Controversial music opinions

[larsvsnapster]

I think KC and his playing in it was pretty much unparalleled for a long time. But honestly, I don't care about originality that much. If music is good then it's good, I don't care whether it's original.or derivative af

Some can be derivative and it's got that quality of you not quite being able to put your finger on it.  Elton John is great at that, although I lost him at Blue Moves, a truly terrible album. 

The problem I have with Fripp and Eno as well in regards to it is that they come on like they invented those techniques.  As far as I'm concerned that takes far more ego than even Todd Rundgren has (and he's super notorious for his ego -- arguably it could be why he's not as lauded as others).  It's the ego that rubs me the wrong way. 

My entire picture of King Crimson is that they're a band to excite 14 and 15 year old bedsitter boys.  I listened to them -- I know the catalog up through 1984.  I'm really not impressed that the 2nd album was a clone of the first album.  Seeing the Islands era band without Fripp backing Pete Sinfield dressed as elves on the Old Grey Whistle Test also had something to do with their being so repellant to me.  That was so treacly and twee that I started to feel ill watching it. 

My picture of Eno is that Roxy Music were great between his leaving and Bryan Ferry learning to sing in tune in the studio.  Bryan Ferry not being able to carry a tune in a bucket is what made that band.

If you want to hear someone do King Crimson much better than King Crimson, I'd suggest Art Zoyd or Univers Zero, especially Art Zoyd's "État D'urgence" which really does sound like its title ("state of urgency" if you don't speak French). 

[grindy]

Some can be derivative and it's got that quality of you not quite being able to put your finger on it.  Elton John is great at that, although I lost him at Blue Moves, a truly terrible album. 

The problem I have with Fripp and Eno as well in regards to it is that they come on like they invented those techniques.  As far as I'm concerned that takes far more ego than even Todd Rundgren has (and he's super notorious for his ego -- arguably it could be why he's not as lauded as others).  It's the ego that rubs me the wrong way. 

My entire picture of King Crimson is that they're a band to excite 14 and 15 year old bedsitter boys.  I listened to them -- I know the catalog up through 1984.  I'm really not impressed that the 2nd album was a clone of the first album.  Seeing the Islands era band without Fripp backing Pete Sinfield dressed as elves on the Old Grey Whistle Test also had something to do with their being so repellant to me.  That was so treacly and twee that I started to feel ill watching it. 

My picture of Eno is that Roxy Music were great between his leaving and Bryan Ferry learning to sing in tune in the studio.  Bryan Ferry not being able to carry a tune in a bucket is what made that band.

If you want to hear someone do King Crimson much better than King Crimson, I'd suggest Art Zoyd or Univers Zero, especially Art Zoyd's "État D'urgence" which really does sound like its title ("state of urgency" if you don't speak French). 

Some can be derivative and it's got that quality of you not quite being able to put your finger on it.  Elton John is great at that, although I lost him at Blue Moves, a truly terrible album. 

The problem I have with Fripp and Eno as well in regards to it is that they come on like they invented those techniques.  As far as I'm concerned that takes far more ego than even Todd Rundgren has (and he's super notorious for his ego -- arguably it could be why he's not as lauded as others).  It's the ego that rubs me the wrong way. 

My entire picture of King Crimson is that they're a band to excite 14 and 15 year old bedsitter boys.  I listened to them -- I know the catalog up through 1984.  I'm really not impressed that the 2nd album was a clone of the first album.  Seeing the Islands era band without Fripp backing Pete Sinfield dressed as elves on the Old Grey Whistle Test also had something to do with their being so repellant to me.  That was so treacly and twee that I started to feel ill watching it. 

My picture of Eno is that Roxy Music were great between his leaving and Bryan Ferry learning to sing in tune in the studio.  Bryan Ferry not being able to carry a tune in a bucket is what made that band.

If you want to hear someone do King Crimson much better than King Crimson, I'd suggest Art Zoyd or Univers Zero, especially Art Zoyd's "État D'urgence" which really does sound like its title ("state of urgency" if you don't speak French). 

I know and love UZ and AZ but to me they're a completely different thing from KC.

[Lexi Darling]

There's also a key -- my HFA is a superpower.  It was incredibly affirming to learn that my wiring is such that everything I perceive is unique to me, not just sound.  One of my superpowers is to hear the pointillism stuff (like say, Derek Bailey) and my brain can squash all those multioctave leaps into one octave enabling me to hum along fairly easily.  I also "see the notes" coming at me -- they've all got little tags specifying what note is sounding.  It used to be a burden if the recording was off (like say Beatles "Strawberry Fields Forever") but I've learned to adjust and hear relatively rather than absolutely.  I figure it's why I like soundscapes and noise so much -- that sort of music is something to listen to without the emphasis on what note is playing.  I still hear melodies and sometimes words in it, but in general it sounds like the ocean or a forest rustling to me -- very organic.

