Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Anyhow, I didn't put whatever-his-name-is on ignore because he doesn't like the Beatles - that WOULD be a little harsh. I put him on ignore because his opinions on music aren't worth gak. Seriously not worth taking the time to read.
Better?
Of course I get that some misguided souls may not appreciate the Beatles's music - that's their right. Poor taste is not a crime. I freely admit to having awful taste in film, and sub-par taste in literature, for example. But, to say that the Beatles suck? That's just an ignorant statement. Didn't he also say that punk-rock peaked in the '90s? I mean, really? Wow. I'm pulling the rip-cord on this one, I think.
Nope I made the qoute about punk rock peaking in the early nineties (and I like the Beetles) Bands like screw32, strung out etc came out of that era and they were fething good as opposed to gak old skool punk like the sex pistols and the buzzcocks and other arty farty drivel. late eighties stuff is okay DK and RKL beingfavourites but for the most part I prefer skate punk it was honest it was fast and to me thats what punk rock should be.
Damn I cant wait to the GW legal team codex comes out now there is a dex that will conquer all.
Jihadnik wrote:Phew, I thought this title was about 'The Rock'
Thankfully he's still okay...
Same....
Also Punk and Ska will never die so I am fine
True but punk peaked in the early to mid nineties so it wont die but it sure as hell not any getting better.
Punk peaked in 1979 when The Clash released London Calling.
Not sure about the genre as a whole but yes that was a fine album and really to me atleast the only good first wave punk band. However there is so much ska and reggae on that album I am not sure if it counts.
Damn I cant wait to the GW legal team codex comes out now there is a dex that will conquer all.
Anyhow, I didn't put whatever-his-name-is on ignore because he doesn't like the Beatles - that WOULD be a little harsh. I put him on ignore because his opinions on music aren't worth gak. Seriously not worth taking the time to read.
Better?
Of course I get that some misguided souls may not appreciate the Beatles's music - that's their right. Poor taste is not a crime. I freely admit to having awful taste in film, and sub-par taste in literature, for example. But, to say that the Beatles suck? That's just an ignorant statement. Didn't he also say that punk-rock peaked in the '90s? I mean, really? Wow. I'm pulling the rip-cord on this one, I think.
I understand and appreciate what the Beatles have done. I just don't like them, never have. With that said, There is a reason Baskin Robbins sells 31 flavors of ice cream. Not everyone likes vanilla. I was a club DJ for years, I have very eclectic musical tastes (for evidence here is my You Tube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/treadhead1945?feature=mhee) I know that a lot of what I like is on the "fringe" side of things. I know a lot is on the "Pop" side of things. And there is Rock and Rap and Hip Hop too. All with one common thread. I like it. I don't like the Beatles, you do. We both like Kylie Minogue. We both don't like Keith Urban (guess on my part). You consider something to be good taste. I consider something to be bad taste. OH NOES!!11!! It's the same thing! What do we do?
Agree to disagree, give each other play lists to try to convince each other of our inherent rightness. And the sun will still set in the West and rise in the East.
Anyhow, I didn't put whatever-his-name-is on ignore because he doesn't like the Beatles - that WOULD be a little harsh. I put him on ignore because his opinions on music aren't worth gak. Seriously not worth taking the time to read.
Better?
Of course I get that some misguided souls may not appreciate the Beatles's music - that's their right. Poor taste is not a crime. I freely admit to having awful taste in film, and sub-par taste in literature, for example. But, to say that the Beatles suck? That's just an ignorant statement. Didn't he also say that punk-rock peaked in the '90s? I mean, really? Wow. I'm pulling the rip-cord on this one, I think.
Nope I made the qoute about punk rock peaking in the early nineties (and I like the Beetles) Bands like screw32, strung out etc came out of that era and they were fething good as opposed to gak old skool punk like the sex pistols and the buzzcocks and other arty farty drivel. late eighties stuff is okay DK and RKL beingfavourites but for the most part I prefer skate punk it was honest it was fast and to me thats what punk rock should be.
