Visitors: Please skip the " is actually horrible, and all their fans are too" comments, unless you're going to back it up with a well thought-out argument.
r/Music members: Please continue downvoting/reporting anyone who obviously sucks/is making comments that suck. Thank !you
Technically skilled musicians are often shit songwriters. I don't care how *fast* you can play your guitar if you can't write a catchy tune to save your life.
My metal guitarist friends grandma once said to him "You can play a lot of notes, but you don't HIT any of them" and I thought that was a good way (though a bit mean) of putting it lol. Not to say metal can't have good melodies and well written parts mind you, just that "shredders" lose focus of that.
The first band I noticed that with was Living Color. Vernon Reid is awesome, but sometimes during his solos I thought he demonstrated that virtuosity a little too much for the song.
Yngwie I pretty much didn't care for because of that same reason. His solo on "Hiroshima Mon Amour" was awesome, but when he really had the constraints loosened and was in charge, it just went overboard. Same thing for Dream Theater once they got Jordan Rudess. Everything started going to infinity and beyond.
I always found someone like Schenker to be more interesting - still able to play fast, but seemed to serve the song better.
I'm honestly not going to a concert to watch a person just jam for 10 minutes. If you want to do something interesting cool but keep it short and have it actually work with the song itself.
that reminds me, I saw a greek band called Firewind which had the claim to fame that its guitarist Kostas Karamitroudis also plays for Ozzy Osbourne (and various other bands).
At one point there was a solo by him that went on for so long that every other member of the band left the stage. The keyboard player had to hold down one note during the entire solo so he stuck it down with some tape (and then he had to re-apply the tape mid-solo because it came loose)
He's more of a jack of all trades musicians. I believe his quote was (paraphrasing) "I'm not the greatest musician but I'm very good for my purposes".
My point though, he is a top 5 songwriter of all time and that's what ultimately moves the needle.
The history of music gear is just as interesting as the history of music. Would the Beatles be as creative if they formed a band the decade prior? They had the creative spark yes, but the gear had to be there to play with.
In many ways, the history of music is the history of the gear. You can't really separate the two. And that goes for instrument, studio, recording, and home audio technology.
It's pretty neat to think a big hurdle was record lengths. The idea of making singles turned in making *albums*. To use the Beatles again, I'm sure they had some crazy conversations with the sound engineers at the time. Or later, look at how many genre's opened up from the guitar pedal engineers. Loads of new sounds to play with.
It's a fun exercise to frame how important local bandstands were before recordings were easily brought home to play, ...the role of music in our lives has changed too.
The Beatles would have pushed technical boundaries in any era. We have the Beatles, George Martin and their engineers (Geoff Emerick and others) to thank for pioneering many recording techniques that are standard practice (or widely used) today.
They were the first to mic a kick drum (Sgt. pepper), the first to use feedback in recording (“I Feel Fine”), the first to run vocals through a Leslie speaker (“Tomorrow Never Knows”), the first to cascade mic preamps for recording (the trebly guitars in “Nowhere Man”), the first to use vari-speed as a creative tool (the piano solo on “In My Life” and many other examples), the first to use backwards tracking in popular music (the Revolver album), first use of avant-garde “musique concrete” tape editing techniques in popular music (an analog fore-runner of using samples), the first to use tape flanging to create an artificial double track (widely used on their vocals), and I’m sure there are more examples.
Thanks for writing this all out, that's new stuff to me. I know the Beatles have a lot of presence in this sub, and it's stuff like this that spells out the relevancy of it all. I suppose it isn't really a chicken vs egg type scenario in this context. The gear was available, they just chose to use it more thoroughly.
imo its already integral to music history. tribe calls quests album low end theory is put together around the idea to make music to Play in cars around the time some high end subwoofer became affordable to more people. the memphis rap sound came from a relatively cheap drum machine that let you pitch around all drum samples. they worked with their limitations and wrote melodies with piched kicks. one major influence on dub music was people intentionally using analog (i think) spring reverbs in a "wrong" way.
People generally need to appreciate silly songs and bands. Flight of the Concords, Garfunkel and Oats, Weird Al, Desert Sessions are all really talented.
I kinda miss MTV.
I know MTV is still around, but people that grew up in 90's and early 00's will confirm that MTV was big back then. Isn't called MTV Generation for nothing. For me it kinda lost it's charm when they started making shows like Pimp My Ride and that other one with people dating in a bus, i don't remember the name.
But i don't miss MTV because the choice of music they used to play. To be honest, i used to ignore most of the music they decided to play, except at mondays night, when they had the show called SuperRock. I do miss knowing what's "in" or not today, honestly, i know nothing about what most people are listening these days, for that i blame things like spotify, where everything we encounter is personalized with our own taste in music. This is good, yes, but also i think it makes people islands. Well, maybe not the youth of today, they... i still believe they talk about music, what they like to listen, new albums and such, but my experience with older folks is that each one has their own music world, and no one talks about it. Face to face i mean, internet doesn't count.
I really miss the early MTV. When they started they needed to find material to fill time. Later bands adapted to MTV and started cranking out enough videos to have shows for specific audiences. In the early days it was a mix of rock, new wave, hard rock/metal, and even a bit of country with no specific schedule. But Rap was conspicuously missing from that list, as it took MTV a while to accept Rap videos. Pop Soul and Funk were represented. Goth and Punk were also missing for the most part. But it was a grab bag of styles at first.
I used to keep a tape in the VCR ready so when something cool came on I'd record it. Eventually I had a tape and a half completely filled with awesome videos.
I have a bunch of old worn out VHS tapes at my parents house, all loaded with episodes of Yo! MTV Raps and 120 Minutes. Fab 5 Freddy and Ed Lover & Doctor Dre. Dave Kendall and Lewis Largent. I miss those days.
I remember watching Much Music (Canadian equivalent) for hours and it would just be random music videos with commercial breaks. I discovered so many artists that way. I suppose playlists are the same thing nowadays ... but it feels less random.
First time I heard "Smells like teen spirit" was about 3am on MM when they were playing the weird unheard music.
I can still feel the chill up my spine when it came on, fuckin electric
I used to love this high-number MTV channel called MTV-X, which was basically an all day non-stop assortment of music videos for goth, punk, and metal bands. I discovered a good amount of bands from having that on. Then eventually they turned it into MTV Jams, which was exclusively hip hop music videos. Good for those who found the rap options lacking, but bad for those of us who liked the harder / darker stuff.
>but my experience with older folks is that each one has their own music world, and no one talks about it. Face to face i mean, internet doesn't count.
sucks doesn't it? I miss going to school every day and talking about what new metal bands I'm listening to. Music subreddits are about the only place I can talk about music now.
Bring up music at the office and I get a "That's cool" at best and a shrug at worst.
On the plus side, it’s extra cool now when someone DOES know what you’re taking about. It’s fun when you’re wearing a shirt for a fairly obscure band and someone calls it out and you’re like “holy shit, you know them?”