Basically because I'm autistic, I got a head start.  It took years to understand that not everyone has the wiring necessary to perceive it. I don't have the wiring necessary to understand why Twiggy Swift is so popular -- I can't tell one song from the other, and when I have heard her in passing I only found out it was her when I looked at the playlist several songs later.   

Speaking of autism, Robert Fripp displays a whole lot of classic textbook traits.  One of his that I identify strongly with is speaking so formally all of the time that when slang comes in it sounds really funny coming from him, as it does me. 

That's so interesting! People have theorized at certain points in my life that I may have some kind of high functioning autism, though I have never been formally diagnosed. I was diagnosed with ADHD in 1996 while in elementary school, though I can't say if that has had any effect on my perception of music.

I do however have a degree in audio engineering, so I understand a good deal about acoustics, how the brain perceives sound, everything about frequency and harmony, I am actually very experienced with a lot of the concepts that many of those composers used. Which is probably why I see it as overly clinical and I can't shake the sense that the compositions are more like mad science experiments that weren't meant to be enjoyed by mortals. It mixes up the audio engineer part of my brain with the music lover side.

I'm just not on that level of art appreciation I guess.

[larsvsnapster]

I'm just not on that level of art appreciation I guess.

I'm willing to bet you respond emotionally to music.  I don't have that.  I hear all music as sonic architecture, and leftfield academic stuff to me is the sonic equivalent of those mobiles that have one side lots of sheet metal that looks like it weighs 1000 lbs, but is balanced on the other end of the fulcrum by a BB. 

[Lexi Darling]

I'm willing to bet you respond emotionally to music.  I don't have that.  I hear all music as sonic architecture, and leftfield academic stuff to me is the sonic equivalent of those mobiles that have one side lots of sheet metal that looks like it weighs 1000 lbs, but is balanced on the other end of the fulcrum by a BB. 

I see, that's fascinating. I can get into that headspace for a lot of the ambient space music I listen to, listening for the tone and timbre. But that just doesn't outweigh the way atonal music irritates my ears. Maybe someday I'll find a way to enjoy it, I'd love that. The way I see it the more different kinds of music I can jam to, the better.

[Meatwad]

I see this thread is really bubbling along nicely. Happy to be of service. 

[Meatwad]

I agree on your Sonic Youth, Pixies and Limp Bizkit takes, but with all due respect, your Nickelback take fried my brain. Having that opinion is just unimaginable to me.

I aim to please. 

[Meatwad]

I don't know man, Pearl Jam are the most overrated band in history? I can think of 10 or 15 bands off the top of my head that I think are more overrated.

And I'd sub out your Lana Del Rey opinion for Billie Eilish.

Both fair points but I REALLY never got the whole interest in Pearl Jam. Eddie Vedders voice is not good and none of their songs sound nearly as special as the attention they received.

Your point about Billie Eilish is more than fair. I just momentarily forget she existed. 

[Meatwad]

Hard to not be when a horde of people consider you the greatest band of the last 30 years (they aren't, but still have a handful of fine albums to their name)

I can remember when they made that seemingly hard pivot from the indi rock of OK Computer to blips and noises of Kid A and although there are a couple of serviceable songs on Kid A, I dont consider that album enjoyable or interesting. The whole narrative of Radioheads musical range seemed to really spike hard after that transition which completely lost me. OK Computer was a good album (and Im not even that big on Thom Yorkes singing) but the fascination with the band really only seemed to take off to baffling levels once Kid A appeared.

Gotta disagree but didn't their most well-known stuff come out more than 20 years ago anyway?
In any case, even when restricting the window to the last 20 years and limiting it to bands with mainstream recognition, I think for instance Arctic Monkeys and QotSA are at least a little better.

QotSA is definitely a viable alternative to be regarded as at least as good if not better. Gotta disagree with Arctic Monkeys.

Objectively false.

How so ?

According to whom? Thinking they are the best band of their era is perhaps a bit much but what bands from the same period do you feel deserve to be more recognized, out of interest?

According to me. We're all here just sharing our own opinions having some fun.

And my reasoning for this take is that a lot of bands that orbited the grunge sphere werent that good both musically and vocally. Plus, this band seemed to gain a lot of attention from the Nirvana flow on effect just because Kurt liked them.

