Your unpopular music opinions

MightyMighty737

Besides one or two songs, Thin Lizzy were pure muck.

Nolanger

Gary Numan copied his act from Peter Cook in the movie Bedazzled.

Raze_them_all

Corey Taylor is a great vocalist.

karaokeman

Birneybau wrote: »

The world was black and white, the Beatles brought the colour.

I agree The Beatles are one of the many acts of the 1960s who brought the colour to music. As Lennon said "Before Elvis there was nothing".

Birneybau wrote: »

Look, the Beatles were, alongside say The Velvet Undergroud and maybe the Beach Boys, pretty bloody revolutionary.

Point taken they were more revolutionary than the average band.

Birneybau wrote: »

What they were doing was BRAND NEW!

Everything was "BRAND NEW" in the rock 'n' roll era. Hence thats why ALL parents referred to it as "devil's music".

Birneybau wrote: »

Elvis and Sinatra, whilst talented, never wrote a bloody song themselves, hardly pushed the envelope either. !

By that logic Westlife are talented in the same way that Elvis and Sinatra were. A song is not a cover if its written for you. Its a cover if someone else recorded it and made it famous before you.

Birneybau wrote: »

Well, Elvis sang 'Black' songs at a time of segragation which was revolutionary in it's own big way!!

Black songs are only one element of the rock 'n' roll Elvis brought to the world.

Birneybau wrote: »

As for the Black Eyed Peas, they are as musical as a Big Mac! Fcuking shameless lowest common denominator cnuts, them and Simon Cowell are in it for the money not the music!

Will i am is a musical genius. He's good at everything except for vocals. He can't sing but he writes all the Black Eyed Peas songs, produces all their material and he's a multi-instrumentalist.

Sinfonia wrote: »

Honestly, and I say this as a fan of the Rolling Stones, but they had a seeeerious tendency to write a song around a 3- or 4-chord pattern, repeat it infinitely, and fade out at the end of the song.

You will see the vast majority of bands do use the same chords in a lot of their songs/use only 2 or 3 chords in one song. U2 have this with the guitar riff and echo effect. If bands didn't have this people would accuse them of ripping off other artists styles. Its their own style and they use it to distinguish their music from others.

Sinfonia wrote: »

As songwriters/composers, The Beatles became so much more sophisticated. (And George Martin was really important for them too, just to say)

There are plenty of songwriters that are just as good as/better than The Beatles. Jimmy MacCarthy, Noel Gallagher and Chris Martin among others are born writers and in my opinion have much stronger messages in their songs than McCartney and Lennon do.

Sinfonia wrote: »

Elvis Presley didn't create anything. Sam Phillips (of Sun Studios) saw a market for black music performed by white performers, and cast Elvis in the role. It could just as easily be claimed that Chuck Berry "created" rock n' roll, but that wouldn't be strictly true either.

Yes and a lot of the black music required by white performers was created by Elvis and Chuck Berry. Sam Phillips saw their ability to use rock 'n' roll for the better.

Sinfonia wrote: »

I'm not trying to have a go at you, but that - as a summation of the history of music - is beyond simplistic.

I could go into great boring detail but that would be unnecessary.

Sinfonia wrote: »

There you go: One of many significant acts who made a contribution.

Yes I said one of "many". People claim The Beatles created all types of music and no other act was as significant. I say one of many because I differ in believing that The Beatles along with The Beach Boys and other 1960s acts had an influence on music created over the next generation.

And to sum it all up.

MagicMarker wrote: »

''Nothing really affected me until I heard Elvis. If there hadn't been Elvis, there would not have been The Beatles'' - John Lennon

Sinfonia

karaokeman wrote: »

You will see the vast majority of bands do use the same chords in a lot of their songs/use only 2 or 3 chords in one song. U2 have this with the guitar riff and echo effect. If bands didn't have this people would accuse them of ripping off other artists styles. Its their own style and they use it to distinguish their music from others.

Yes, many bands do use limited chord progressions etc. but I think that makes them more homogenous and less distinguishable.
In terms of the Stones, I played in a once-off tribute band thing, and was honestly just surprised at how unbelievably simple the guitar work turned out to be.