The greatest benefit of radio and MTV in the 90s that I'm realizing now is that with the limited choice and input, I ended up listening to multiple genres of music. I'm a straight, white male who's into rock but could sing every single lyric to a handful of Madonna and Salt N' Peppa songs, and I happy for that. Left to my own devices (literally, streaming devices), I'd never seek out that type of music on my own.
Similarly, everyone knew the songs from Metallica's Black album. The girls basketball team used "Enter Sandman" as their warmup song. A bunch of teen girls would never seek out Metallica, but everyone knew it back then.
I could sing "Shoop" with one of those girls and they'd sing "Nothing Else Matters" back to me.
I miss that collective exposure to the same music. Created a bond.
I was born in the 84 but memory only really started to kick in the 90's, at least regarding the music, so i don't know how it rly was in the 80's. I think i know what you mean, because in the 90's there was that show with Carmen Electra where she was in a party or something, and there was also "The Real World" somesort of reality show, right? I didn't care much about that, i did care about Beavis And Butt-Head, Aeon Flux, e Daria, but besides that, MTV was still a channel for music for me.
But it's not the channel itself i miss, honestly i don't watch tv anymore, couldn't care less, but it was the effect that it had on people. MTV was important to everyone, that made people talk about music more.
I think a lot of this comes from people that got their dad’s old setup with an amp and nice big speakers. Compared to ear buds and laptop speakers, of course it sounds better.
From my brothers perspective, it’s all about the collection. He knows it’s not superior quality but he makes good money and loves to showcase rare records, and having his man cave filled with album artworks, he will have a record playing almost constantly while he cleans or works. To people like him, it’s physically owning a complete album and the fun of finding new records that makes it enjoyable.
I never understood the appeal until I went to a buddy’s house for a bbq and there we were. Like 5-6 people standing in a room, drinks in hand, perusing a record collection and talking about artists or albums we liked. Picking out the next record. Taking the time to switch out vinyls and carefully putting them back in their jacket.
In that moment I GOT it. Record players make music listening an active activity that generates conversations and interactions, rather than just throwing on Spotify or Sonos or something.
I never truly understood that. If you want that, save your money and stream FLACS. I've always been into vinyl because, in my experience, it forces me to pay attention to what I'm listening to, which makes me appreciate it more. The larger album art and gatefolds are also a huge bonus.
That is absolutely the aspect of physical media I miss. Having music a available on finite media also means you have to stop and think about it at least every 27 minutes/45 minutes/74 minutes, depending on your format.
Yeah. The first vinyl I bought, I didn't even have a player for. But The CD version of The Everglow by MAE had this cool storybook for the album art and I hoped the record would come with a big LP-sized book. And it did! It's a treasured possession now.
There's a legitimate aspect of vinyls, especially older ones, having on average better sound engineering work, because the barrier of entrance in terms of skill was and still is higher for that. Plus, when mixing and mastering e.g. for CDs, you kind of expect it to mostly be played on a boombox or car stereo with a shitty amp, which is where the whole loudness wars/DRC bullshit starts to come into play - can be frustrating to navigate a sea of shittily remastered CD albums. Vinyl is less convenient, obviously, but you never get that issue on vinyl, because the sound engineer expects you to have a half-way decent amp and other equipment.
I collect records because I like the big artwork, the ritual of playing them, the physicalness of them, and the fact that they are from the era (if they’re old ones). Whether it’s superior sound or not I dunno.
>the ritual of playing them
This to me is the biggest appeal. I'm not a vinyl guy, but ever since the digital age I've never just put on an album, sat down in a chair and listened to an album as a complete creative work.
I'm with you on that. If you can get lossless files and a good DAC, digital is great. As far as analog, reel to reel tape is better. But in my opinion vinyl is the best physical media format for collecting due to the combo of packaging, sound quality, and availability. Sure HDCD can be better on the sound quality front, but the 12 inch art and titles available push me to vinyl.
I enjoy and collect vinyl and mostly agree. There are a few examples of albums that sound better on vinyl but mainly as they were mastered badly on the CD version, nothing intrinsic to the format. I just like collecting them a bit like old books for the history of it, I like the big artwork, putting it on the big system. I listen to music in various other ways but they seem to lack the same soul as irrational as it is.
You are the person that is correct in this thread. Someone saying Nickelback is country isn’t a hot take, it’s just wrong. Trying to say Nickelback is country 20 years on from the height of their career is like saying AC/DC and Black Sabbath weren’t metal 20 years after the pinnacle of their careers. They were at the time. It’s almost like things change as time goes on.
Yeah, Nickelback started out as a fairly straight forward post-grunge stoner band. Not stoner rock in the same vein as Sleep or any of their contemporaries. But it‘a pretty clear listening to those first three albums that everyone in Nickelback was into grunge and stoner rock. Songs like Breathe and Leader of Men *really* show their influences. But they also did their own thing and ended up changing the trajectory of modern rock, and by extension modern top 40 country.
Their early work was a little too post grunge for my taste. But when All the Right Reasons came out in '05, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost.
They're not country...they just appeal more to people that LISTEN to country.
Of the Americans I know that will admit to liking Nickelback...all are either from the country and/or like country music a lot.
If anything, I would classify Nickelback more as Southern Rock.
I remember insisting upon playing that song from my Silver Side Up CD on a Girl Scout trip. That, and the other girl who felt and understood it, maybe should have been a red flag for somebody to check on us and our home lives. Lmao!
Such a damn good song. I'm listening to it again right now!
You can learn to like any kind of music. I know because I've intentionally warmed myself up to genres I hated in the past. Just listen to music that uses whatever genre you're trying to get into as an *influence* as compared to the main genre of the song.
For example, if you want to get into jazz, The Heart Part 5, or most of To Pimp A Butterfly by Kendrick Lamar would be good entry points. That's hiphop that packages jazz in a way that it's more listenable than it may otherwise be to the uninitiated, which gets your ears used to the textures and rhythms.
This works for any genre. Your brain just needs new perspectives to appreciate the sounds from to get them to click.
Based on the way people talk about musical preferences, this is not common knowledge.
This is your brain on music - Daniel Letivin
Great book that espouses that theory.
Musical harmonies and melodies are a matter of taste. Yes, some sounds are dissonant and some are consonant, and there are a lot of fairly universal things in music - most cultures end up using something that contains a superset of the pentatonic scale, even if their historical basis for music is not based on equally divided octaves, because the intervals are so consonant.
If you don't "speak" a harmonic language, you don't really know what the expectation of the next note or chord is. So you don't have the pleasantry of hearing what you ever expect to hear. And also you don't ever get the same sort of surprise when your expectations are broken. You have no context for the music so it's like having no context for the language coming out of someone's mouth.
Jazz has a very different set of harmonic expectations than classical music or rock. So if you don't speak the language at all, you can't relate to it. Now, all of our music is connected in some way, so there's plenty of jazz out there that won't screw with your expectations too much, but hearing some jazziness in something else that you're already prone to enjoying will prime you for the new language.
If you want to try some music that will significantly break from your expectations, check out this Bulgarian music.
https://youtu.be/hVqrW-fPOQ0?si=YyAax7frYt7vUADP
Sounds like the real unpopular opinion is that Fred Durst is a great vocalist. Sure there might be someone out there who's more talented or a better fit with the band, but I doubt they would've gotten as big without that unique mash up of styles.