I would respectfully disagree. For me, punk is about societal transgression, iconoclasm and equality of access. Three chords and the truth, or rather a specific version of it. Socially, punk has never been as important as it was in the late '70s, therefore I can confidently state that this is the period in which the form peaked. It still had the shock of the new - without that, and absent the original social context, punk is just badly-played pop music and a series of pseudo-'edgy' aesthetic gestures.
Amaya wrote:I agree that the Beatles are overrated, but only in the sense that they are 'the greatest band ever.' Saying that the Beatles flat out suck is incredibly ignorant.
This word you used... "ignorant"... I do not think it means what you think it means.
The Beatles were influencial. This has no correlation to whether or not the band is any good. (the Sex Pistols were also very influencial, but nobody ever thinks of them as talented musicians)
The Beatles were popular. This has no correlation to whether or not the band is any good. (Justin Bieber is popular, but nobody ever things of him as being a talented musician)
The Beatles were very skilled musicians. This does not necessarily correlate to whether or not the band is any good. (Lots of people can play many instruments well, but that doesn't mean that the talent isn't being wasted.)
Lyrically, the Beatles find themselves on the same shelf with Raffi and Sharon, Lois & Bram. Again, even John Lennon himself suggested that much of McCartney's songwriting was terrible. While many of The Beatles' arrangements are quite complex, their lyrics are shallow and vapid. (again, see Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and Maxwell's Silver Hammer)
So, here is why I think they suck:
1) Vapid lyrics
2) Boring
3) Dishonest & pretentious. (Lennon was even killed over this -I'm not saying he deserved it, I'm just saying that it was so pronounced that a crazy man acted on it.)
4) So Goddamned boring
Yet here we are, 40 years after their last recorded albulm and without any major marketing on their part, still talking about them and buying their albums with most people liking or even loving their music.
See, this is ignorant. Here's two reasons why:
1) "without any major marketing on their part". My friend, you may not be aware of this, but The Beatles were the most-marketed band in the world.
2) "most people" is hyperbole, what you mean to say is "a lot of people". And I addressed this in the post that you even quoted, wherein I stated that popularity does not necessarily correlate to being a good band. If you think it does, then you must admit that Justin Bieber is, too.
Gotta be something there if people like them so many years later.
KingCracker wrote:Totally disagree about the Doors. They were a fantastic band with very talented musicians. Not to mention, their style was more like free formed Jazz, where you just kindda GO with the music.
Two things about this: The first is an anecdote. One time, while getting ready to begin their set at CBGB, the Ramones each began playing a different song. They then threw their instruments down in disgust with themselves and left. Some people would argue that this was their first and only attempt to play free-flow jazz.
The second thing is a joke, but not really:
Q: What's the difference between free-flow jazz, and a group of autistics falling into a pile of musical instruments?
A: donkey-caves rarely pay to see autistics.
KingCracker wrote:Jimi Hendrix - Now I know your fething trolling. Hendrix?! REALLY?!?!? The guy LITERALLY changed the face of rock. Before he picked up his guitar and started doing his thing, it was done totally different. You simply cannot say Hendrix sucked, or was over rated. I have a CD where it plays all acoustic and plays all types of blues and songs of his own, and its fantastic. He definitely isnt 1 dimensional.
I love Jimi Hendrix. You should read exactly what I said. Let me repeat myself:
The Jimi Hendrix Experience - I'm not gonna knock Hendrix, because I'm not an idiot. I know he was incredible, for the short time he was on the charts. But keep in mind that in hindsight he gains the benefit of the 'James Dean' effect: he died before anyone could tell whether or not he was merely one-dimentional, and thus we naturally assume that he would have always been as awesome as he was for his brief time. However, it's not fair to assume that he would have continued as such. For all we know, he could have ended up just like Jefferson Airplane.
Relapse wrote:Gotta be something there if people like The Beatles so many years later.