There are plenty of songwriters that are just as good as/better than The Beatles. Jimmy MacCarthy, Noel Gallagher and Chris Martin among others are born writers and in my opinion have much stronger messages in their songs than McCartney and Lennon do.

Fair enough if you feel that way, but I would imagine (particularly in Gallagher's case) that they would each cite The Beatles as a major influence on their songwriting, which is the point many are making here.
And while I respect each of those artists for their songwriting I would still rate The Beatles' music as more interesting, particularly the arrangements of their songs (although as I said, George Martin had a significant input on that end).
P.S. Don't discount Harrison either! :P

Yes and a lot of the black music required by white performers was created by Elvis and Chuck Berry. Sam Phillips saw their ability to use rock 'n' roll for the better.

I don't dismiss Elvis's significance as a cultural icon, and yes he could sing well in a broad range of styles, but I don't see - musically - what he actually 'created'. I think it reasonable to say that any pretty white boy with a decent voice could have done as good a job as Elvis at being (to put it one way) a loudspeaker for the songs of Leiber, Stoller et al.

I could go into great boring detail but that would be unnecessary.

I for one have plenty of time to read.

Yes I said one of "many". People claim The Beatles created all types of music and no other act was as significant. I say one of many because I differ in believing that The Beatles along with The Beach Boys and other 1960s acts had an influence on music created over the next generation.

What you said was that you find The Beatles 'very ordinary', and that they were 'no better than the Rolling Stones'.
I don't know who these people are who claim that 'The Beatles created all types of music and no other act was as significant', but with regard to those aspects of music that may be assessed on an objective basis, The Beatles (for example) were certainly 'better' than the Rolling Stones (for example), and much more innovative.
If you need a brief example, the inclusion of eastern instrumentation, eastern philosophy and experimental studio techniques, is more innovative than rehashing old blues songs and writing in older styles. I think both bands are great, but The Beatles weren't "very ordinary" and in the context of popular music were great innovators.
Of course, they weren't the first to do everything that they did, but The Beatles were a part of popular culture and people like Stockhausen weren't.

lordgoat

karaokeman wrote: »

But thats what everyone says about The Beatles. Everyone considers them to be Godly and to be the creators of all types of music.

That is not true by any means or other. There are plenty of bands that would have existed without The Beatles. Can you honestly say you see a similarity between The Beatles and The Black Eyed Peas.

Another band who would by all means have been around today without The Beatles are Metallica. Metallica's main influence was Thin Lizzy and they too were from The Beatles time back in the 1960s.

I never said The Beatles were a bad bad or an untalented one. By implying "ordinary" I can emphatically say I can still see them as being talented just not the best thing that ever happened to pop/rock or a band who changed every aspect of my life.

But even if you look at other bands from The Beatles time, I still see them as being ordinary. They were no better than The Rolling Stones or other bands of the time.

Elvis Presley was the real music god during the 1960s and the 1970s. He created rock 'n' roll, which was much of what the Beatles were advancing in their own time, and Elvis didn't even create all music.

Frank Sinatra came before Elvis and before Sinatra there was a whole host of famous opera stars.

No one person/band created music. Its been with us for hundreds of years and all significant acts have had their own contribution. The Beatles were just one of many.

Seen as most of your other thoughts have been ripped apart. I'll take this one.

You really should find out about Elvis and Sinatra before you bandy their names around. The wrote a miniscule amount of music. Sure Frank could sing and Elvis could put on one hell of a show but both were nowhere near the level you have them. I'd have Neil Diamond ahead of them both for making a greater musical contribution (in terms of song writing not performance, although Neil is a decent showman too)

I'd advise you to stop listening to the BEP and maybe listen to anything older than yourself.

Mr. K

I don't like The Doors, at all. I read an article about Jim Morrisson's "tortured genius" recently - he was a self-indulgent mess of a human being.

I quite like Nickelback.

karaokeman

lordgoat wrote: »

I'd advise you to stop listening to the BEP and maybe listen to anything older than yourself.

lordgoat wrote: »

I think pop music is often overlooked.

Just out of curiosity lordgoat what would you define as "pop music"?

rcaz

Birneybau wrote: »

The world was black and white, Stravinsky brought the colour.

