Let's hope this one doesn't get locked
Nirvana is overrated
John Mayer would be way better if he didn't sing
That's it for now
Nirvana is overrated
John Mayer would be way better if he didn't sing
That's it for now
Controversial non-metal opinions
- Thread starter The Ozzman
- Start date
Nightmare_Heaven
Death Disco
SouthernTrendkill
Super Normie
- Aug 22, 2007
- 1,110
- 0
- 36
- 36
Oh yay, this will be fun.
Things that are popular are generally of high quality. Things that aren't popular are NOT necessarily of lesser quality, since there are a lot of factors that effect popularity beyond just quality. But if a band is selling millions of records then I think that means they are pretty damn fucking good at what they do. Like for example, boy band music might suck, but The Backstreet Boys must be damn great at it to be so huge. Nobody's opinion is worth more than anyone else's, so that lends credit to popularity. Even if the corporate masters are pulling the strings to make some hack popular, if it's music that is moving to thousands of people, then it is quality music. There has to be at least one thing great about it for it to do that.
I despise indie rock/pop/folk. I'll probably love it someday because I end up loving all the genres I hate. But right now indie music seems like they're intentionally trying to be meaningless. All the band names are as outlandish and pointless as they can manage, and the lyrics are pure flowing poetics with no message behind it. And even though these are "independent" bands, their sound & production is as polished, sterilizied and poppy as could be. I mean, a band like Of Montreal is extremely talented, amazing musicians. But I don't think there's very much merit in that genre. (Until I end up loving it in a year or so).
I hate pretty much everything that came out in the 80s. I just can't stand the production sound, too sterile. Somehow even the rawest fuckin' shit sounds sterile, except for the stuff that is so lo-fi that it's pretty much noise. I mean I do like Metallica, Slayer, GG Allin, Bruce Springsteen, but I'd like all of that stuff s lot more if it sounded more 90s.
Eminem is a freaking genius, one of the greatest artists of all-time. Even though everybody likes to rag on him, he'll still go down in history as one of the best artists ever.
Tom Petty's 90s & 00s material is better tan his 70s & 80s material. There are SOME tracks from his early days which are as good as the best tracks from his latter days, but none of the early albums as a whole can compare to any of the later album. Petty's been playing a hell of a long time, but it actually took him a few decades to find his best musical voice.
uhh... I consider Guns N Roses Classic Rock. They do a similar middle-of-the-road hard rock/folk/ballad mixture that the definitive classic rock bands like Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, and Ten Years After did. Some people would say, coming out in '88, that GNR's too late for Classic Rock, but I think they fit.
Speaking of which... I've yet to hear any bands that are as diverse as the classic rock bands. Diversity isn't necessarily the first thing people think of with classic rock. But those bands would do a all different shit all on the same album. Start with a hard rock tune, then a straight-up folk song, then a slow blues, then a heavy blues, then a prog song, then a straight-up jazz song, then end it with a raw acoustic blues, old school style. Music fans these days are more diverse than ever before, but bands don't seem to even be as diverse as bands from 4 decades ago. They can try to mix a lot of sounds but can they actually do a bunch of different genres seperately, on one album?
Things that are popular are generally of high quality. Things that aren't popular are NOT necessarily of lesser quality, since there are a lot of factors that effect popularity beyond just quality. But if a band is selling millions of records then I think that means they are pretty damn fucking good at what they do. Like for example, boy band music might suck, but The Backstreet Boys must be damn great at it to be so huge. Nobody's opinion is worth more than anyone else's, so that lends credit to popularity. Even if the corporate masters are pulling the strings to make some hack popular, if it's music that is moving to thousands of people, then it is quality music. There has to be at least one thing great about it for it to do that.
I despise indie rock/pop/folk. I'll probably love it someday because I end up loving all the genres I hate. But right now indie music seems like they're intentionally trying to be meaningless. All the band names are as outlandish and pointless as they can manage, and the lyrics are pure flowing poetics with no message behind it. And even though these are "independent" bands, their sound & production is as polished, sterilizied and poppy as could be. I mean, a band like Of Montreal is extremely talented, amazing musicians. But I don't think there's very much merit in that genre. (Until I end up loving it in a year or so).
I hate pretty much everything that came out in the 80s. I just can't stand the production sound, too sterile. Somehow even the rawest fuckin' shit sounds sterile, except for the stuff that is so lo-fi that it's pretty much noise. I mean I do like Metallica, Slayer, GG Allin, Bruce Springsteen, but I'd like all of that stuff s lot more if it sounded more 90s.
Eminem is a freaking genius, one of the greatest artists of all-time. Even though everybody likes to rag on him, he'll still go down in history as one of the best artists ever.
Tom Petty's 90s & 00s material is better tan his 70s & 80s material. There are SOME tracks from his early days which are as good as the best tracks from his latter days, but none of the early albums as a whole can compare to any of the later album. Petty's been playing a hell of a long time, but it actually took him a few decades to find his best musical voice.
uhh... I consider Guns N Roses Classic Rock. They do a similar middle-of-the-road hard rock/folk/ballad mixture that the definitive classic rock bands like Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, and Ten Years After did. Some people would say, coming out in '88, that GNR's too late for Classic Rock, but I think they fit.