New Kids On The Block also sold out stadiums recently, despite the fact that they are all in their late 40s by now. Do you think they were great musicians?
My god this thread is starting to look /mu/ The musical elitism is getting so think you can cut it with a knife
Come for the rock, stay for people arguing over what is "Good music"
Just because someone doesn't like a band doesn't make them an idiot, ignorant, or worthless human being. Everyone has their own preferences, and it doesn't matter what you're listening to. As long as you're not forcing your choices on others, then you could be listening to barney's "I love you" on loop and I wouldn't care. This arguing is what scares many people away, thinking we're all insane music snobs. If I was a guy who didn't listen to much rock music and stumbled across this thread, I know it would definitely make me think twice about my choice of music.
With the whole disagreeing with people about what bands are "good" and "bad", just chill out guys. It's friggin music, if they want to or not listen to something that's their choice. I don't like the beatles, so I don't listen to them. I don't care about them, and don't really look into them. That doesn't make me an idiot or some sort of insane person who hates music, I just don't like the Beatles. Everyone has that one band they don't care about. I know guys who call themselves metalheads who don't care for Black Sabbath. I've met guys who listen to hard rock and don't listen to AC/DC, etc. That's their choice. If I really like the band they don't care for, I may offer to play a more obscure song that I really like, but I never try to force it down their throats.
Besides, we're all here because we love Rock in one form or another, what's the point in being so hostile to each other? We should be saving that energy for the next time a guy tells us to turn it down.
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
Besides, we're all here because we love Rock in one form or another, what's the point in being so hostile to each other? We should be saving that energy for the next time a guy tells us to turn it down.
KingCracker wrote:Totally disagree about the Doors. They were a fantastic band with very talented musicians. Not to mention, their style was more like free formed Jazz, where you just kindda GO with the music.
Two things about this: The first is an anecdote. One time, while getting ready to begin their set at CBGB, the Ramones each began playing a different song. They then threw their instruments down in disgust with themselves and left. Some people would argue that this was their first and only attempt to play free-flow jazz.
The second thing is a joke, but not really:
Q: What's the difference between free-flow jazz, and a group of autistics falling into a pile of musical instruments?
A: donkey-caves rarely pay to see autistics.
KingCracker wrote:Jimi Hendrix - Now I know your fething trolling. Hendrix?! REALLY?!?!? The guy LITERALLY changed the face of rock. Before he picked up his guitar and started doing his thing, it was done totally different. You simply cannot say Hendrix sucked, or was over rated. I have a CD where it plays all acoustic and plays all types of blues and songs of his own, and its fantastic. He definitely isnt 1 dimensional.
I love Jimi Hendrix. You should read exactly what I said. Let me repeat myself:
The Jimi Hendrix Experience - I'm not gonna knock Hendrix, because I'm not an idiot. I know he was incredible, for the short time he was on the charts. But keep in mind that in hindsight he gains the benefit of the 'James Dean' effect: he died before anyone could tell whether or not he was merely one-dimentional, and thus we naturally assume that he would have always been as awesome as he was for his brief time. However, it's not fair to assume that he would have continued as such. For all we know, he could have ended up just like Jefferson Airplane.
Relapse wrote:Gotta be something there if people like The Beatles so many years later.
New Kids On The Block also sold out stadiums recently, despite the fact that they are all in their late 40s by now. Do you think they were great musicians?
I love how you left out the part where I was talking about how he WASNT 1 dimensional. Jeez, gotta love internet jerk offs. As to the Doors, Im not making the connection between them and the Ramones at all. Would try and at least clear up what ever point you were trying (and failing) to make?
Besides, we're all here because we love Rock in one form or another, what's the point in being so hostile to each other? We should be saving that energy for the next time a guy tells us to turn it down.
Well said.
Well some people may be here because they hate rock and wanted to see how it was dying...