FYP

MsJenjers

Celtic Woman all the way

Sinfonia

El Pr0n wrote: »

FYP

This is it really, isn't it?
I mean it's understandable if people aren't familiar with composers who worked outside the realm of 'popular' music because they obviously have less exposure in terms of mass appeal, but pretty much anything that a 'popular' band or artist is claimed to have discovered, created or invented has already been established by a composer, usually in a more pure/raw form, which of course is ultimately less marketable.
It annoys me when people dismiss the early minimalist composers, whose influence now permeates rock, hip-hop and pretty much all current popular genres right down to the fundamental aspects of those genres. And I may as well say, Steve Reich is and was easily the cream of the minimalist crop, for always maintaining an organic, human, soulful atmosphere within a style that is so heavily mechanical.
Anyway.
The most innovative achievement of The Beatles and George Martin was the fusion of different styles as far as I can see, similar to what Radiohead are doing nowadays. And as there are always "Vs." style debates (such as the relentless Radiohead vs. Oasis debates around these parts), I still think that regardless of what you think about (say) Noel Gallagher's writing, he can craft a song very well (particularly on Oasis' first two albums imo), but Radiohead's style of composition, structure and arrangement is more sophisticated. Anything else is down to subjective opinion. And the same goes for The Beatles and the Stones really. But in each case, The Beatles and Radiohead, for all their comparative sophistication, have really only innovated and pushed boundaries within the context of popular music and culture, while the mechanics of their compositional styles are certainly borrowed from earlier influences.

lordgoat

karaokeman wrote: »

Just out of curiosity lordgoat what would you define as "pop music"?

Pretty much everything you listed in that hilarious post that oxegen is better than glasto i'd file under pop.

Also while the BEP are most definitely pop, they are also possibly the worst band ever. Just because i feel pop music is overlooked at times doesn't mean that an awful lot of it is sh-it.

IsThisIt???

I think the Sex Pistols are the biggest, most overrated jokes that ever stumbled into a music career. Maybe 2 good songs and the rest was based on a "punk" image that didn't stand the test of time, evidenced by Mr Johnny "Rotton" Lydon doing a butter ad. You can tell me the ad was a joke but it still went against everything the Sex Pistols were and unfortunatly for them thats all they were as the tunes weren't there to back up the sell out. Sid Vicious was also dire and a scumbag.

I also agree that the doors are quite overrated. They're ok but had Jim Morrison not died, apart from a few songs, they would be all but forgotten.

I think The View are underrated and too many people write them off as a typical crap indie band that came out in the middle of the 00's.

And while Dire Straits mightn't have changed the world with their music they deserve more respect based on Romeo and Julliette alone if nothing else.

EarlERizer

IsThisIt??? wrote: »

I think the Sex Pistols are the biggest, most overrated jokes that ever stumbled into a music career. Maybe 2 good songs and the rest was based on a "punk" image that didn't stand the test of time, evidenced by Mr Johnny "Rotton" Lydon doing a butter ad. You can tell me the ad was a joke but it still went against everything the Sex Pistols were and unfortunatly for them thats all they were as the tunes weren't there to back up the sell out. Sid Vicious was also dire and a scumbag.

I also agree that the doors are quite overrated. They're ok but had Jim Morrison not died, apart from a few songs, they would be all but forgotten.

I think The View are underrated and too many people write them off as a typical crap indie band that came out in the middle of the 00's.

And while Dire Straits mightn't have changed the world with their music they deserve more respect based on Romeo and Julliette alone if nothing else.

The pistols are of iconic status because of the impact of their arrival and the times rather than just their music,call it been in the right place at the right time (with the right 'f.uck you' attitude).They were the 'big middle finger' the youth were waiting for.

You can't dismiss Lydon's body of work with "a butter ad", as Lydin has stated himself, that ad funded (in part) PiL's tour costs at the time so it was a win win venture, not very rock n roll or punk but the end justifies the means as they say, he has been active in music long since the Pistols died, and has worked across many genres of music in his time.

Your right though,Sid Vicous was a scumbag!

The Doors were years ahead of the rest, Morrison was off the rocker but you cant deny he was a brilliant frontman.

Im not too familiar with the veiw, not too up on the indie scene, mut check them out.

