I think metal is pretty much garbage these days. Its so tacky and stupid. there's nothing dangerous about it. Its all regurgitated crap.

I think A Perfect Circle sounds ultra dated, and i have zero desire to see them anymore or even listen to their back catalogue. when at one time i was a huge fan. I think its because the whole project sounds like a protools training session. I think Billys magnificent playing has been dumbed down so hard by being chopped up and polished to perfection. Which is his choice, so yea. I also think Maynard is a blowhard. But i don't blame him for hating his fans. I hate his fans too.

I think rock is dead, because everyone allowed it to die, by making it safe and polished in the late 90's and 2000's

I think i grew up in a time when music was vastly more interesting. I mean come on. Bjork, Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Cars, Stevie Ray Vaughn, David Bowie. None of these artists sound like each other, yet they were all massively popular. I can't tell the difference between one of the popular 21 swift dragon Ableton Live songs on the radio or spotify playlists these days.

If nine inch nails came out today, nobody would care.

Music isn't about creativity and talent anymore. Its about selling a product. And everyones buying into it.

Metal is a genre thats generally applauded yet also shit upon by most. I'm not surprised by your statements but have you really delved into underground genres or areas? MOST European made metal shits on its American counterpart. Genres are touchy but outside of mainstream and friendly genres you can find great work.

A Perfect Circle sound what they do because that's their sound. It sounds "dated" since it was from the late 90's and early 00's for the alt rock style. How would you have them sound now? Unless you're like David Bowie it's hard to change your sound and not sound like a hack or fad chaser ala Linkin park.

Rock is dead in the commercial sense since all anyone cares about is easily digestible and being able to make money. You spit out a Top 40 one hit wonder and you're good to go for sales thanks to radio play and spotify streams. Zzzzzz. Like my metal argument, if you sought out stuff with an open ear on places like bandcamp and youtube you'd find new stuff.

Everyone aims for stream numbers, youtube views and the common demographic. Of course bands and musicians gravitate to radio friendly trash stylings. It makes for fast flash in the pan fans and the easiest money making tactic. Most rap is synth pop influenced and most rock is synth pop influenced. Both mainstream audiences of those genres sound the same because synth pop sounds are whats hot now, unfortunately. It's unfortunate because there's unique bands that do it correctly. Basically copying a template for popularity in 2018 means most musicians compromise originality due to it. That's why they all sound the same.

If Nine Inch Nails came out today and sounded like Broken-The Fragile I disagree completely. If NIN debuted today with PHM sound or [With_Teeth]-now I would agree. It'd be a lost relic sadly.

It is and a lot buy into it. The mainstream does but if everyone did we wouldn't have unique artists still out there.

[onthewall2983]

Now, 20 years later, it seems like Axl is comfortable just being “the welcome to the jungle guy” and I see Slash’s collaborations as just a musician puting his craft to use at any chance he got, and I don’t see anything wrong with that.

Still, since this was originally about Slash’s playing, I miss his soulful more bluesy style with those long sustained notes as opposed to the fast picking and bland boring noodling he seems to be enjoying nowadays.

Weird how things circle around like that. Especially now that Axl is being more professional regarding things like showing up on time, and even the AC/DC gig which I can kind of commend him for doing because it's obviously not required of him to front two huge bands at the same time.

Slash was on Marc Maron's podcast recently. Really good interview, going back and forth with the firsthand knowledge they both have of addiction and guitars (which can be it's own form of addiction as most any musician can tell you). They actually played together at a benefit recently, with Jimmy Vivino.

A post shared by on Jan 01, 2017 at 12:00pm PDT

[WorzelG]

Is Billy Corgan the king of stupid names? What sort of name is Shiny and Oh So Bright, not to mention TearGarden by Kaleidyscope

[Krazy]

Is Billy Corgan the king of stupid names? What sort of name is Shiny and Oh So Bright

Shiny And Oh So Bright sounds like a line from Mad Max: Fury Road. Which would be cool in that movie, just not so much coming from a band’s tour name.

[ghostaustin]

Controversial opinion: Hot Space is one of Queen's strongest albums. Sure, if you compare it to A Night At The Opera, it's not gonna hold a candle. But the album is full of energy and vitality, and I think it influenced a lot of the pop music that would come later in the 80's. Plus, it has Under Pressure.

[GulDukat]

Some random thoughts:

1. Whitesnake doesn't suck.
2. 1970's Elvis>1950's Elvis, at least in terms of musical output.
3. OK Computer and Pet Sounds are good albums but overrated.
4. Jani Lane (of Warrant) was an underrated songwriter.
5. Metallica's Load and Reload were both pretty good albums.
6. Kid Rock is an underrated talent (I hate his fucking politics).
7. KISS are underrated as songwriters.
8. Stone Temple Pilots were one of the best rock bands of the 1990's.
9. David Lee Roth's 1990's solo albums were good.
10. The Beatles Let it Be is as good as Abbey Road/Sgt. Pepper/Revolver.

[bobbie solo]

If I touched that list we'd be here all day.