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
KingCracker wrote:Jimi Hendrix - Now I know your fething trolling. Hendrix?! REALLY?!?!? The guy LITERALLY changed the face of rock. Before he picked up his guitar and started doing his thing, it was done totally different. You simply cannot say Hendrix sucked, or was over rated. I have a CD where it plays all acoustic and plays all types of blues and songs of his own, and its fantastic. He definitely isnt 1 dimensional.
I love Jimi Hendrix. You should read exactly what I said. Let me repeat myself:
The Jimi Hendrix Experience - I'm not gonna knock Hendrix, because I'm not an idiot. I know he was incredible, for the short time he was on the charts. But keep in mind that in hindsight he gains the benefit of the 'James Dean' effect: he died before anyone could tell whether or not he was merely one-dimentional, and thus we naturally assume that he would have always been as awesome as he was for his brief time. However, it's not fair to assume that he would have continued as such. For all we know, he could have ended up just like Jefferson Airplane.
Hendrix was a Bluesman. Bluesmen don't sell out, except to the devil for the ability to play guitar
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Azazel's pretentiousness is really quite annoying. I hardly listen to the Beatles and the Doors. I don't even listen to or remotely like Led Zeppelin. Jimi Hendrix is without a doubt one of the greatest guitarists AND singers in the history of rock.
Limiting it those four bands is just ignorant. There are dozens of bands from the 60s, 70s that are better than post 2000~ groups. Rock has really declined since the 80s since its fall as the most popular genre.
Ill agree to that., though personally I like Zeppelin and the Doors. Also agreed, you cant really use only 4 groups in a genre as your example as to why its good/bad. There were MANY groups that made rock what it is, and those groups seemed to change from one decade to another. I still think on the top of my list though, is Pink Floyd. Good lord that was a fantastic band. Hendrix wasnt that great of a singer though, Ill admit. His voice worked well for his sound though, you can give him that
Amaya wrote: Rock has really declined since the 80s since its fall as the most popular genre.
Nirvana, The Pixies, Sonic Youth, At the Drive In, Dinosaur Jnr, My Bloody Valentine and Radiohead. All amazing bands from late 80s/early 90s, but not much since. I almost think that rock got creative after the british invasion of the 60s, and was then killed by britpop in the late 90s.
Amaya wrote:Listening to "All Along the Watchtower" without him singing just sounds wrong to me.
considering its a cover song... I actually heard the original (i think its a bob dylan song... could be wrong there), and I have to say that I greatly prefer the Hendrix version.
Amaya wrote: Rock has really declined since the 80s since its fall as the most popular genre.
Nirvana, The Pixies, Sonic Youth, At the Drive In, Dinosaur Jnr, My Bloody Valentine and Radiohead. All amazing bands from late 80s/early 90s, but not much since. I almost think that rock got creative after the british invasion of the 60s, and was then killed by britpop in the late 90s.
Rage Against the Machine was pretty decent as well.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Amaya wrote:Listening to "All Along the Watchtower" without him singing just sounds wrong to me.
considering its a cover song... I actually heard the original (i think its a bob dylan song... could be wrong there), and I have to say that I greatly prefer the Hendrix version.
It's a Bob Dylan song, but he actually said he prefers Jimi's version and plays it as a tribute to him now.
Amaya wrote: Rock has really declined since the 80s since its fall as the most popular genre.
Nirvana, The Pixies, Sonic Youth, At the Drive In, Dinosaur Jnr, My Bloody Valentine and Radiohead. All amazing bands from late 80s/early 90s, but not much since. I almost think that rock got creative after the british invasion of the 60s, and was then killed by britpop in the late 90s.
Tool's arguable peak came in 96 with Aenima (I actually like all of their stuff, 10,000 Days was a brilliant album), So there are still a few diamonds out there for us in recent years for "mainstream rock"... If you go down the heavy metal path, there are bands like Lamb of God that are more recent than the mid 90s, and I really dig them.
