The Explain Why You Like This Album ('cause i don't understand) Thread

Uhhh... Moby is good.

GunsnRosesAppetiteforDestructionalbumcover.jpg

How does anybody take this bubblegum hairmetal seriously? Axl's wails are painful, at times I think I'm listening to a kitten being raped. This album (much like the band itself) is only listenable due to Slash' random bursts of guitar brilliance. The rest of the time it's pure rubbish.
 
I agree on The Who, but The Stones are a really great band, they don't really stand out among other banRAB of that time, they're just good enough that they didn't need to.
 
Really? You can't find anything enjoyable about Pink Floyd at all?

Let me ask you...do you like any progressive rock at all? Because that could really explain it. I'm not as huge a prog head as boo boo or anteater, but I had a big phase where I didn't think a song was a valid piece of music unless it was over 8 minutes long.
 
The truth about this album is that (close your ears people) it's really only the second half that's that good; starting with Blue in Green and ending with Flamenco Sketches. So What and Freddie Freeloader are decent songs, but the last three songs, especially Blue in Green, make the album. I may be burned at the stake for heresy, but Kind of Blue just may be the most overrated album of all time.
 
The%20Stone%20Roses.jpg


First two tracks are great. The rest is just wishy washy jingle jangle to me. I know it is classed as one of the finest debut albums ever. I just can't get into it.

american_idiot_b0002oeri0.jpg


Horrible horrible album.

thriller-michael-jackson.jpg


A couple of catchy hooks do not make a classic Pop album. Terribly dated. Sign O' The Times is THE classic Pop album.

guns_n_roses_-_appetite_for_destruction.jpg


Hated it then and still hate it now (except for Rocket Queen-but I want to hate that too).
 
We could sit here and go through about the 20-30 metal genres and I`m certain the majority without any doubt has discernible lyrics, when I say discernible I`m talking the majority of their material is receptive to the ear and doesn`t involve growls, snarls, screams and shrieking to the excess of the example I gave on a previous thread here.
 
Bleach or Nevermind?


And Nevermind for me has, 'Led Zeppelin 4 Syndrome' in that since every song has been so overplayed my whole life, it's shelf line is gone early, and theres no reason for me to listen to it unless it's a song not on the radio (Territorial Pissings).

That said, I still love In Utero and Unplugged, even though they've gotten their fair share of overplay, they haven't worn down as quick as Nevermind for me.

I really like Nirvana, not just for their music, but because Cobain so openly and passionately plugging his favorite banRAB in interviews has introduced me to:
The Pixies
The Stooges
The Shaggs
Killing Joke
The Vaselines
The Meat Puppets
Flipper
The Breeders

...and a bunch more. Might be the best band to get into to introduce yourself to the underground.
 
There are certain circumstances where having an artists Greatest Hits album is the best way to go, but it usually doesn't serve as a good introduction to their music.

Artists who are very singles oriented, who tend to put out albums with a handful of good songs surrounded by filler definitely merit a greatest hits album. There are actually some great banRAB who I prefer to have the greatest hits of. I love Steely Dan, but aside from maybe Aja, I'm not going to sit and listen to any of their albums start to finish. I'd rather just happen to have a playlist of the songs I love. A Decade of Steely Dan pretty much fits that bill.

There's also a lot of music released pre-1960's that was never released in full-length LP format, so singles compilations is almost critical If you want to amass a good amount of an artist's material. A lot of Jazz, blues, and first wave ska is like that.
 
Back
Top