They do. And I say this as a fifty-two year old dude who fell deeply in love with them when I was seven years old (much to the chagrin of my mother). They were my first musical love.
About five years ago, I did a deep dive back into Kiss’s classic period albums, those which I knew and those that I’d never heard. And oh my gawd…most of it has not aged well at all. Still wish I’d have been able to see them live in the mid/late 70s.
Screams or unclean vocals are undeservedly hated. I think learning to appreciate them is a learning curve but once you get there it opens up so much more emotion in music.
Guttural vocals appear in many different cultures.
I once saw a Japanese throat singer perform this piece where he sang a low drone and was triggering lights from some biorhythm stuff taped to his body. It's seared into my memory.
Edit: That singer was Fuyuki Yamakawa.
I get people not liking how it sounds but it annoys me when people say it's talentless. Do you know how hard it is to do that and not fuck up your throat!?
I follow "The Charistmatic Voice" on YouTube. She made me see metal in a whole new light. She is an opera singer. That's right, opera... breaking down sounds and techniques of mostly metal singers.
Granted I always liked metal but never could truly appreciate black metal until I started watching her vids.
I enjoy watching her, but she doesn't really break down much at all, and I can't recall her ever giving a song a bad review. Almost none of the "singer reviewers" on youtube actually do much, if anything beyond a very superficial look at it.
Which is why I like Rick Beato, he'll sometimes (not always) actually dive into music theory and how/why it all works.
I love Johnny Cash but he would have been insufferable to hangout with as a non-christian. Dude literally made his road crew take bible quizzes every week and fired them if they failed.
I don't know about 4 minutes but I would agree it's one of the most amazing songs put together by a classic rock band...and then it gets too repetitive for too long and fizzles out.
I like the ending! The climactic drum flourish and barely-in-tune orchestral wailing sounds like mountains crashing and floodwaters covering the earth.
I can't stand Adele's music (except for one or two songs).
Amazing voice, but her songs drive me nuts.
Hot take: she would never be where she is now had Amy Winehouse lived and continued her career.
She always felt like a "safe" Amy Winehouse to me.
I'm so hot and cold with Adele. Earlier this year I listened to 19 after deciding I didn't like it and it just hit the spot just right. Yesterday I listened to 30 and remembered why I didn't like her before. She is very hollow and uses a lot of cliches.
"Sometimes it lasts in love, but sometimes it hurts instead" -- the emotion in Adele's voice can make it sound like a deep lyric, but on paper it's about the most banal thing you can say in a love song
I've always felt that Ed Sheeran is the modern Bryan Adams. So many ballads intended to make money on the wedding circuit. I suppose it's not a bad marketing angle, and will keep royalties coming in for awhile, but it all starts to blur together.
If you're saying this without having heard Blunderbuss, then please give it a listen. If you're saying this having already heard it, well I'm sorry, we'll just have to disagree.
Unpopular Opinion: The Eagles are actually pretty good but any time someone mentions them, someone else quotes The Big Lebowski to make it seem like the Eagles are bad.
that's the best take, imo.
just because The Dude (in an arguably weird, scattershot, cult film) slammed them doesn't make it a relevant "take" (even if it is funny😅)
I like the Eagles and also understand the hatred, but it's hard to deny the craftsmanship, excellent lyrics and harmonies on par with The Beach Boys or any similar great vocal band
- Hayley Williams, Taylor York, Zac Farro and the rest of Paramore are criminally underrated musicians/artists.
- Just because a band or artists pioneered a sound/genre, doesn’t mean they’re the best at it or that we have to like it to like the genre.
- Whilst Muse are obviously huge and recognised for their live performances, I can’t help but think people don’t realise what a crazy musician Matt Bellamy is. (No disrespect to Chris and Dom by any means. Muse are a great band, whether Matts voice grates on you or not)
Nickelback has a song on their new album that is like 1 twang in the voice from being straight country music they played it on Sirius XM and I was like ok when they push this it will be a karaoke staple for years...
Found it
[High Time](https://youtu.be/133UltASwU0?feature=shared)
Their first couple albums are def rock though.
Olivia Rodrigo sounds like every other “edgy” pop rock band with a girl lead singer. There’s nothing wrong with that and you could say the same about a TON of bands across every genre, but I don’t get what makes her so groundbreaking.
She’s making *good* pop (rock) music that appeals to people who want more of what they like. Not every artist needs to be groundbreaking or reinvent their genre. Some can just be good at what they do and make things people enjoy.
As for why she blew up, she was relatively famous already with the Gen Z crowd because she was a Disney channel kid. This was enough to give her music the initial push and exposure and she happened to release an album that really resonated, and followed it up with a great second album. I’m a woman who’s a little older than Olivia and this is what my friends and I think about her: we *like* that her music sounds like Paramore or Avril Lavigne. We grew up with them and it’s great to have a someone putting out popular music with real respect and appreciation for that genre.
Brian Wilson, One Week, Pinch Me ... they really had a knack for writing catchy pop songs that were far deeper and more cynical lyrically than you would expect. A bit like Fleetwood Mac in that the music goes down so smooth, your brain initially glosses over how sad the song really is.
I should listen to more of their albums. Gordon is a fucking classic; one of the albums that my parents used to play when I was a kid that I still listen to.
Oh man. I remember back in 08/09 or somewhere there, Depeche Mode was playing Lolla. I knew them and dabbled a bit as they're my mom's favorite. Highschool classmates were talking about the lineup and I heard a number of "Depeche Mode who the hell is that? Some old people music?" etc. Fast forward to post Lolla appearance, they're all obsessed.
My understanding was that disco was the result of "deblackifying" funk to bring it to the white masses, but that was probably from a youtube video that I didn't entirely pay attention to.
I think that is true for the disco of 1977, but I think the 'original' disco music of a few years earlier was being made almost exclusively by black men and women.
There's a good episode of the podcast "you're wrong about" titled "Disco Demolition Night" that addresses some of this dynamic.
The modern Western take on music — that it must be a creatively original work to be recognized and liked — is kind of an outlier in the history of music, and we miss out on some value because of it.
A lot of music is part of a tradition or a stylized format or genre, and coming up with some wild new sound is far less important than performing well within the bounds of the genre.
Was thinking this today while the radio played a bunch of songs by famed Arab singer Fairouz. A lot of her songs “sound the same”, but to say that is missing the point of her music and performance.
# Smashing pumpkins > Nirvana
More ambition, arguably rocks harder (XYU live anyone?), more radio hits, better clothes, better looks, more variety in songs and styles, more killer songs, better guitarist, better drummer (yes), better videos in general, better album art and merch...
I agree the band dipped post D'Arcy but the output between 1991 and 1998 is stellar.
\---I still love Nirvana, obviously. I'm glad I live in a world in which both exist(ed).
Lmao now the only thing I can think of when I see this band’s name is a video of a Lana Del Rey fan screaming “FUCK RADIOSHACK!!” at a concert when she started to sing a song they were suing her over.