Dire Straits - cant fault you there m8, fookin great band, Knopfler is a legend!

EarlERizer

karaokeman wrote: »

But thats what everyone says about The Beatles. Everyone considers them to be Godly and to be the creators of all types of music.

I think they get their "god like" status for been the starting block so to speak, in that they were of a time when there wasnt much by way of competition,rock & roll wasnt as wide spread,there wasnt a mutlitude of other bands to pick & choose from,In America it was the wholesome beachboys sunny surf yes mam no mam pearly white teeth until 4 little suited scallies from scouserland arrived with a bang and woke the nation up.

karaokeman wrote: »

That is not true by any means or other. There are plenty of bands that would have existed without The Beatles. Can you honestly say you see a similarity between The Beatles and The Black Eyed Peas.

Another band who would by all means have been around today without The Beatles are Metallica. Metallica's main influence was Thin Lizzy and they too were from The Beatles time back in the 1960s.

While it's safe to say they arent the founding stone of all things in music
I think it is also safe to say that no bands would have been here today if not for the Beatles influence across music,as like those who have come since and who they influence going into the future.

ok so little Johnny picking up a guitar today and strumming away dreaming of been a star isn't been directly influenced by The Beatles but i'm sure if you trace back from his influences all roads will take you to a certain four peice,so wheter directly or indirectly be it Metallica or the god awful BEP's there is a link.

karaokeman wrote: »

I never said The Beatles were a bad bad or an untalented one. By implying "ordinary" I can emphatically say I can still see them as being talented just not the best thing that ever happened to pop/rock or a band who changed every aspect of my life.

But even if you look at other bands from The Beatles time, I still see them as being ordinary. They were no better than The Rolling Stones or other bands of the time.

I don't think their music was anything amazing, like you said, there was also the Stones, the Who etc but their appeal,the mass hysteric following they generated caused ripple effects throughout music/fashion of the time and that ripple is still in effect today.

karaokeman wrote: »

Elvis Presley was the real music god during the 1960s and the 1970s. He created rock 'n' roll, which was much of what the Beatles were advancing in their own time, and Elvis didn't even create all music.

I never 'got' Elvis, just another came n went singer,he had people pulling his strings and guiding his path, wasnt his sound influenced by the gospel chiors of the Black churchs? I don't see where he gets his 'God' status from, he aint nothing but a hound dog *tongue firmly in cheek*

karaokeman wrote: »

Frank Sinatra came before Elvis and before Sinatra there was a whole host of famous opera stars.

Frank was another manufactored entity, a good looking guy with a great sounding voice and an influential 'managment' team , but,what a voice, brilliant,another absolute legend!

karaokeman wrote: »

No one person/band created music. Its been with us for hundreds of years and all significant acts have had their own contribution. The Beatles were just one of many.

Exactly! but they were the 'Sputnik' of The Rock Bands that have come n gone since.


There is little to no originality in 'pop' music today, its all samples of something or someone else.

Here's an interesting little video that some readers here might enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac

Oasis_Dublin

MightyMighty737 wrote: »

Besides one or two songs, Thin Lizzy were pure muck.

To quote the kids, "lol lmao rofl lol jk."

Nolanger

The best crooner is Frankie Valli.

Android 666

karaokeman wrote: »

But thats what everyone says about The Beatles. Everyone considers them to be Godly and to be the creators of all types of music.

That is not true by any means or other. There are plenty of bands that would have existed without The Beatles. Can you honestly say you see a similarity between The Beatles and The Black Eyed Peas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a3NcwfOBzQ

Thankfully not...

karaokeman wrote: »

Another band who would by all means have been around today without The Beatles are Metallica. Metallica's main influence was Thin Lizzy and they too were from The Beatles time back in the 1960s.

Not strictly true. While Thin Lizzy formed in 1969, they did not release anything until 1970 so they were really a 70's and 80's band. Also listen to the piccolo 2/3rds of the way through Phil Lynott's Old Town to hear the influence of The Beatles' Penny Lane on that tune

karaokeman wrote: »

I never said The Beatles were a bad bad or an untalented one. By implying "ordinary" I can emphatically say I can still see them as being talented just not the best thing that ever happened to pop/rock or a band who changed every aspect of my life.

