Your unpopular music opinions

rcaz

karaokeman wrote: »

No you can still complain but it gets to a point where a line should be drawn. People always bash the RHCP now over their new guitarist Josh Klinghoffer. I've heard so many old fans saying Klinghoffer is s*** and can't play as good as Frusciante. While it is fair to say John was better, its not right to call Klinghoffer s*** because the people who claim he is just can't play guitar as well.

I play guitar, I'm not amazing but I know what I'm doing, and I don't think he's very good. Not because he lacks technique or ability, but because he sounds exactly like Frusciante. He's a huge Frusciante fan, got into the band, and tries to fit in with their old sound rather than make a new sound with them. That's the mark of a bad guitar player, bland and stale.

Also, I think people mostly bash Red Hot Chili Peppers now because they haven't been good in about ten years.

And you don't have to censor yourself :P

smokedeels

karaokeman wrote: »

Most U2 haters can't sing, play an instrument or write good songs themselves:P.

I can play music but as you suggest I've never written a decent song, nothing that I think deserves to flood an already crowded market place.

U2 are an example of what's wrong with music, no quality control and a rush to get more product on shelves. I have an issue with that and have every right to comment on it, my own musical ability - or lack thereof - aside.

karaokeman

Android 666 wrote: »

Well, that's the fault of U2 or their marketing people. If I hear a dire single off an album I'm not going to think 'Hmm, that was crap but I think I'll buy the album just to make sure...' Unless it's a band I really admire and enjoy I'm not going to make that sacrifice.

I respect your decision but its just my opinion on chart followers. The lead single off an album isn't always the best. I like The Script and I thought their debut single We Cry was dire, didn't stop me from listening to the album and their other work.

The Script's best song IMO is Rusty Halo, which is a non-single song off their debut album. I never would have heard it if I judged their whole debut album by that terrible promo track.

And to Zero1986, you will have a very limited view of U2 if all you have heard is the All That You Can't Leave Behind album.

SilverScreen

karaokeman wrote: »

You are obviously never going to enjoy listening to new music if you look at it that way.

In life we regret the things we didn't do, not the things we did. Anytime I listen to a s*** album, it doesn't make me feel like I've wasted 50 minutes of my life. I'm happy enough I tried the album the same is with alcohol, I tried drinking but it didn't work for me so now I'm a pioneer but I never view the times I tried it as a waste of time.

How is it obvious? I enjoy listening to new music constantly. If I listen to a new album and I enjoy it well then that's time well spent, if I don't then I regret listening to it.

And to Zero1986, you will have a very limited view of U2 if all you have heard is the All That You Can't Leave Behind album.

Sorry did I say that was all I've heard? I've listened to The Joshua Tree, Boy, Achtung Baby and War. Not to mention having the band shoved down my throat by the fucking mainstream media constantly. I think I've made up my mind that I don't enjoy their music and there's lots of music that I do enjoy instead.

nisior

You cannot deny the power of 'I Want It That Way' by the Backstreet Boys.

karaokeman

nisior wrote: »

You cannot deny the power of 'I Want It That Way' by the Backstreet Boys.

You cannot deny that the Backstreet Boys can't sing.

The only boyband I can think of with a shroud of good vocal ability are Westlife.

Take That are good singers but they're not a boyband so I won't include them in with Westlife.

Malice

karaokeman wrote: »

Take That are good singers but they're not a boyband

That's going on the list for sure!

karaokeman

Malice wrote: »

That's going on the list for sure!

All five of them can play instruments, sing well and write their own songs and three of them are over 40.

That does not qualify Take That as being a boyband.

rcaz

karaokeman wrote: »

All five of them can play instruments, sing well and write their own songs and three of them are over 40.

That does not qualify Take That as being a boyband.

All five of them are also in a boyband...

Sinfonia

Manband..?

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

Malice

karaokeman wrote: »

All five of them can play instruments, sing well and write their own songs and three of them are over 40.

That does not qualify Take That as being a boyband.

How do you define a boyband then?

viadah

Malice wrote: »

How do you define a boyband then?

A collection of drama school rejects with borderline singing ability (this even only required for one member). Sufficient attractiveness to enable the 'gay Russian Roulette', wherein speculation as to orientation allows for speculative tabloid coverage (winners get to out themselves after appropriate level of success does not hinder acceptance). Access to extensive back catalogue of other people's songs as voted for by mammies.