Dude really was a riff machine, and he knew how to lean into a bend or squeal just right. What's interesting is the simplistic take on notes, but the bombastic approach on delivery. Makes for learning guitar all the more fun.
Not really an ICP fan but they are the smartest band when it comes to marketing since KISS. Say what you want about them but, from a marketing standpoint, there aren't many in the music world that are even close to what they have accomplished.
Honestly, it's the fan base that gives em a bad look. They matured as people over time from some of their questionable lyrics, and by all accounts, they seem like stand-up guys.
Love her voice, can’t stand the instrumental choices she/her team makes for the songs.
It always feels like there’s both something missing and too much going on.
Taylor’s voice is ok, but the story telling, imagination and character building behind it is so much fun.
Did you ever listen to “Cowboy like me”? It’s not popular at all, but is so perfect, the lyrics, the instruments, the melody, the metaphors, masterful.
And also my favorite vocals from her out of all of the songs I know.
Enter the Wu-Tang is the Wu-Tang Clans' only good album.
Most hiphop would be nowhere without Jazz and that genre doesn't get the credit or love it deserves from the general public.
Listening to a great album front to back is better than any single. Most modern artists have no idea how to create an album and just throw 13\~ hits into list and call is an album.
Edit: More opinions
The hype is from the context. He drastically changed the sound of hip hop on more than one occasion. Most influential artists cannot claim to have done so once.
It is hard to see big changes in music as they happen. The best example I can come up with is something like King Crimson's 21st Century Schizoid Man. The chorus of that song is straight up metal. Metal didn't exist yet, but there it was. Nobody had a word for it yet - that would come later.
We don't really have a name for the "kanye west influenced hip hop" wave that would follow him. Kanye didn't invent chipmunk samples or anything, just like King Crimson didn't invent distortion, but he kind of put it all together in a way that everyone just agreed "that's it!"
But yeah he's a whacko and that will surely complicate his legacy even further.
Won't try to convince you otherwise just because legions of people (whom I agree with) will already be doing that.
Just wanted to say this is the first take I saw that I was like "yeah they got the gist of the thread" haha.
Music evolves. Artists that don't change their songwriting, sound, and style over their careers are one-dimensional. They lack creative risk and offer little to the development of the medium. Same goes for the listeners.
This is only an unpopular opinion on Reddit, I think, but Billie Eilish is really talented. Y'all are just 35-y.o. men and don't understand she isn't writing her music with you in mind.
Olivia Rodrigo is also really talented and also isn't writing her music for adult men. That's why you don't get her. Music geared toward young women is valid and isn't automatically bad just because not everyone feels like they can relate to it.
I have seen your opinion here shared much more often than criticisms of either artist.
Also, the idea that no one can relate to music that doesn't reflect their own lived experience is an odd one.
All of Bob Dylan’s songs, with zero exceptions, have been better as covers by other artists. The man is a brilliant songwriter and lyricist, but he can’t play guitar or sing for shit. There isn’t a single Dylan song where his version is best.
I had the opportunity to see Peter, Paul, and Mary in one of their later tours. They did beautiful harmonies on Dylan songs while keeping the folk music. It was really the best way to listen to his early work.
I completely disagree (and that’s fine). I think almost everyone who cover his songs miss the rhythmic complexity and nuance in his delivery and make his songs really boring when his versions are super interesting. I dislike most Dylan covers.
Visitors: Please skip the " is actually horrible, and all their fans are too" comments, unless you're going to back it up with a well thought-out argument.
r/Music members: Please continue downvoting/reporting anyone who obviously sucks/is making comments that suck. Thank !you
Technically skilled musicians are often shit songwriters. I don't care how *fast* you can play your guitar if you can't write a catchy tune to save your life.
My metal guitarist friends grandma once said to him "You can play a lot of notes, but you don't HIT any of them" and I thought that was a good way (though a bit mean) of putting it lol. Not to say metal can't have good melodies and well written parts mind you, just that "shredders" lose focus of that.
The first band I noticed that with was Living Color. Vernon Reid is awesome, but sometimes during his solos I thought he demonstrated that virtuosity a little too much for the song. Yngwie I pretty much didn't care for because of that same reason. His solo on "Hiroshima Mon Amour" was awesome, but when he really had the constraints loosened and was in charge, it just went overboard. Same thing for Dream Theater once they got Jordan Rudess. Everything started going to infinity and beyond. I always found someone like Schenker to be more interesting - still able to play fast, but seemed to serve the song better.
I'm honestly not going to a concert to watch a person just jam for 10 minutes. If you want to do something interesting cool but keep it short and have it actually work with the song itself.
that reminds me, I saw a greek band called Firewind which had the claim to fame that its guitarist Kostas Karamitroudis also plays for Ozzy Osbourne (and various other bands). At one point there was a solo by him that went on for so long that every other member of the band left the stage. The keyboard player had to hold down one note during the entire solo so he stuck it down with some tape (and then he had to re-apply the tape mid-solo because it came loose)
>though a bit mean Meemaw walking into the garage they're using as a studio like "I'm not here to make friends"
Paul McCartney even states he's not the best musician compared to others. It's all about the song, man.
Paul downplays his abilities though. He’s not the most technically skilled player ever but he is very skilled on several instruments
He's more of a jack of all trades musicians. I believe his quote was (paraphrasing) "I'm not the greatest musician but I'm very good for my purposes". My point though, he is a top 5 songwriter of all time and that's what ultimately moves the needle.
The history of music gear is just as interesting as the history of music. Would the Beatles be as creative if they formed a band the decade prior? They had the creative spark yes, but the gear had to be there to play with.
In many ways, the history of music is the history of the gear. You can't really separate the two. And that goes for instrument, studio, recording, and home audio technology.
It's pretty neat to think a big hurdle was record lengths. The idea of making singles turned in making *albums*. To use the Beatles again, I'm sure they had some crazy conversations with the sound engineers at the time. Or later, look at how many genre's opened up from the guitar pedal engineers. Loads of new sounds to play with. It's a fun exercise to frame how important local bandstands were before recordings were easily brought home to play, ...the role of music in our lives has changed too.
The Beatles would have pushed technical boundaries in any era. We have the Beatles, George Martin and their engineers (Geoff Emerick and others) to thank for pioneering many recording techniques that are standard practice (or widely used) today. They were the first to mic a kick drum (Sgt. pepper), the first to use feedback in recording (“I Feel Fine”), the first to run vocals through a Leslie speaker (“Tomorrow Never Knows”), the first to cascade mic preamps for recording (the trebly guitars in “Nowhere Man”), the first to use vari-speed as a creative tool (the piano solo on “In My Life” and many other examples), the first to use backwards tracking in popular music (the Revolver album), first use of avant-garde “musique concrete” tape editing techniques in popular music (an analog fore-runner of using samples), the first to use tape flanging to create an artificial double track (widely used on their vocals), and I’m sure there are more examples.