[GD]

I can remember when they made that seemingly hard pivot from the indi rock of OK Computer to blips and noises of Kid A and although there are a couple of serviceable songs on Kid A, I dont consider that album enjoyable or interesting. The whole narrative of Radioheads musical range seemed to really spike hard after that transition which completely lost me. OK Computer was a good album (and Im not even that big on Thom Yorkes singing) but the fascination with the band really only seemed to take off to baffling levels once Kid A appeared.

Funny, because if anything I feel that it's their 90's material that's overrated moreso than the post Kid A stuff. People have this overblown estimation of OK Computer as if it's the best album of the 90's (or the best of all time(!); see RYM) when you could point to arguably better albums from the very same year it came out. The reason I like Kid A and some of what came after it is not because it's "experimental" (which is not even that true imo) but just because the songs are (mostly) just enjoyable and well-produced.

How so ?

Because "SY were terrible" it's kind of like saying "Picasso was a terrible painter". Like you're free to dislike it from here to the moon but if you're gonna state your dislike in terms of objectivity there's a fair bit of evidence to the contrary. (Also it's more fun to call someone out with "objectively false"  )

According to me. We're all here just sharing our own opinions having some fun.

And my reasoning for this take is that a lot of bands that orbited the grunge sphere werent that good both musically and vocally. Plus, this band seemed to gain a lot of attention from the Nirvana flow on effect just because Kurt liked them.

The bolded: I actually meant "according to whom" as in "who is rating them too highly". And I take it you wouldn't be posting in this thread if you didn't want people to argue with you 

The second part was about thinking bands like Pixies are overrated, so conversely you would have to think some other acts deserve their acclaim more from within that same time period. Unless you think there was not much good stuff coming out at all at that time, which is perfectly valid and not something I care to argue against, but in my estimation the late 80s/early 90s was one of the last true golden ages of popular music (don't know if this qualifies as an "unpopular/controversial opinion"). Very little of that is due to Nirvana and other "grunge" acts but it's not just limited to rock either.

[Meatwad]

Nickelback aren't worse than Foo Fighters or Nirvana or any other lame grunge or post-grunge or whatever band.

Agreed.

Jimi Hendrix was a fantastic guitarist but the music overall is mostly mediocre and feels dated.

Completely agree. It definitely feels dated.

Tool suck and are boring and always were boring.

Tool are much better than Dream Theatre (who I mentioned previously), but they kind of all fall under the same umbrella. This also relates to stuff like Mogwai. A lot of their songs are padded out way too much in regards to the complexity of where the typical tune traverses. I dont mind a good 10-20 minute song but there has to a suitable level of complexity to interest me as its a fair investment in my time. And most of these bands shouldn't be putting out music any longer than 5 minutes.

99% of bands labelled Alternative Rock, Indie Rock and Britpop suck ass.

Hell to the yeah. Indi music is often the WORST music out there since there seems to be this idea that not being signed to a major label offers scope to be unorthodox about your approach without necessarily having the requisite ability to sing properly and play your instruments to a competent level.

Easily the worst band I've ever seen was a local 4 piece indi outfit with a female singer who literally shreaks virtually unintelligible nonsense throughout the set over the most mundane of bog standard indi noodling. Maybe it was just too deep for me, but maybe it was just a steaming pile of bovine excrement. 

My friend spent the whole time nursing his beer trying not to laugh hoping the next band was less insane/obnoxious. I spent most of my time nursing a beer trying not to laugh at my friend trying not to laugh at the band. 

Tupac was terrible. Lame-ass pop rap with mediocre flow.

I dont get the Tupac love either. I'd rather listen to Nas. I'd also rather listen to Ice Ice Baby.

Old-school hip-hop is mostly terrible and sounds like retarded children trying to rhyme.

If we're talking 80's hip hop then I mostly agree. If we're talking 90's then Im having a bit more trouble with that.

Metallica fucking suck. Yes, even the so-called good albums.

They've definitely put some bad stuff out including St Anger where Lars seemed to think that substituting a snare drum with a beer keg was a good idea and that pretentious garbage they did with Lou Reed (Lulu) but overall I can't say they suck completely. Definitely periods of pretentious suckage. Even some of their tangents from their core sound aren't bad. I still like "No Leaf Clover" from the S@M album.

Dubstep is actually pretty cool. Yeah, it's kinda stupid and a one-trick-pony but it's really fun.

Nah gonna have to completely disagree with that. Dubstep is the aural equivalent of trying to do advanced calculus after a week long bender on meth. Sure its kinda fun, but those high pitch sound bites they utilise make me feel like my brain has been harpooned and slowly dragged over barbed wire. 

Jeff Buckley had a great voice but his music sucked.