Malice

viadah wrote: »

A collection of drama school rejects with borderline singing ability (this even only required for one member). Sufficient attractiveness to enable the 'gay Russian Roulette', wherein speculation as to orientation allows for speculative tabloid coverage (winners get to out themselves after appropriate level of success does not hinder acceptance). Access to extensive back catalogue of other people's songs as voted for by mammies.

Well I was hoping for karaokeman's definition but that's pretty good too .

viadah

Gotta strike while the iron is hot!

JerryHandbag

Malice wrote: »

How do you define a boyband then?

Tools on stools

Technocentral

Malice wrote: »

How do you define a boyband then?

Muzak for non discerning 10 year old girls.

bobbaggio

I hate coldplay's new song....how long did it take him to think up of that melody? and I like chris martin, fair play to him, but that song is pure scutter

karaokeman

Malice wrote: »

How do you define a boyband then?

A group of pretty boys with scarce musical abilities, barr the odd good singing voice (as goes for Shane of Westlife) and who make 'music' for the sole purpose of pleasing a group of 15-year old teenage girls who will have no interest in them 5 years on.

Take That are simply none of that with the exception that they are all good singers.

I've met many, many people who claim Take That are a boyband. Anyone who does simply has no clue about them, they've only heard that one song "Back For Good" and think just because its a typical boyband song that the artists who recorded it must be part of a boyband.

Any real Take That followers also will know they record music because they think its genuine and not because they will give them an unlasting love from the opposite sex.

rcaz

Take that were put together by a manager who wanted to make a teen-oriented pop group. They were a manufactured boyband. Who cares if they can write and play, they were put together to sell records to teenagers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Martin-Smith

None of this is necessarily a bad thing, they were excellent at being a boyband. I haven't kept up with their reunion stuff. But they were made to be a boyband.

karaokeman

El Pr0n wrote: »

Take that were put together by a manager who wanted to make a teen-oriented pop group. They were a manufactured boyband. Who cares if they can write and play, they were put together to sell records to teenagers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Martin-Smith

None of this is necessarily a bad thing, they were excellent at being a boyband. I haven't kept up with their reunion stuff. But they were made to be a boyband.

Take That were originally a boyband. The reunion material has been more about change and evolution than keeping consistent with their old material.

If you do ever get a chance to look at the post-reunion material you will see that they have not released one cover since getting back together. In the 1990s Take That released a few covers like "How Deep Is Your Love" like most boybands do, but it was back then neither them nor their manager realised their true musical potential.

But post-reunion songs like "Kidz", "Shine" and "Happy Now" cannot be truly considered boyband songs. These are genuine pop songs made by musicians, not teen heart throbs singing soppy love songs. Yes a lot of Take That songs are love songs but if you look at a boyband like Westlife, Boyzone or JLS you will see that is all they record. That's the line where Take That are different.

I agree they were one of the better boybands back in the day but I like many more people have been more impressed by the reunion material.

The whole reason they have done so well as a comeback unit is actually because people admired them for losing the boyband image and creating a more indie-pop sort of sound, which has helped them to sell out stadiums.

You will know that because its only in recent years Gary Barlow has been acknowledged as one of Britain's greatest songwriters.

viadah

as an avid reader of Smash Hits back in the early '90s (no, I don't have any shame ashally) I can definitely say this:



was a boy band. Now they've grown up they are a man band. Only thing that stayed the same is they're appealing to the exact same people they were aiming at about 20 years ago. They all grew up together.






Edit: they're still awful obviously.

rcaz

karaokeman wrote: »

If you do ever get a chance to look at the post-reunion material you will see that they have not released one cover since getting back together. In the 1990s Take That released a few covers like "How Deep Is Your Love" like most boybands do, but it was back then neither them nor their manager realised their true musical potential.

But post-reunion songs like "Kidz", "Shine" and "Happy Now" cannot be truly considered boyband songs. These are genuine pop songs made by musicians, not teen heart throbs singing soppy love songs. Yes a lot of Take That songs are love songs but if you look at a boyband like Westlife, Boyzone or JLS you will see that is all they record. That's the line where Take That are different.

So covers and love songs define boybands?

karaokeman wrote: »

I agree they were one of the better boybands back in the day but I like many more people have been more impressed by the reunion material.

The whole reason they have done so well as a comeback unit is actually because people admired them for losing the boyband image and creating a more indie-pop sort of sound, which has helped them to sell out stadiums.