Speaking of which... I've yet to hear any bands that are as diverse as the classic rock bands. Diversity isn't necessarily the first thing people think of with classic rock. But those bands would do a all different shit all on the same album. Start with a hard rock tune, then a straight-up folk song, then a slow blues, then a heavy blues, then a prog song, then a straight-up jazz song, then end it with a raw acoustic blues, old school style. Music fans these days are more diverse than ever before, but bands don't seem to even be as diverse as bands from 4 decades ago. They can try to mix a lot of sounds but can they actually do a bunch of different genres seperately, on one album?
Belligerent
Greekus Urungus
Incubus is a great band.
John Mayer is a good singer and even BETTER guitarist.
Porcupine Tree is the best group you'll ever hear.
The Who suck.
John Mayer is a good singer and even BETTER guitarist.
Porcupine Tree is the best group you'll ever hear.
The Who suck.
Vegard Pompey
ALLY TO GOOD, NIGHTMARE TO YOU
This is actually kinda true, but I'd rather deny it, or just blame it on the stupidity of the majority.
But, I guess that people like me prioritize different musical qualities. I'd rather have music that's deep instead of catchy, I don't care if the artist can dance or not and the vocals aren't much more important than any of the other instruments.
However, I still claim that most of these artists, while doing it right, are doing it without any real passion.
Matt
Active Member
no
Master_Yoda77
Juggalo
username345
Member
That's controversial?
Can't think of much at the moment... White Noise's An Electric Storm and The United States of America's self-titled are the best psychedelic albums ever.
Belligerent
Greekus Urungus
username345
Member
NinjaGeek
Member
- Feb 22, 2007
- 1,056
- 1
- 36
99% of rock music sounds horrible, because the electric guitar is such an ugly instrument. It should never be used unless for extreme heaviness as in metal, or if you give it a really unique sound that can't be achieved with acoustic instruments. If I wanna listen to soft music, I'll take acoustic guitar or a violin over electric guitar any day.
NinjaGeek
Member
- Feb 22, 2007
- 1,056
- 1
- 36
Main issue I have with this, is who exactly separates the popular groups out from the rest? Certainly not the listeners, it's not like people who are into pop music listened to hundreds of boy bands and decided backstreet boys were the best at it. It's all the big labels picking who is most marketable. Lots of people I know, who listen to pop music, listen to it for the lyrics or the fact that it's catchy and easy to dance to. It's good at accomplishing that goal, and it's fine if people want to listen to it for that reason. But I definitely wouldn't call it good music.
SouthernTrendkill
Super Normie
- Aug 22, 2007
- 1,110
- 0
- 36
- 36
Well, to me, if a million people are vibing on it, then it has got to have merit. A million people aren't going to be getting something meaningful out of something that has no meaning. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily the best artist of that genre, since like you said there could be better bands they haven't heard.
I don't personally like any dance-oriented music. And I'll admit that I don't exactly have respect for dance-oriented music. But whose to say what primary objective 'good' music needs to have? There is skill involved in creating a kickass dance beat that's gonna get the whole floor grooving.
Honestly, the majority of my favorite bands are hugely mainstream. From Pink Floyd and Neil Young to Eminem and Pantera, and even bands like Burzum and Cryptopsy are among the most popular in their styles. It's not exactly dance music but I think the principle applies across the board. There may or may not be better bands in the underground, but all the bands at the top have a lot of quality. Great bands with enough exposure will become huge, and even if it's just the corporate masters dealing cards, if so many people like it then there must be something good about it. It's not like people who listen to The Backstreet Boys would literally listen to ANYTHING that gets fed to them. Some people would claim that they would, but that's bullshit. Pop fans are music fans just like anyone else, they listen to the stuff they like, the stuff that moves them and suits their desires.
Master_Yoda77
Juggalo
Well...on other forums I'd go to if I even mentioned that Pink Floyd is better then Rush I would get flamed beyond belief.
Einherjar86
Active Member
That's because people on other forums are dumbasses. You are of sound mind, my friend.
I'm with Ozzman, Nirvana is pretty bad.
And The Beatles are overrated. Really overrated. And in the same vein, John Lennon was not a great songwriter.
Master_Yoda77
Juggalo
lol. Glad to see someone actually agrees with me for once.
I used to be a diehard Nirvana fan. Now I've grown to laugh at my obsession with Kurt Cobain. I will still put on one of their albums and enjoy myself though. Bleach is pretty cool.
I also enjoy The Beatle's old stuff. Stuff from Meet The Beatles and A Hard Days Night
I used to be a diehard Nirvana fan. Now I've grown to laugh at my obsession with Kurt Cobain. I will still put on one of their albums and enjoy myself though. Bleach is pretty cool.
I also enjoy The Beatle's old stuff. Stuff from Meet The Beatles and A Hard Days Night
challenge_everything
Active Member
challenge_everything
Active Member
This one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. This is basically the argumentum ad populum fallacy that JS Mill, among others, debunked hundreds of years ago. There is no logical connection between popularity and 'correctness' or 'truth'. And this is even more so in music.
I mean, there are surveys all the time showing just how stupid people are, ie a majority of people believe the Garden of Eden was a true story, that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 etc etc. Fact: most people are stupid --> most people have equally idiotic taste in music.
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
Yes on both accounts.First 4 MJ albums are great.
Not sure if these are controversial but here goes:
GNR is the best hard rock group ever (assuming you don't consider Led Zep or maybe Rush as hard rock).
Western Classical Music (Schubert, Bach, Wagner, etc.) is the greatest form of music in history and the greatest artistic achievment of the human race, some literature such as Shakespeare and Dostoyevsky is close.
Similar threads