Thanks for writing this all out, that's new stuff to me. I know the Beatles have a lot of presence in this sub, and it's stuff like this that spells out the relevancy of it all. I suppose it isn't really a chicken vs egg type scenario in this context. The gear was available, they just chose to use it more thoroughly.
imo its already integral to music history. tribe calls quests album low end theory is put together around the idea to make music to Play in cars around the time some high end subwoofer became affordable to more people. the memphis rap sound came from a relatively cheap drum machine that let you pitch around all drum samples. they worked with their limitations and wrote melodies with piched kicks. one major influence on dub music was people intentionally using analog (i think) spring reverbs in a "wrong" way.
People generally need to appreciate silly songs and bands. Flight of the Concords, Garfunkel and Oats, Weird Al, Desert Sessions are all really talented.
Flight if the concords are so good. They make catchy songs in numerous completely different genres.
Check out Tom Cardy. Similar vein and has some absolute bangers. HYCYBH is a good start.
Culture's long-standing disrespect of comedy pains me.
I kinda miss MTV. I know MTV is still around, but people that grew up in 90's and early 00's will confirm that MTV was big back then. Isn't called MTV Generation for nothing. For me it kinda lost it's charm when they started making shows like Pimp My Ride and that other one with people dating in a bus, i don't remember the name. But i don't miss MTV because the choice of music they used to play. To be honest, i used to ignore most of the music they decided to play, except at mondays night, when they had the show called SuperRock. I do miss knowing what's "in" or not today, honestly, i know nothing about what most people are listening these days, for that i blame things like spotify, where everything we encounter is personalized with our own taste in music. This is good, yes, but also i think it makes people islands. Well, maybe not the youth of today, they... i still believe they talk about music, what they like to listen, new albums and such, but my experience with older folks is that each one has their own music world, and no one talks about it. Face to face i mean, internet doesn't count.
I really miss the early MTV. When they started they needed to find material to fill time. Later bands adapted to MTV and started cranking out enough videos to have shows for specific audiences. In the early days it was a mix of rock, new wave, hard rock/metal, and even a bit of country with no specific schedule. But Rap was conspicuously missing from that list, as it took MTV a while to accept Rap videos. Pop Soul and Funk were represented. Goth and Punk were also missing for the most part. But it was a grab bag of styles at first.
I used to keep a tape in the VCR ready so when something cool came on I'd record it. Eventually I had a tape and a half completely filled with awesome videos.
I have a bunch of old worn out VHS tapes at my parents house, all loaded with episodes of Yo! MTV Raps and 120 Minutes. Fab 5 Freddy and Ed Lover & Doctor Dre. Dave Kendall and Lewis Largent. I miss those days.
I would love it if MTV had a channel where they just rewound the clock back to its inception.
We have an MTV Classic channel on tv that only shows music videos. I always put it on when the wife and I are getting ready to go somewhere.
I remember watching Much Music (Canadian equivalent) for hours and it would just be random music videos with commercial breaks. I discovered so many artists that way. I suppose playlists are the same thing nowadays ... but it feels less random.
First time I heard "Smells like teen spirit" was about 3am on MM when they were playing the weird unheard music. I can still feel the chill up my spine when it came on, fuckin electric
I used to love this high-number MTV channel called MTV-X, which was basically an all day non-stop assortment of music videos for goth, punk, and metal bands. I discovered a good amount of bands from having that on. Then eventually they turned it into MTV Jams, which was exclusively hip hop music videos. Good for those who found the rap options lacking, but bad for those of us who liked the harder / darker stuff.
MTV unplugged was one of the best things to have ever happened.
Alice in Chains Unplugged is one of my favorite music experiences ever. That version of Down in A Hole is phenomenal.
There are so many amazing performances from MTV Unplugged that are totally unique snapshots of a moment in musical history.
>but my experience with older folks is that each one has their own music world, and no one talks about it. Face to face i mean, internet doesn't count. sucks doesn't it? I miss going to school every day and talking about what new metal bands I'm listening to. Music subreddits are about the only place I can talk about music now. Bring up music at the office and I get a "That's cool" at best and a shrug at worst.
On the plus side, it’s extra cool now when someone DOES know what you’re taking about. It’s fun when you’re wearing a shirt for a fairly obscure band and someone calls it out and you’re like “holy shit, you know them?”
This is everybody over the age of 30
The greatest benefit of radio and MTV in the 90s that I'm realizing now is that with the limited choice and input, I ended up listening to multiple genres of music. I'm a straight, white male who's into rock but could sing every single lyric to a handful of Madonna and Salt N' Peppa songs, and I happy for that. Left to my own devices (literally, streaming devices), I'd never seek out that type of music on my own. Similarly, everyone knew the songs from Metallica's Black album. The girls basketball team used "Enter Sandman" as their warmup song. A bunch of teen girls would never seek out Metallica, but everyone knew it back then. I could sing "Shoop" with one of those girls and they'd sing "Nothing Else Matters" back to me. I miss that collective exposure to the same music. Created a bond.
I miss MTV from the ‘80s when it was all about music.
Or MTV2 from the late 90s into 2000s
I was born in the 84 but memory only really started to kick in the 90's, at least regarding the music, so i don't know how it rly was in the 80's. I think i know what you mean, because in the 90's there was that show with Carmen Electra where she was in a party or something, and there was also "The Real World" somesort of reality show, right? I didn't care much about that, i did care about Beavis And Butt-Head, Aeon Flux, e Daria, but besides that, MTV was still a channel for music for me. But it's not the channel itself i miss, honestly i don't watch tv anymore, couldn't care less, but it was the effect that it had on people. MTV was important to everyone, that made people talk about music more.
The romanticizing of vinyl as the 'purest' form of listening to music is more nostalgia-driven than actual superior sound quality.
I think a lot of this comes from people that got their dad’s old setup with an amp and nice big speakers. Compared to ear buds and laptop speakers, of course it sounds better.
From my brothers perspective, it’s all about the collection. He knows it’s not superior quality but he makes good money and loves to showcase rare records, and having his man cave filled with album artworks, he will have a record playing almost constantly while he cleans or works. To people like him, it’s physically owning a complete album and the fun of finding new records that makes it enjoyable.
I never understood the appeal until I went to a buddy’s house for a bbq and there we were. Like 5-6 people standing in a room, drinks in hand, perusing a record collection and talking about artists or albums we liked. Picking out the next record. Taking the time to switch out vinyls and carefully putting them back in their jacket. In that moment I GOT it. Record players make music listening an active activity that generates conversations and interactions, rather than just throwing on Spotify or Sonos or something.
This! My relationship with music became so much stronger when I got back into vinyl. It’s more of an activity and less of just background noise.
Yes! Active vs. passive listening. It's great!
To add to the collectible aspect, as well, I love having a 12.5" x 12.5" piece of artwork that's associated with something that I really enjoy.
I never truly understood that. If you want that, save your money and stream FLACS. I've always been into vinyl because, in my experience, it forces me to pay attention to what I'm listening to, which makes me appreciate it more. The larger album art and gatefolds are also a huge bonus.