You don't think their current success has anything at all to do with nostalgia and novelty? Because I don't think millions of people just happened to stumble across this great new band...

karaokeman wrote: »

You will know that because its only in recent years Gary Barlow has been acknowledged as one of Britain's greatest songwriters.

Who acknowledged that exactly?

karaokeman

El Pr0n wrote: »

So covers and love songs define boybands?

They don't but in general most boybands don't record much more than just love songs and covers. Take That experiment more and thats what stands to them.

El Pr0n wrote: »

You don't think their current success has anything at all to do with nostalgia and novelty? Because I don't think millions of people just happened to stumble across this great new band...

Then how can you explain the fact Take That have played much faster selling tours and released better selling albums since 2005?

El Pr0n wrote: »

Who acknowledged that exactly?

http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/gary-barlow-voted-greatest-british-songwriter-194434

rcaz

karaokeman wrote: »

They don't but in general most boybands do. Take That experiment more and thats what stands to them.

Has the word 'experiment' lost all meaning? There is absolutely nothing experimental about Take That.

karaokeman wrote: »

Then how can you explain the fact Take That have played much faster selling tours and released better selling albums since 2005?

That's the point - they've sold so much because people who were around for them the first time, like my big sister, went to see them 'for a laugh', and younger people who were too young for them in the 90s went to see them because they remembered the whole boyband hysteria and now they get to experience it pseudo-first hand.

karaokeman wrote: »

http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/gary-barlow-voted-greatest-british-songwriter-194434

The Sun said so. Brilliant.

lordgoat

Guffaw. The thread just keeps on giving.

Technocentral

El Pr0n wrote: »

Has the word 'experiment' lost all meaning? There is absolutely nothing experimental about Take That.



That's the point - they've sold so much because people who were around for them the first time, like my big sister, went to see them 'for a laugh', and younger people who were too young for them in the 90s went to see them because they remembered the whole boyband hysteria and now they get to experience it pseudo-first hand.



The Sun said so. Brilliant.

Yo El Pron, the K man must be on the pipe, right?

Technocentral

viadah wrote: »

as an avid reader of Smash Hits back in the early '90s (no, I don't have any shame ashally) I can definitely say this:



was a boy band. Now they've grown up they are a man band. Only thing that stayed the same is they're appealing to the exact same people they were aiming at about 20 years ago. They all grew up together.
Edit: they're still awful obviously.

Now that you remind me I used to read Smash Hits back in its halcyon days in the early to mid 80's when they featured great bands like Human League, New Order and Depeche Mode, before the SAW era of shiite music crept in.

finfinfin

kings of leon give me piles.
bar one song,al green is snot.
billy ocean gets me fierce "hipsy"
british rap,bar tinie tempah,should be made illegal.

Have to say that over the last few years I've been really impressed by Take That's output. Not a band I would ever thought I would listen to but they really are impressing me in recent years. Someone recently commented at a house party where my Ipod was on shuffle and supplying the nights music that it was odd to go from listing to Mr. Bungle to Take That to Pantera to DJ Shadow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxEVPe7XMcs

karaokeman

El Pr0n wrote: »

Has the word 'experiment' lost all meaning? There is absolutely nothing experimental about Take That.

Dude you have not heard their last album, barr the lead single (The Flood) nothing else on the record is like anything Take That have done since their reunion or in the olden days.

El Pr0n wrote: »

That's the point - they've sold so much because people who were around for them the first time, like my big sister, went to see them 'for a laugh', and younger people who were too young for them in the 90s went to see them because they remembered the whole boyband hysteria and now they get to experience it pseudo-first hand.

Yes there are the first time fans who listened to Take That in the 1990s but they have made many more fans too. I am 20 now so I was obviously too young to appreciate it the first time around when I was only 5 during their split.

But their fanbase has grown enormously. Its a huge change going from arena-sized venues, which they did in the 90s to Wembley Stadium now.

El Pr0n wrote: »

The Sun said so. Brilliant.

Its actually a poll, voted by the British population.

Deleted User wrote: »

Have to say that over the last few years I've been really impressed by Take That's output. Not a band I would ever thought I would listen to but they really are impressing me in recent years.

It gets better, as you read back through this thread there are numerous people who came out as Take That fans. No one said anything about the likes of Westlife, N*Sync and Blue, which again shows Take That have a stronger fanbase with serious music fans.