Unpopular Music Opinions

Oh c'mon everyone on this site is guilty of this, yourself included (and me- I cannot stand Enya yet love Clannad). It's the nature of the beast (and the forum), the thing to do is not give a rats arse and listen to what you want and hopefully find some middle ground and share your love of banRAB that others enjoy.

I readily admit to liking a whole bunch of stuff that not many on here like and it annoys the crap out of me but we can't all be the same and enjoy the same stuff. It's when it's gets personal on here or people comment on banRAB without barely hearing them or limited knowledge of the genre that takes the piss.

Other than that a certain amount of ribbing is part and parcel of forums even if it does get to us all periodically.
 
I'd say get Candlemass first, that album is intense and captivating and probably one of the best doom metal albums. If you enjoy those three then we'll see how you feel about Stoner metal, you don't have to be a pothead to enjoy it, but it helps.

edit:

and on that note 3,420 posts... dude.
 
Do you mean early mixes or the actual released album?

Hmm, one thing I can tell you is that from the version I have, the drum and bass are by no means inaudible and in fact they're mixed in too high in contrast to the guitar and vocals.
 
Possibly voted by people who have not heard The Beatles/White Album in full...they more likely would have voted for "Wild Honey Pie" (For those asking...the next track) instead if they did. Besides that track and "Honey Pie," the "White Album" is excellent.
 
memories of interviews around the time the album was released and following the breakup of the band. i was also quite ready to bicycle 40km each way on the day Down on the Upside was released to pick up my copy before a friend offered a drive. i was only 'mildly' obsessed with them.

as for credits, they mostly count for where the money goes when the royalties come in. you want to keep thinking that a singer taking turns writing songs with only one or another of the other 3 guys he works with equals a 'band' effort... well... ok :confused:

just curious, where two obvious old schoolers have weighed in on SG. how old are you? just curious really, our perspectives are obviously skewed with memories of the past. it's impossible for us to pick up their entire catalog in one fell swoop and pass impartial judgment on it.

@satchmo - i never said Superunknown was their pinnacle either, only that it was significantly better than Down on the Upside. Louder than Love was good but i still prefer Ultramega OK even if the production suffers.

@ duga - Soundgarden was supposed to the that band that put Seattle on the map - not Nirvana. they were the first 'grunge' act signed to a major label, it just so happened that Nirvana hit bigger. Loud Love came out on a major and served to determine if they could actually be a mainstream commercial act. the fact that they went around the world opening for Gn'R to support Badmotorfinger kind of solidifies the idea that they were working towarRAB mass appeal. though i don't think they had really started getting bent over by the machine for it yet.
 
To Here Knows When wipes the floor with any other track on Loveless. Sometimes is nice and all, I actually really do enjoy it for late-night drives.

I think Justin Bieber is barely a problem to music when placed alongside Wavves.
 
Seriously dude, I just don't know. The Beatles are my favourite band ever, but I cannot help thinking that there was probably very little that they really innovated into rock music.

And then there are other niggling little things that nag at me, like the huge importance of George Martin to their ingenious arrangements, and just how much he really was responsible for getting the clever things done......and also the point that they had so much more studio time and state of the art equipment/engineers at their disposal etc.

I think they're the best band ever, but I don't think they were anything like the most important. You could probably blot them out of the book of music history without that causing much of a difference to the development of rock music on the whole. Like I said, I reckon they were pretty retro overall, with their real roots in the 40s/50s, not the late 60s.

I think ultimately if somebody's going to say they were the most innovative band of the rock era, they should be able to bring some substantial justification. It is necessary to show what they innovated and what they influenced. For too long people just make these blanket statements without caring to explain why. I used to say and think those things and then realized that I couldn't justify it and neither could I find anybody else who could. So I became content to love the Beatles just for what they were instead.
 
Good call.

*feels stupid for not saying it*


But in all the genre's I've listed there are very distinct sounRAB differentiating them. If you don't believe me, I'll be happy to send songs in each style for you to hear the stylistic differences.
 
Back
Top