Page 2 of 10
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:02 pm
by Cail
I knew someone would bring up Floyd.
As I've said before, I don't see what all the fuss is about with TDSotM. It's not a bad album by any stretch, but I think WYWH is far, far superior.
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:05 pm
by A Gunslinger
Cail wrote:I knew someone would bring up Floyd.
As I've said before, I don't see what all the fuss is about with TDSotM. It's not a bad album by any stretch, but I think WYWH is far, far superior.
I always like d the Final Cut as well as Waters' Radio Waves! Cail, what do you think of my thoughts on the Beatles?
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:20 pm
by Cail
I waffle on The Beatles.
When I was growing up in the '70s, Beatlemania was still raging, and the songs were constantly on the radio. I got really, really sick of them.
In the last 10 years or so (since the Anthology came out with all the alternate takes), I've begun to appreciate what they did. I think their songwriting is hit-or-miss, but the arrangements and the production on a great deal of their stuff is pretty impressive. I still don't consider myself a fan, but I certainly respect their contribution to music.
I think Waters's solo stuff is uneven at best, just plain bad at worst.
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:23 pm
by A Gunslinger
Cail wrote:I waffle on The Beatles.
When I was growing up in the '70s, Beatlemania was still raging, and the songs were constantly on the radio. I got really, really sick of them.
In the last 10 years or so (since the Anthology came out with all the alternate takes), I've begun to appreciate what they did. I think their songwriting is hit-or-miss, but the arrangements and the production on a great deal of their stuff is pretty impressive. I still don't consider myself a fan, but I certainly respect their contribution to music.
I think Waters's solo stuff is uneven at best, just plain bad at worst.
Yeah Amused to Death save for "What God Wants" is pretty forgettable...however Radio Waves is pretty damn good.
I just freak out when I think that the Beatles recorded many of their greastest stuff with the studio equivalent of sticks and stones knives.
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:26 pm
by Cail
Yeah, that's what's so impressive about them. Recording technology was archaic back then.
I guess the other thing I have to give them is that it's pretty amazing that the band that recorded "Love Me Do" is the same band that recorded "Strawberry Fields".
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:28 pm
by A Gunslinger
Cail wrote:Yeah, that's what's so impressive about them. Recording technology was archaic back then.
I guess the other thing I have to give them is that it's pretty amazing that the band that recorded "Love Me Do" is the same band that recorded "Strawberry Fields".
Again I say All hail Bob Dylan! He thought that the lyrics in I wanna Hold Your Hand were "I get high, I get high, i get High", not "I can't hide...". He got them all high...the rest is history. I don't much like the early Beatles unless they are covinr Buddy Holly or some such thing.
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:50 pm
by stonemaybe
Brinn wrote:
Radiohead.
Amen!
Me too. Don't dislike them, but what is there to like???????
Also, every 'ballad' ever performed by a rock group.
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:19 am
by Loredoctor
Radiohead
ColdPlay
Led Zeppelin
Eminem
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:20 am
by Phantasm
I've never got why Oasis were so big in the UK - a wannabe latter day beatles for my money.
The Beatles - not a big fan, but they were great in their day and I can't see why anyone would decry them.
Spice Girls - a total waste of Vinyl ( showing my age)
Any rap music - it just sounds so hostile with no point to it
I'm a big fan of guitar based rock. Long live Queen.

Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:25 am
by onewyteduck
With the exception of a couple of tunes, I never understood why everyone thinks the Stones are so great and Mick Jagger is SOOOOO NOT sexy.

Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:53 am
by matrixman
Agree with Duckie, I also don't get why the Stones were so popular and why they remain so.
I don't understand the wide acclaim that The Who got.
I don't see what all the fuss is about Rush, and about prog rock in general. On the other hand, I love Yes's 90125 album, maybe precisely because it is a more "commercial" production with - gasp! - hit songs.