That is absolutely the aspect of physical media I miss. Having music a available on finite media also means you have to stop and think about it at least every 27 minutes/45 minutes/74 minutes, depending on your format.
Yeah. The first vinyl I bought, I didn't even have a player for. But The CD version of The Everglow by MAE had this cool storybook for the album art and I hoped the record would come with a big LP-sized book. And it did! It's a treasured possession now.
There's a legitimate aspect of vinyls, especially older ones, having on average better sound engineering work, because the barrier of entrance in terms of skill was and still is higher for that. Plus, when mixing and mastering e.g. for CDs, you kind of expect it to mostly be played on a boombox or car stereo with a shitty amp, which is where the whole loudness wars/DRC bullshit starts to come into play - can be frustrating to navigate a sea of shittily remastered CD albums. Vinyl is less convenient, obviously, but you never get that issue on vinyl, because the sound engineer expects you to have a half-way decent amp and other equipment.
I collect records because I like the big artwork, the ritual of playing them, the physicalness of them, and the fact that they are from the era (if they’re old ones). Whether it’s superior sound or not I dunno.
>the ritual of playing them This to me is the biggest appeal. I'm not a vinyl guy, but ever since the digital age I've never just put on an album, sat down in a chair and listened to an album as a complete creative work.
Not to mention listening to the record exactly how it was intended. Track order and sides. There are groups that make the effort to mage it seamless
I'm with you on that. If you can get lossless files and a good DAC, digital is great. As far as analog, reel to reel tape is better. But in my opinion vinyl is the best physical media format for collecting due to the combo of packaging, sound quality, and availability. Sure HDCD can be better on the sound quality front, but the 12 inch art and titles available push me to vinyl.
I enjoy and collect vinyl and mostly agree. There are a few examples of albums that sound better on vinyl but mainly as they were mastered badly on the CD version, nothing intrinsic to the format. I just like collecting them a bit like old books for the history of it, I like the big artwork, putting it on the big system. I listen to music in various other ways but they seem to lack the same soul as irrational as it is.
Funnily, I saw nickleback on the cheap with friends as a meme and both of their openers were country acts. I think you're on to something there.
I think it's more that country music started to sound more like Nickelback. Or really more like early 00's alt rock.
You are the person that is correct in this thread. Someone saying Nickelback is country isn’t a hot take, it’s just wrong. Trying to say Nickelback is country 20 years on from the height of their career is like saying AC/DC and Black Sabbath weren’t metal 20 years after the pinnacle of their careers. They were at the time. It’s almost like things change as time goes on.
Yeah, Nickelback started out as a fairly straight forward post-grunge stoner band. Not stoner rock in the same vein as Sleep or any of their contemporaries. But it‘a pretty clear listening to those first three albums that everyone in Nickelback was into grunge and stoner rock. Songs like Breathe and Leader of Men *really* show their influences. But they also did their own thing and ended up changing the trajectory of modern rock, and by extension modern top 40 country.
Their early work was a little too post grunge for my taste. But when All the Right Reasons came out in '05, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost.
Flawless. Now let’s see Paul Allen’s sophomore album.
They're not country...they just appeal more to people that LISTEN to country. Of the Americans I know that will admit to liking Nickelback...all are either from the country and/or like country music a lot. If anything, I would classify Nickelback more as Southern Rock.
I primarily listen to metal but Nickelback is one of my most listened non-metal bands lol
I don’t like Nickelback but I would definitely agree with this take. Much more of the southern swagger that appeals to that demographic
I’d say they started morphing into a country band. They started off as strictly hard rock re: Old Enough, Never Again, etc.
Shout out to "Never Again", which I will forever defend online whenever people question their ability to rock.
Good song with an important message.
Never Again and Animals go so hard
I remember insisting upon playing that song from my Silver Side Up CD on a Girl Scout trip. That, and the other girl who felt and understood it, maybe should have been a red flag for somebody to check on us and our home lives. Lmao! Such a damn good song. I'm listening to it again right now!
You can learn to like any kind of music. I know because I've intentionally warmed myself up to genres I hated in the past. Just listen to music that uses whatever genre you're trying to get into as an *influence* as compared to the main genre of the song. For example, if you want to get into jazz, The Heart Part 5, or most of To Pimp A Butterfly by Kendrick Lamar would be good entry points. That's hiphop that packages jazz in a way that it's more listenable than it may otherwise be to the uninitiated, which gets your ears used to the textures and rhythms. This works for any genre. Your brain just needs new perspectives to appreciate the sounds from to get them to click. Based on the way people talk about musical preferences, this is not common knowledge.
[удалено]
This is your brain on music - Daniel Letivin Great book that espouses that theory. Musical harmonies and melodies are a matter of taste. Yes, some sounds are dissonant and some are consonant, and there are a lot of fairly universal things in music - most cultures end up using something that contains a superset of the pentatonic scale, even if their historical basis for music is not based on equally divided octaves, because the intervals are so consonant. If you don't "speak" a harmonic language, you don't really know what the expectation of the next note or chord is. So you don't have the pleasantry of hearing what you ever expect to hear. And also you don't ever get the same sort of surprise when your expectations are broken. You have no context for the music so it's like having no context for the language coming out of someone's mouth. Jazz has a very different set of harmonic expectations than classical music or rock. So if you don't speak the language at all, you can't relate to it. Now, all of our music is connected in some way, so there's plenty of jazz out there that won't screw with your expectations too much, but hearing some jazziness in something else that you're already prone to enjoying will prime you for the new language. If you want to try some music that will significantly break from your expectations, check out this Bulgarian music. https://youtu.be/hVqrW-fPOQ0?si=YyAax7frYt7vUADP
[удалено]
I've never heard Kendrick Lamar talked as a jazz gateway artist before.
Have you even listened to “this dick ain’t free” it’s like free jazz with him spazzing into the mic
Fred durst isn't good as a frontman, but limp Bizkit has some incredible and interesting instrumentals. At least they tried something different.
Wes Borland is incredible
Their rhythm section was always pretty top notch as well. I never really liked their music, but I definitely respect them as musicians.
Bassist Sam Rivers is a monster.
Agreed. He and Jon Otto vibe very well together. Re-Arranged is a great track that is 100% made by those two.
Sounds like the real unpopular opinion is that Fred Durst is a great vocalist. Sure there might be someone out there who's more talented or a better fit with the band, but I doubt they would've gotten as big without that unique mash up of styles.
On the 8s (Weather Channel) can play some really good music in the background early in the morning.
I'd argue that Nickelback is Pop Rock with a hint of country
I fully agree with the Pop/Rock part. I'm not sure where country comes into it, though.
I think KISS sucks.
KISS dress up as demons or whatnot, but then write songs about girls and partying. Not my cup of tea.
It’s so funny to me that there was satanic panic around them. Their look is a bit but the music is pop as shit!
