Unpopular Music Opinions

I can understand how contrary much "indie" is to the tastes of a diehard fan of prog. Also, I assume the meaning of indie here is more referring to the music that has its roots in punk/new wave. But the idea that that sort of indie is somehow not experimental or whatever is ridiculous. It just experiments in a different way. Prog with complexity, indie with simplicity and minimalism.

Tool, though, from the standpoint of rock/prog history, ought to be considered (at least as far as their 2/3 better albums go) as a good, even virtuosic, band within the genre. That goes without saying, in spite of my personal dislikes for the band.
 
I think Creed are awesome and "Weathered" is a five star album. I didn't realise this opinion was "Unpopular" until I joined this forum :p

also, am I the only person on this forum who realises that "Indie" isn't a particular sound but the abbreviation of the word "Independent" meaning one who is signed to an independent record label. It never has been a genre and I don't see why it's regarded as one now, maybe ebcause a bunch of banRAB who sound alike have surfaced and all been labelled as "Indie" but I'm tired of people calling banRAB "Indie" when they're signed to a major record label.
 
I thought you were giving me examples of the modern British rock scene, sorry about that.

Also, I meant that Muse are declining musically.



Albarn is a prick, but he's also incredibly talented.

That is where I make the distinction.



Not even Ringo's solo from The End? :(

I think drum solos are great as long as they're kept short and fit the music.

But yeah, in the studio Phil never solos. I don't really care what any musician does live if the studio material is excellent. I don't really go to concerts, it's not my kind of experience.
 
Suede and Blur were similarish. I think Oasis/Blur were polar opposites, I really can't find anything they really have in common apart from having front men as dicks.
 
Im sorry but was this a joke? Was this intended to be sarcastic?

Because if not, you just claimed that Radiohead were not "ordinary" people and that in fact they were the ONLY people that could do what Radiohead do.

I think you just proved his point about Radiohead fans.
 
I won't say anything bad about Hendrix because 1) it's an unwritten rule that you can't and 2) because of what he did for Rock and Roll and the influence he had. That said I just choose not to listen much.. Every now and then I'll give Hendrix a listen.

Rock n Roll is all about expressing yourself, which is all well and good. But if you want to express yourself, play guitar. Not the fucking drums. :p:
 
she can sing like a motherf*cker man!

she's pretty much got it all. tone... range... dynamic... style (which is infringed upon by record companies no doubt), presence... man, everything. but i'm saying that people like her would be much more respected and have an "artistic output" that is much more substantial if record companies didn't flash dollars to make them conform to the standarRAB of statistics.

don't get me wrong. she's smokin hot and all too, but i'm not really diggin the package either. i really don't like 90-95% of the stuff she does. but sometimes she has room to kill it, and i mean KILL IT, and she does.

i suppose i am dissing record companies and their facility to rape art of any real meaning and also appreciating Christina Aguiliera's "moments"... lol
 
Actually me thinking you are the worst poster here has little to do with your tastes. It has more to do with the fact that not even once have you said anything that wasn't incredibly stupid or just plain useless.
 
Music is a passionate subject, if someone feels your music taste is shit. They'll have a go a bit, they'll try and be diplomatic and polite about it. But fun and wild discussions can get heated.
 
Back
Top