Moderately agree. He did have a great voice but it kind of makes sense if the music doesn't overshadow such unique vocals so there is that. The music on Grace was OK.

"Sketches for my sweetheart the drunk" was mostly a bunch of random nonsense that shouldn't have been released and the music was overwhelmingly poor and was a waste of a purchase for me. It was lucky to have a couple of OK songs on it and barely that.

And while we're at it: Hallelujah is a horrible song, no matter who played it.

I much prefer Corpus Christi Carol off of Grace. In regards to the original Hallelujah, Leonard Cohens voice is not appealing to me so I'd instantly rule that version out but Buckleys version is nice. I dont have a strong negative opinion on the song but the line "And I remember when I moved in you" kind of feels a bit tacky depending on which interpretation you make of it.

The Rolling Stones are fucking worthless. The Beatles were a bit better but that doesn't say much.

Wouldn't say they're completely worthless but another really really overrated band. Can at least respect the fact that Keith Richards is still alive. Cant say I ever got into either or them and I was exposed to plenty of the Beatles as a kid.

Anybody not hating me yet? I probably have some more.

No hate from me this end of the interwebs. Keep up the good work. 

[Meatwad]

Funny, because if anything I feel that it's their 90's material that's overrated moreso than the post Kid A stuff. People have this overblown estimation of OK Computer as if it's the best album of the 90's (or the best of all time(!); see RYM) when you could point to arguably better albums from the very same year it came out. The reason I like Kid A and some of what came after it is not because it's "experimental" (which is not even that true imo) but just because the songs are (mostly) just enjoyable and well-produced.

Their 90's material (Pablo Honey etc) is definitely below average so I agree with you on that. OK Computer is a good album and thats where my interest in them essentially finishes. Im definitely not claiming that album was brilliant.

Because "SY were terrible" it's kind of like saying "Picasso was a terrible painter". Like you're free to dislike it from here to the moon but if you're gonna state your dislike in terms of objectivity there's a fair bit of evidence to the contrary. (Also it's more fun to call someone out with "objectively false"  )

Where is this evidence you speak of ? 

Sonic Youth in general was just unappealing distorted noise for me. I even bought one of their albums. They're another one of those 90's indi darlings who were fawned over by the local indi radio station and a certain friend of a friend I sometimes saw at gigs. I never got into them and I never will.

The bolded: I actually meant "according to whom" as in "who is rating them too highly". And I take it you wouldn't be posting in this thread if you didn't want people to argue with you 

Again, just going by the general playtime they received on the local alternative radio station and the opinions of people I personally knew and those who I met at gigs. A lot of my friends actually liked completely different music to me quite often so I was often exposed to tastes I didn't share. 

The second part was about thinking bands like Pixies are overrated, so conversely you would have to think some other acts deserve their acclaim more from within that same time period. Unless you think there was not much good stuff coming out at all at that time, which is perfectly valid and not something I care to argue against, but in my estimation the late 80s/early 90s was one of the last true golden ages of popular music (don't know if this qualifies as an "unpopular/controversial opinion"). Very little of that is due to Nirvana and other "grunge" acts but it's not just limited to rock either.

I bought the Doolittle CD on recommendation from a friend who really liked the Pixies. The singing was not something I enjoyed as it had a rather clipped style to it and the music seemed a bit patchwork. I never played it much. I liked Monkey Goes to Heaven a bit but thats about it. "Hey" turning up on "Fight Club" is a testament to their early 90's fandom in my opinion. They are definitely overrated.

And saying that one particular band is overrated does not neccesitate the need to claim others werent. But if I had to pick other groups from that era whose output I enjoyed Id start with stuff like REM, Pantera, Metallica, Slayer, Suicidal Tendencies, Bad Brains etc. Even Def Leppard and Depeche Mode is considerably more enjoyable to me than the Pixies. And out of those mentioned I think Suicidal and Bad Brains are underrated.

[Lexi Darling]

Gonna be a no from me on Sonic Youth, dawg. I think all of their vocalists frankly grate on my ears, and there's some kinda cool riffs and moments, but you can only hear so many of those random noise guitar bits before it starts to feel tired even as what I'd imagine was a shocking novelty at the time.

Tupac had some good songs but I also think he's one of those artists who has a lot of filler tracks. California Love still bangs hard.

[Marie Monday]

I like sonic youth but I do think they're a bit overrated and the vocals (and lyrics) are absolute dogshit

[larsvsnapster]

Sonic Youth are wonderful as people.  I even got my best musical compliment ever from Lee Ranaldo:  "Wow, you can improvise songs." 

Listening to them I'll go for Goodbye 20th Century before anything else.