But even if you look at other bands from The Beatles time, I still see them as being ordinary. They were no better than The Rolling Stones or other bands of the time.

But the Stones were influenced by the Beatles as well. Anything the Stones did in the 60's was either copying the Beatles or as a reaction to them. After sgt. Peppers, the Stones released the satanic majesties request and all the down home bluesy stuff the released like Beggar's banquet was them reacting against the sheen of the Beatles and trying to create something uniquely their own - which was essentially parodying the old blues records they grew up with. Also the Stones greatest musical period was the sixties when they had the Beatles to bounce off imo.

I can't believe though that you're bigging up the likes of BEP and Chris Martin and you turning around and calling the Beatles ordinary. There really is something wrong there.

karaokeman wrote: »

Elvis Presley was the real music god during the 1960s and the 1970s. He created rock 'n' roll, which was much of what the Beatles were advancing in their own time, and Elvis didn't even create all music.

No he did not, he was merely the first white performer of it to make it big. This considered by most authorities as the first rock and roll record (partly written by Ike Turner):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbfnh1oVTk0

karaokeman wrote: »

Frank Sinatra came before Elvis and before Sinatra there was a whole host of famous opera stars.

With that statement you're dismissing alll of the other music created in the first half of the last century: blues, jazz, ragtime, swing, gospel, etc...

While Sinatra first came to fame as a crooner, singers using the technology of microphones to create a more intimate singing style and is considered by many to be one of the first teen idols because of his popularity with bobby soxers in the 40s but he would have been merely a footnote in history if it weren't for the work he released from the mid fifties on such as In the Wee Small Hours of the Morning.

karaokeman wrote: »

No one person/band created music. Its been with us for hundreds of years and all significant acts have had their own contribution. The Beatles were just one of many.

I don't think that anyone has mad that assertion, have they?

rcaz

EarlERizer wrote: »

but,what a voice, brilliant,another absolute legend!

I don't really get this one... Here's another unpopular opinion from me. A 'great voice' isn't enough to be a good musician. Adele, Amy Winehouse, Michael Bublé, Beyoncé, Jennifer Lopez, Tom Jones, anyone else like that, they have 'great voices', but they're not doing anything to make music better... Now I don't know the exact details of everyone in that list, as regards whether or not they write their own songs or anything, but you know what I mean. They all made it big 'cause of a notably good voice. But everyone knows a few people with great singing voices, and if someone who couldn't sing wanted to pay for singing lessons, they could have a great singing voice too. That isn't enough. Or, at least, it shouldn't be.

karaokeman

Ok I've accepted at this point I made my statement about The Beatles being "ordinary" a little bit misled.

I would quote the messages that convinced me but I'm sure the posters here remember me already for starting this whole thing.

I am now assured The Beatles have influenced the vast majority of modern day bands either directly or indirectly, including those I mentioned earlier where I failed to see any Beatles influence (Eg Thin Lizzy, Metallica, BEP).

But I still consider U2 to be superior to The Beatles mainly because U2 had more dedication.

U2 were a dedicated band who toured the world constantly following album releases. The Beatles were still great but I thought it was a mistake they became a studio band from 1966.

DublinWriter

karaokeman wrote: »

But I still consider U2 to be superior to The Beatles mainly because U2 had more dedication.

U2 were a dedicated band who toured the world constantly following album releases. The Beatles were still great but I thought it was a mistake they became a studio band from 1966.

I'm totally f*cking agog at that statement.

If dedication is the real hallmark of musical greatness then let's induct S-Club 7, The Spice Girls, Westlife and Jeward into the pantheon of musical greats as they all worked their asses off (some more literally than others).

The Beatles had to become a studio band in 1966 because the local covers band playing in your local pub tonight has a better P.A. system than the Beatles had to play Shea Stadium with.

Yes, Sgt. Pepper was a seminal album, but I think their real magnum opus was The White Album. Listen to it and you'll hear them cover the complete 20th Century popular musical spectrum from 30's music hall through to avant garde, stopping off en-route via ballad, folk, rock and pop.