....Wait, Bob Dylan prefers the Hendrix version to his own song? I'm slightly confused there.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/17 01:40:56
Amaya wrote: Rock has really declined since the 80s since its fall as the most popular genre.
Nirvana, The Pixies, Sonic Youth, At the Drive In, Dinosaur Jnr, My Bloody Valentine and Radiohead. All amazing bands from late 80s/early 90s, but not much since. I almost think that rock got creative after the british invasion of the 60s, and was then killed by britpop in the late 90s.
Rage Against the Machine was pretty decent as well.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Amaya wrote:Listening to "All Along the Watchtower" without him singing just sounds wrong to me.
considering its a cover song... I actually heard the original (i think its a bob dylan song... could be wrong there), and I have to say that I greatly prefer the Hendrix version.
It's a Bob Dylan song, but he actually said he prefers Jimi's version and plays it as a tribute to him now.
hell yes to Rage. Jimi's version of Sunshine of your love is better than Cream's too.
edit: and tool , and perfect circle, and screaming trees. and mogwai. struggling to think of anything formed post 2000.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/17 01:50:44
Amaya wrote: Rock has really declined since the 80s since its fall as the most popular genre.
Nirvana, The Pixies, Sonic Youth, At the Drive In, Dinosaur Jnr, My Bloody Valentine and Radiohead. All amazing bands from late 80s/early 90s, but not much since. I almost think that rock got creative after the british invasion of the 60s, and was then killed by britpop in the late 90s.
Rage Against the Machine was pretty decent as well.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Amaya wrote:Listening to "All Along the Watchtower" without him singing just sounds wrong to me.
considering its a cover song... I actually heard the original (i think its a bob dylan song... could be wrong there), and I have to say that I greatly prefer the Hendrix version.
It's a Bob Dylan song, but he actually said he prefers Jimi's version and plays it as a tribute to him now.
hell yes to Rage. Jimi's version of Sunshine of your love is better than Cream's too.
edit: and tool , and perfect circle, and screaming trees. and mogwai. struggling to think of anything formed post 2000.
Electric Six! C'mon I dare someone to not smile whilst watching this
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Amaya wrote:Azazel's pretentiousness is really quite annoying. I hardly listen to the Beatles and the Doors. I don't even listen to or remotely like Led Zeppelin. Jimi Hendrix is without a doubt one of the greatest guitarists AND singers in the history of rock.
Limiting it those four bands is just ignorant. There are dozens of bands from the 60s, 70s that are better than post 2000~ groups. Rock has really declined since the 80s since its fall as the most popular genre.
I believe I have justifed every claim that I have made within my posts. You may disagree with my justifications, however they are still present. Ergo, your are incorrectly using the term 'pretentiousness' here. And I believe I rattled off the top 4 most likely culprits in my original post; at no point did I claim that list to be complete or all-encompassing.
But thanks for showing up.
KingCracker wrote:I love how you left out the part where I was talking about how he WASNT 1 dimensional. Jeez, gotta love internet jerk offs. As to the Doors, Im not making the connection between them and the Ramones at all. Would try and at least clear up what ever point you were trying (and failing) to make?
Maybe you're right, and Jimi Hendrix wasn't one-dimensional. My point is that he didn't hang around long enough for us to see how well he would have progressed and evolved. For all we know, he may have turned out like the Rolling Stones, who absolutely gave up even trying to create decent music after 1974. (I'm not trolling; I'm just still bitter that they weren't arrested for stealing everyone's money when they sold their "Voodoo Lounge" album.)
Anyways, regarding free-flow jazz: my point was mostly hyperbole, but the general idea that I was trying to convey is that every time a musician is incapable of maintaining any consistency, or produce anything of quality, they may as well call it free-flow jazz.
Because free-flow jazz is what happens every time someone is terrible and fails.
This is what almost all free-flow jazz sounds like to me:
Azrael, you must be some kind of superior musician with all the strong statements you've put forrward. Do you have anything we can listen to out there?
I'd be interested in hearing it.