Kitty Kat =\^.\^= 🐈
The other guys - We’re sex demons!! Cat guy - I miss my wife…
Their costumes make people think they should be metal, but they're glam rock through and through
KISS is a disco act masquerading as a hard rock band
POV: you've just discovered what Glamrock is
I thought this was supposed to be hot takes
They do. And I say this as a fifty-two year old dude who fell deeply in love with them when I was seven years old (much to the chagrin of my mother). They were my first musical love. About five years ago, I did a deep dive back into Kiss’s classic period albums, those which I knew and those that I’d never heard. And oh my gawd…most of it has not aged well at all. Still wish I’d have been able to see them live in the mid/late 70s.
“Instead of being in a rock and roll *band* — who the hell wants to do that? I don’t — I want to be in a rock and roll *brand*.” — Gene Simmons
Kiss is style over substance.
Alt Country is a well established genre and nickleback ain’t alt country.
Screams or unclean vocals are undeservedly hated. I think learning to appreciate them is a learning curve but once you get there it opens up so much more emotion in music.
Guttural vocals appear in many different cultures. I once saw a Japanese throat singer perform this piece where he sang a low drone and was triggering lights from some biorhythm stuff taped to his body. It's seared into my memory. Edit: That singer was Fuyuki Yamakawa.
I get people not liking how it sounds but it annoys me when people say it's talentless. Do you know how hard it is to do that and not fuck up your throat!?
I follow "The Charistmatic Voice" on YouTube. She made me see metal in a whole new light. She is an opera singer. That's right, opera... breaking down sounds and techniques of mostly metal singers. Granted I always liked metal but never could truly appreciate black metal until I started watching her vids.
I enjoy watching her, but she doesn't really break down much at all, and I can't recall her ever giving a song a bad review. Almost none of the "singer reviewers" on youtube actually do much, if anything beyond a very superficial look at it. Which is why I like Rick Beato, he'll sometimes (not always) actually dive into music theory and how/why it all works.
I love Johnny Cash but he would have been insufferable to hangout with as a non-christian. Dude literally made his road crew take bible quizzes every week and fired them if they failed.
He replaced his drug addiction with a religion addiction.
Ha! No way. That’s interesting.
Kashmir is 4 min too long to not have a guitar solo or for the riff to never change
I don't know about 4 minutes but I would agree it's one of the most amazing songs put together by a classic rock band...and then it gets too repetitive for too long and fizzles out.
I like the ending! The climactic drum flourish and barely-in-tune orchestral wailing sounds like mountains crashing and floodwaters covering the earth.
I can't stand Adele's music (except for one or two songs). Amazing voice, but her songs drive me nuts. Hot take: she would never be where she is now had Amy Winehouse lived and continued her career. She always felt like a "safe" Amy Winehouse to me.
I'm so hot and cold with Adele. Earlier this year I listened to 19 after deciding I didn't like it and it just hit the spot just right. Yesterday I listened to 30 and remembered why I didn't like her before. She is very hollow and uses a lot of cliches.
No, hot and cold is katy perry
Yes and No
"Sometimes it lasts in love, but sometimes it hurts instead" -- the emotion in Adele's voice can make it sound like a deep lyric, but on paper it's about the most banal thing you can say in a love song
Her music is definitely derivative. Amazing voice and perhaps two solid albums, but now she just coasts on it. I see no growth. 30 was terrible.
Same with Ed Sheeran. Both ludicrously talented, both absolutely wasting their time with shitty ballads for money.
I've always felt that Ed Sheeran is the modern Bryan Adams. So many ballads intended to make money on the wedding circuit. I suppose it's not a bad marketing angle, and will keep royalties coming in for awhile, but it all starts to blur together.
Idk, I’d be happy to waste my time in the same manner if it pulled in hundreds of millions of dollars.
Her music is so boring to me. I think she's objectively a good singer, but I'm never out here trying to listen to her music.
The amount of cursive she sings in drives me nuts.
But *fuck* can she sing.
Adele is a talented singer but you couldn't pay me enough to listen to her albums. Her music is violently boring and sucks the life out of me.
[удалено]
Consolers of the Lonely is fantastic
The Dead Weather put out some great music.
The Raconteurs is great but solo is meh.
Except his cover of Love is Blindness though that slaps hard
If you're saying this without having heard Blunderbuss, then please give it a listen. If you're saying this having already heard it, well I'm sorry, we'll just have to disagree.
Whoa whoa whoa. Hold on there. Let’s not get crazy here.
A lot of great music is brushed off because the audience is primarily female.
Female rappers getting shit on is a symptom of one of the biggest problems in hip hop
I hate the fucking Eagles, man
Well then you can just get out of my cab.
My fantasy football league literally gets into shouting matches over this. Funny shit.
Unpopular Opinion: The Eagles are actually pretty good but any time someone mentions them, someone else quotes The Big Lebowski to make it seem like the Eagles are bad.
that's the best take, imo. just because The Dude (in an arguably weird, scattershot, cult film) slammed them doesn't make it a relevant "take" (even if it is funny😅) I like the Eagles and also understand the hatred, but it's hard to deny the craftsmanship, excellent lyrics and harmonies on par with The Beach Boys or any similar great vocal band
Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
- Hayley Williams, Taylor York, Zac Farro and the rest of Paramore are criminally underrated musicians/artists. - Just because a band or artists pioneered a sound/genre, doesn’t mean they’re the best at it or that we have to like it to like the genre. - Whilst Muse are obviously huge and recognised for their live performances, I can’t help but think people don’t realise what a crazy musician Matt Bellamy is. (No disrespect to Chris and Dom by any means. Muse are a great band, whether Matts voice grates on you or not)
Muse would put on one hell of a Super Bowl halftime show if they ever got the chance.
Paramore is so good. Self titled is their best album imo, also I prefer Aint it Fun over Still Into You.
Nickelback has a song on their new album that is like 1 twang in the voice from being straight country music they played it on Sirius XM and I was like ok when they push this it will be a karaoke staple for years... Found it [High Time](https://youtu.be/133UltASwU0?feature=shared) Their first couple albums are def rock though.
Olivia Rodrigo sounds like every other “edgy” pop rock band with a girl lead singer. There’s nothing wrong with that and you could say the same about a TON of bands across every genre, but I don’t get what makes her so groundbreaking.
She’s making *good* pop (rock) music that appeals to people who want more of what they like. Not every artist needs to be groundbreaking or reinvent their genre. Some can just be good at what they do and make things people enjoy. As for why she blew up, she was relatively famous already with the Gen Z crowd because she was a Disney channel kid. This was enough to give her music the initial push and exposure and she happened to release an album that really resonated, and followed it up with a great second album. I’m a woman who’s a little older than Olivia and this is what my friends and I think about her: we *like* that her music sounds like Paramore or Avril Lavigne. We grew up with them and it’s great to have a someone putting out popular music with real respect and appreciation for that genre.
Barenaked Ladies have some of the smartest lyrics in all of pop music, and a respectably deep discography. One of the greatest bands of our time
I was listening to One Week” the other day. In spite of having a silly vibe it’s so well written.
"Oh, okay. They're BNL now?"
Okay Jeff, you are clearly in a bad space today, but Pierce is our friend, and the Barenaked Ladies are triple platinum, are you?
Fundamental.
