[adrift]

Quote:

Originally Posted by limpidglitch /img/forum/go_quote.gif Like this?: I'm starting to get a little suspicious too.

Right up until the pope Benedict XVI part its actually pretty believable.

 

[hiddenninja]

Metallica are not sell-outs at all, and never truly were, even when they branched out to different styles of music. Those who say otherwise are obviously stubborn metalheads who are stuck in the past and can't get into anything that's not "metal" to them.

Oh, and I also think Dragonforce has some legitimately good talent in recent years. They just sounded like **** early on, but now they seem to play their hits with no real issue live.

 

[muxenle]

dragon force: that still doesn't change the fact that a lot of their songs sound amazingly simmilar to each other(at least a lot of their older stuff) and I hadn't heard about them getting better live; but to me they will always be known as studioforce(and this is the band that intercuded me to into the world of metal)

 

[reorx]

Heh, this thread more than anything else shows how different people's tastes are. I absolutely fell in love with Neutral Milk Hotel's Aeroplane on the first listen, while some here never liked it. Its all good, its just refreshing to see that there really are no "sacred cows" in music when you bring a bunch of music lovers of all ages, nationalities and backgrounds together.

All the seemingly "untouchable" bands have been mentioned already: Beatles, Pink Floyd, Stones, Hendrix, Radiohead, U2...

I think Jim Morrison was an unbelievably pretentious dick, and "The End" is living proof of his pompous pretentiousness. Ugh.

Yup, ya heard one Dragonforce song, ya heard em all.

I dont get all the love Pavement gets. I mean, their songs are O-K, but i cant believe how revered they are in indie circles.

Muse is prog music watered down for the masses

I understand their contribution to 80s music and beyond, but I cannot for the life of me sit through an entire Joy Division album.

George was a much better song writer than John or Paul, even moreso in their solo years. Best post-Beatle song by a Beatle is George's Rising Sun. Hands down.

I get Deerhoof, Deerhunter and Caribou all mixed up and

 

[adrift]

Quote:

Originally Posted by reorx /img/forum/go_quote.gif I understand their contribution to 80s music and beyond, but I cannot for the life of me sit through an entire Joy Division album.

If you find you can't get through an entire Joy Division album, maybe try a tribute album like A Means to an End: The Music of Joy Division. I wasn't really that familiar with Joy Division until that album came out and I immediately fell in love with them. I'm not a fan of all the bands on it, but the songs are strong enough to make it worth a listen.

 

[fuseboxx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by reorx /img/forum/go_quote.gif I understand their contribution to 80s music and beyond, but I cannot for the life of me sit through an entire Joy Division album.

Yeah, I can relate to this since I couldn't get into JD for a long time. Even now, I don't really dig them but I could get through and appreciate both their albums for what they are.

 

[darcyb62]

Quote:

Originally Posted by reorx /img/forum/go_quote.gif George was a much better song writer than John or Paul, even moreso in their solo years. Best post-Beatle song by a Beatle is George's Rising Sun. Hands down.

I would agree with this.

 

[scompton]

Quote:

Originally Posted by reorx /img/forum/go_quote.gif George was a much better song writer than John or Paul, even moreso in their solo years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darcyb62 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would agree with this.

I don't think this is controversial at all. It may even be the majority opinion.

 

[MatchFire]

With the exception of a few choice songs, John Lennon's solo work was very unimpressive.

 

[setamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kikkomang /img/forum/go_quote.gif mozart i dislike his music

Too many notes.....

 

[Moontan13]

When an artist finally has a break-through and has a genuine hit album, all further albums will be a re-hash of the hit.

 

[Moontan13]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiddenninja /img/forum/go_quote.gif Metallica are not sell-outs at all, and never truly were, even when they branched out to different styles of music. Those who say otherwise are obviously stubborn metalheads who are stuck in the past and can't get into anything that's not "metal" to them.

Agree completely, even though I prefer most of the old to most of the new.

 

[MoodySteve]

Well, this is going to go over like a lead balloon, even in this ‘controversy-embracing’ thread. Those who are familiar with my music tastes will not be surprised in the slightest.

I think that music with lead vocals (i.e. sung vocals with understandable lyrics that constitute the main melody of the song) is inherently inferior to instrumental music. In instrumental music, the tones, timbres and rhythms tell the story to the listener in the abstract language of music. In vocal-centric music, the singer tells the listener the story in plain human language, leaving much less to the listener’s interpretation and imagination. The words and feelings are those of the singer. The other instruments and sounds are normally just accoutrements to decorate the vocal, but have little musical value of their own. I have heard VERY few vocal-led songs that would be even slightly interesting if the vocal were removed.

Another implication of this is that vocal-centric music cannot generally evoke imagery or emotion that is not neatly describable through language.

I see vocal-centric music as a hybrid of poetry and music, and not purely music. I know more music fans that care about lyrics than those that care about the actual music. I’ve heard the claim that this may be because people really like to sing, and besides church chorals, the only times most people feel comfortable singing is singing along to a tune. I think that claim has some merit.

That said, I have NO problems with using the human voice in general – it’s an incredibly beautiful and versatile instrument. I just think that music that features overly prominent vocals tends to be musically simple and uninteresting.

Yes, I’ve listened to plenty of vocal-centric music through the ages. I’ve gone through phases of grunge, hard rock, metal, black metal, classic rock, industrial, hip hop and underground hip hop. Even my beloved favorite albums from those genres don’t even come close to my favorites in the instrumental/electronic genres in terms of enjoyability, compositional complexity and for lack of a better word, potency.

 

[scompton]

In general I agree. When the singing starts, the music dies. It's not always true though. I listen to a lot of world music sung in languages I don't understand and it's not as true there. It could be though that non English songs without much music aren't marketed in the US because no one would buy it.

 

[adrift]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoodySteve /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, this is going to go over like a lead balloon, even in this ‘controversy-embracing’ thread. Those who are familiar with my music tastes will not be surprised in the slightest. I think that music with lead vocals (i.e. sung vocals with understandable lyrics that constitute the main melody of the song) is inherently inferior to instrumental music. In instrumental music, the tones, timbres and rhythms tell the story to the listener in the abstract language of music. In vocal-centric music, the singer tells the listener the story in plain human language, leaving much less to the listener’s interpretation and imagination. The words and feelings are those of the singer. The other instruments and sounds are normally just accoutrements to decorate the vocal, but have little musical value of their own. I have heard VERY few vocal-led songs that would be even slightly interesting if the vocal were removed. Another implication of this is that vocal-centric music cannot generally evoke imagery or emotion that is not neatly describable through language. I see vocal-centric music as a hybrid of poetry and music, and not purely music. I know more music fans that care about lyrics than those that care about the actual music. I’ve heard the claim that this may be because people really like to sing, and besides church chorals, the only times most people feel comfortable singing is singing along to a tune. I think that claim has some merit. That said, I have NO problems with using the human voice in general – it’s an incredibly beautiful and versatile instrument. I just think that music that features overly prominent vocals tends to be musically simple and uninteresting. Yes, I’ve listened to plenty of vocal-centric music through the ages. I’ve gone through phases of grunge, hard rock, metal, black metal, classic rock, industrial, hip hop and underground hip hop. Even my beloved favorite albums from those genres don’t even come close to my favorites in the instrumental/electronic genres in terms of enjoyability, compositional complexity and for lack of a better word, potency.

What do you feel about bands like Dead Can Dance or Cocteau Twins where the vocals are often the prominent instrument.

How bout opera, barbershop quartets, madrigal, beatboxing, gospel, choir, etc.?