I think I asked this before elsewhere, but is Radiohead considered prog rock? If yes, then I guess I actually do like prog rock - done the Radiohead way. It's possible that I misunderstand Rush the same way that I initially misunderstood Radiohead, before the latter group's OK Computer made a fan out of me. Maybe I just listened to the wrong Rush album. Who knows? But it should be said that Geddy Lee's singing got on my nerves more than Thom Yorke's ever did.
If Radiohead isn't considered prog rock, then that just reaffirms my stance toward that genre.
I generally don't get what is so exciting about Pink Floyd's music. I respect the band's musicianship, and I admire their studio wizardry...but most of their music bores me the way the Beatles apparently bore most people here.
I don't get why Van Halen was such a successful band and sold the amount of records that they did over the years. Was it because they were a great live act? Was it because of David Lee Roth's hair and/or crotch? What? Is it because of Eddie Van Halen? The band did have a couple of entertaining songs I liked, especially Jump, but that's about it.
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:30 pm
by Cail
Van Halen's one of those love-'em-or-hate-'em bands. They are great live, especially with Dave. I think it's because they never tried to be anything but a good-time hard rock band, and they were very good at that.
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:45 pm
by Loredoctor
Mr Bungle. Crap music.
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:12 pm
by drew
I'm in the same boat as many of you.
The BEatles...I like them..I just don't understand what all the fuss is/was about...they seem no better than any other band from that time (to me anyways)
Pink Flyod is another one. I know they are good musicians and everything...but their songs are soooo borring (to me anyways)
The Tragically Hip. Really they're only big in Canada...but they're too damn big in Canada.
Same as the two above...they're good, but not THAT good.
What about Madonna? She's got no more talent than most singers in her genre, and really, most female pop singers are attractive, why is she the most popular?
Justin Timberlake. I don't hink any explanation is needed here.
Garth Brooks...again, no better than most country singers...maybe even a little lower on the scale, yet somehow he put country back on the mainstream.
Basically, I think being demi-gods when you're a mucician boils down to being in the right place at the right time.
Like if the Beatles came out in the early eighties with the same songs, they would have gone nowhere.
The same with any of the others I listed. I know that Folyd has been around for years; but if they didn't come out hen they did and build up a fan base, then they wouldn't be as popular.
After a muciacian gets so popular, they can put out anything and it will sell.
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:10 pm
by A Gunslinger
Madonna is more a pop spectacle than anything else. An entertainer. I did like "Ray of Light" a lot though.
Modern Top 40 country is a sack of steaming fetid crap.
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:55 pm
by duchess of malfi
Nirvana.
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:03 pm
by matrixman
I like to think I "get" Madonna. I've mostly liked her music since her "Like A Virgin" days. Also, she is the female David Bowie, if you will, in her ability to change her image and adapt to the times. So there have been different "versions" of Madonna through the years, and I find that aspect of her interesting. Just don't ask me about her movies: I avoid them like the plague.
I will have to check out Ray of Light one of these days. I've heard that it's one of her best albums.
Drew, I would agree that musicians who've become demi-gods probably achieved that status by being in the right place at the right time. Nirvana is a perfect, perfect example (thanks, duchess) - though I do think highly of their
In Utero album. That's fickle pop culture in action. So we end up here asking why this band over here is so revered while that band over there isn't and so on.
I'm as guilty anyone else of adoring certain artists to a fault. For instance, I buy any new U2 CD without question. Or Kate Bush. Or The Police (if they were still around).
As for the Tragically Hip...haha, sometimes I feel like I'm the only person in Canada who has never heard their music.
And good call on Garth Brooks. How he ended up being the biggest-selling artist of all time (or so I've read) is beyond my comprehension. Outsold the Beatles? Elvis? Crazy.
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:58 pm
by dlbpharmd
I certainly agree with
The Beatles
The Who
The Rolling Stones
Rush
Nirvana
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:26 pm
by stonemaybe
U2
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:36 pm
by The Laughing Man
Classical and Opera.
oh yeah, Jazz too.