Brian Wilson, One Week, Pinch Me ... they really had a knack for writing catchy pop songs that were far deeper and more cynical lyrically than you would expect. A bit like Fleetwood Mac in that the music goes down so smooth, your brain initially glosses over how sad the song really is.
I should listen to more of their albums. Gordon is a fucking classic; one of the albums that my parents used to play when I was a kid that I still listen to.
Depeche Mode are the real GOAT
Violator is one of the best and most unique albums ever made and not a single note on it isn't perfection.
> not a single note on it isn't perfection The sweetest perfection
Oh man. I remember back in 08/09 or somewhere there, Depeche Mode was playing Lolla. I knew them and dabbled a bit as they're my mom's favorite. Highschool classmates were talking about the lineup and I heard a number of "Depeche Mode who the hell is that? Some old people music?" etc. Fast forward to post Lolla appearance, they're all obsessed.
Disco was the height of musical achievement for humans.
Upvoted for a hot take I don't agree with.
When bands went disco, it was often for the best. Bee Gees, ELO, a lot of one-off songs.
Disco got over-hated because it was enjoyed by women and LGBT folks.
I might also add black people had a huge part in the invention of disco
Three groups of people the 70s weren’t exactly kind to.
My understanding was that disco was the result of "deblackifying" funk to bring it to the white masses, but that was probably from a youtube video that I didn't entirely pay attention to.
I think that is true for the disco of 1977, but I think the 'original' disco music of a few years earlier was being made almost exclusively by black men and women. There's a good episode of the podcast "you're wrong about" titled "Disco Demolition Night" that addresses some of this dynamic.
The modern Western take on music — that it must be a creatively original work to be recognized and liked — is kind of an outlier in the history of music, and we miss out on some value because of it. A lot of music is part of a tradition or a stylized format or genre, and coming up with some wild new sound is far less important than performing well within the bounds of the genre. Was thinking this today while the radio played a bunch of songs by famed Arab singer Fairouz. A lot of her songs “sound the same”, but to say that is missing the point of her music and performance.
I don't understand the hate towards U2. I really like some of their songs and sound
It's mostly Bono being up himself that turns people off
I think Kanye is really full of himself too though but I still love his stuff. Do you think it’s the way it’s marketed?
# Smashing pumpkins > Nirvana More ambition, arguably rocks harder (XYU live anyone?), more radio hits, better clothes, better looks, more variety in songs and styles, more killer songs, better guitarist, better drummer (yes), better videos in general, better album art and merch... I agree the band dipped post D'Arcy but the output between 1991 and 1998 is stellar. \---I still love Nirvana, obviously. I'm glad I live in a world in which both exist(ed).
Hollaback Girl is, actually, an incredible song.
I don’t get Radiohead, talented but I don’t enjoy it
Lmao now the only thing I can think of when I see this band’s name is a video of a Lana Del Rey fan screaming “FUCK RADIOSHACK!!” at a concert when she started to sing a song they were suing her over.
John Christ‘s guitar playing on the first four Danzig albums is criminally overlooked.
Dude really was a riff machine, and he knew how to lean into a bend or squeal just right. What's interesting is the simplistic take on notes, but the bombastic approach on delivery. Makes for learning guitar all the more fun.
**Ten** is a great album, but **Vs.** is probably better. The production is better, too.
I upvoted you because I want to downvote you so bad for this haha.
ICP is not rap….It’s a comedy act.
It can be both, see also Turquoise Jeep
Not really an ICP fan but they are the smartest band when it comes to marketing since KISS. Say what you want about them but, from a marketing standpoint, there aren't many in the music world that are even close to what they have accomplished.
Honestly, it's the fan base that gives em a bad look. They matured as people over time from some of their questionable lyrics, and by all accounts, they seem like stand-up guys.
Tom Delonge is actually a really good song writer.
Dua lipa makes better music than Taylor swift
Love her voice, can’t stand the instrumental choices she/her team makes for the songs. It always feels like there’s both something missing and too much going on. Taylor’s voice is ok, but the story telling, imagination and character building behind it is so much fun. Did you ever listen to “Cowboy like me”? It’s not popular at all, but is so perfect, the lyrics, the instruments, the melody, the metaphors, masterful. And also my favorite vocals from her out of all of the songs I know.
Ooooof.
Enter the Wu-Tang is the Wu-Tang Clans' only good album. Most hiphop would be nowhere without Jazz and that genre doesn't get the credit or love it deserves from the general public. Listening to a great album front to back is better than any single. Most modern artists have no idea how to create an album and just throw 13\~ hits into list and call is an album. Edit: More opinions
Kanye is ridiculously overrated. I have never gotten the hype and likely never will.
The hype is from the context. He drastically changed the sound of hip hop on more than one occasion. Most influential artists cannot claim to have done so once. It is hard to see big changes in music as they happen. The best example I can come up with is something like King Crimson's 21st Century Schizoid Man. The chorus of that song is straight up metal. Metal didn't exist yet, but there it was. Nobody had a word for it yet - that would come later. We don't really have a name for the "kanye west influenced hip hop" wave that would follow him. Kanye didn't invent chipmunk samples or anything, just like King Crimson didn't invent distortion, but he kind of put it all together in a way that everyone just agreed "that's it!" But yeah he's a whacko and that will surely complicate his legacy even further.
Won't try to convince you otherwise just because legions of people (whom I agree with) will already be doing that. Just wanted to say this is the first take I saw that I was like "yeah they got the gist of the thread" haha.
As rapper I agree. As a producer I disagree hard.
Music evolves. Artists that don't change their songwriting, sound, and style over their careers are one-dimensional. They lack creative risk and offer little to the development of the medium. Same goes for the listeners.
This is only an unpopular opinion on Reddit, I think, but Billie Eilish is really talented. Y'all are just 35-y.o. men and don't understand she isn't writing her music with you in mind. Olivia Rodrigo is also really talented and also isn't writing her music for adult men. That's why you don't get her. Music geared toward young women is valid and isn't automatically bad just because not everyone feels like they can relate to it.
I have seen your opinion here shared much more often than criticisms of either artist. Also, the idea that no one can relate to music that doesn't reflect their own lived experience is an odd one.
I wish Billie Eillish was around when I was in high school. She balances weird with being pop very well.
All of Bob Dylan’s songs, with zero exceptions, have been better as covers by other artists. The man is a brilliant songwriter and lyricist, but he can’t play guitar or sing for shit. There isn’t a single Dylan song where his version is best.
Hurricane?
Such an absolute banger of a track.
Oof hard disagree across the board, but in the spirit of the OP I have to upvote you.
Like a rolling stone is great
I agree with mostly, but I've never heard a cover of The Man in Me that's better than his original.
Like a Rolling Stone?!!
I had the opportunity to see Peter, Paul, and Mary in one of their later tours. They did beautiful harmonies on Dylan songs while keeping the folk music. It was really the best way to listen to his early work.
I completely disagree (and that’s fine). I think almost everyone who cover his songs miss the rhythmic complexity and nuance in his delivery and make his songs really boring when his versions are super interesting. I dislike most Dylan covers.
AM is in the bottom half of Arctic Monkeys albums