U2 were in the right place at the right time. There were many with more talent around (The Blades, Freddie White to name but a couple), but they had big simple stompy 4/4 songs that were almost tailor made for 80's US college radio and stadia. They also had the business genius of Paul McGuinness behind them as the fifth member.

I'd concede them Rattle and Hum even though they had to go on a ram-raid mission of Southern American black music culture to complete the project, but once you bring Brian Eno on board, the game's normally up (see also Talking Heads, Devo).

karaokeman

DublinWriter wrote: »

I'm totally f*cking agog at that statement.

No I think The Beatles were fantastic but I think it would have been awesome if they toured more extensively.

They are still better than Westlife, the Spice Girls, S Club and all the rest because their songs had much better and more meaningful lyrics.

EDIT : While I know Westlife pale in comparison to The Beatles, it must be noted they release an album every year. That was like The Beatles except The Beatles had an additional 1 or 2 released every year. So obviously the fab four were more studio-commited than Westlife

Nolanger

New Order based Blue Monday on this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiR7iQ9yJmo

Sinfonia

Android 666 wrote: »

After sgt. Peppers, the Stones released the satanic majesties request and all the down home bluesy stuff

And Brian Wilson folded

El Pr0n wrote: »

I don't really get this one... Here's another unpopular opinion from me. A 'great voice' isn't enough to be a good musician. Adele, Amy Winehouse, Michael Bublé, Beyoncé, Jennifer Lopez, Tom Jones, anyone else like that, they have 'great voices', but they're not doing anything to make music better... Now I don't know the exact details of everyone in that list, as regards whether or not they write their own songs or anything, but you know what I mean. They all made it big 'cause of a notably good voice. But everyone knows a few people with great singing voices, and if someone who couldn't sing wanted to pay for singing lessons, they could have a great singing voice too. That isn't enough. Or, at least, it shouldn't be.

I agree and disagree.
A great voice is enough to be a good (or even great) performer. And it's often a good indicator of a good musician.
But I define the lines between a musician, a performer, and a composer pretty clearly, and it doesn't take a good composer or even an original composer to be a good musician. Perhaps especially not the latter, because as music has progressed through the 20th and into the 21st century, originality has often been measured by the originality of the concept within the work, and thus one needn't be a good musician or a good composer, just a creative philosopher. (I'm aware this is simplistically put, but you see what I'm getting at).
All that said, I believe that what makes a good musician (as I define it) is the ability and intelligence to understand the mechanics of music theory and to understand, employ and execute the quasi-transferrable skills of music (which will inevitably involve the ability to perform in some way or other on one or any instrument, including voice), even if they are unable to contribute anything particularly novel to the 'world' of music or perform to a high standard.
I suppose I'm bringing in an argument on terminology and semantics there. But yeah.

kerash

karaokeman wrote: »

No I think The Beatles were fantastic but I think it would have been awesome if they toured more extensively.

They are still better than Westlife, the Spice Girls, S Club and all the rest because their songs had much better and more meaningful lyrics.

EDIT : While I know Westlife pale in comparison to The Beatles, it must be noted they release an album every year. That was like The Beatles except The Beatles had an additional 1 or 2 released every year. So obviously the fab four were more studio-commited than Westlife

So by your logic touring = musical genius.. Holy mother of fúck

COMPARING WASTELIFE TO THE BEATLES??? Fúck me, seriously GET A GRIP

karaokeman

kerash wrote: »

So by your logic touring = musical genius.. Holy mother of fúck

COMPARING WASTELIFE TO THE BEATLES??? Fúck me, seriously GET A GRIP

If you remember correctly I said Westlife "pale in comparison" to The Beatles.

Thats little comparison on my part.

smokedeels

karaokeman wrote: »

If you remember correctly I said Westlife "pale in comparison" to The Beatles.

Thats little comparison on my part.

And genocide pales in comparison to pizza, it doesn't need to be said.

Kold

smokedeels wrote: »

And genocide pales in comparison to pizza, it doesn't need to be said.

In what sense are we talking here?

Sinfonia

Kold wrote: »

In what sense are we talking here?

Pizza has toured the world more extensively than genocide, but genocide has the more profound impact on people.

smokedeels

The four seasons pizza is the antithesis of ethnic cleansing.