If Music Could Talk

WestwayKid wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 11:39am

I heard someone listening to The Doors last weekend and was struck by how awful I know find them. Crap poetry set to crap music. Yes - they are held up as absolute masters of rock. I'm certain the cult of Jim Morrison is largely responsible for that. He's seen by many as a cool leather pants wearing rebel who was more hip poet than rock singer. The reality - at least in my opinion - is that he was an obnoxious drunk and his "poetry" was 10th grade high school English class garbage. Yes, I went through my Doors phase when I was about 12-13, but I'm thankful I grew out of it. I will admit (however) that LA Woman is pretty good jam.

Marky Dread wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 12:46pm

BitterTom wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 12:42pm

Pink Floyd
Nirvana
Oasis
Blur

I'm sure more will come to me.

Blur made some great songs. How much Floyd have you heard? The early stuff with Syd is exceptional.

BitterTom wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 12:56pm

Marky Dread wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 12:46pm

BitterTom wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 12:42pm

Pink Floyd
Nirvana
Oasis
Blur

I'm sure more will come to me.

Blur made some great songs. How much Floyd have you heard? The early stuff with Syd is exceptional.

Blur made a handful of good tracks I agree but the majority of their album tracks were poor. The ratio of crap to good is too high for me to say they are anything else but overrated. As for Pink Floyd, ok I haven't listened as extensively I'll give you that. Listened many times to all of Echoes (another favourites of my dad's) and a handful of other tracks. Great Gig in the Sky is great, couldn't get into anything else at all. Given their reputation and I only like 1 track from hearing their best of, they have to be overrated for me.

Low Down Low wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:10pm

Kind of a tricky question i think. I'm not into the Doors much either, but i'm not so sure exactly how they are rated in the pantheon to being with. Same with Blur. I can say with confidence that Ed Sheeran is vastly overrated as are U2, the waves of adulation that come their way are simply in no way commensurate with the quality of their output. With more reluctance i think i'd have to say the same for Springsteen, not that i dont like or appreciate him, i just find myself wondering what a lot of the fuss is about when listening to an awful lot of his albums, the first 4 or 5 aside.

Marky Dread wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:06pm

BitterTom wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 12:56pm

Marky Dread wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 12:46pm

BitterTom wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 12:42pm

Pink Floyd
Nirvana
Oasis
Blur

I'm sure more will come to me.

Blur made some great songs. How much Floyd have you heard? The early stuff with Syd is exceptional.

Blur made a handful of good tracks I agree but the majority of their album tracks were poor. The ratio of crap to good is too high for me to say they are anything else but overrated. As for Pink Floyd, ok I haven't listened as extensively I'll give you that. Listened many times to all of Echoes (another favourites of my dad's) and a handful of other tracks. Great Gig in the Sky is great, couldn't get into anything else at all. Given their reputation and I only like 1 track from hearing their best of, they have to be overrated for me.

Some bands take a while to get into. I used to dismiss a lot of stuff out of hand but over the years you learn to appreciate things differently. I'm not digging at you or your age you are entitled to your view/opinion as much as the next guy. Blur were another band I got into later and I have to disagree about their albums as I prefer mostly album tracks over their singles.

Marky Dread wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:13pm

Low Down Low wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:10pm

Kind of a tricky question i think. I'm not into the Doors much either, but i'm not so sure exactly how they are rated in the pantheon to being with. Same with Blur. I can say with confidence that Ed Sheeran is vastly overrated as are U2, the waves of adulation that come their way are simply in no way commensurate with the quality of their output. With more reluctance i think i'd have to say the same for Springsteen, not that i dont like or appreciate him, i just find myself wondering what a lot of the fuss is about when listening to an awful lot of his albums, the first 4 or 5 aside.

Those first few U2 albums are really good. The later stuff has a couple of really stong songs but overall they disappoint. All this separating the music from the artist goes without saying.

Low Down Low wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:22pm

Marky Dread wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:13pm

Low Down Low wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:10pm

Kind of a tricky question i think. I'm not into the Doors much either, but i'm not so sure exactly how they are rated in the pantheon to being with. Same with Blur. I can say with confidence that Ed Sheeran is vastly overrated as are U2, the waves of adulation that come their way are simply in no way commensurate with the quality of their output. With more reluctance i think i'd have to say the same for Springsteen, not that i dont like or appreciate him, i just find myself wondering what a lot of the fuss is about when listening to an awful lot of his albums, the first 4 or 5 aside.

Those first few U2 albums are really good. The later stuff has a couple of really stong songs but overall they disappoint. All this separating the music from the artist goes without saying.

I was a huge U2 fan right up to War. After that i like Achtung Baby and that's about it. Theres the Joshua Tree which has some good songs but doesn't merit its legendary reputation to my mind. But that is just my opinion. I just feel only the most blinkered of fans could speak up for a lot of the mediocrity they have been releasing over the past 15-20 years and more.

Kory wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:33pm

I mean what's the impetus to be creative when people are going to fill out the stadium no matter what you release

Kory wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:33pm

Low Down Low wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:22pm

Marky Dread wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:13pm

Low Down Low wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:10pm

Kind of a tricky question i think. I'm not into the Doors much either, but i'm not so sure exactly how they are rated in the pantheon to being with. Same with Blur. I can say with confidence that Ed Sheeran is vastly overrated as are U2, the waves of adulation that come their way are simply in no way commensurate with the quality of their output. With more reluctance i think i'd have to say the same for Springsteen, not that i dont like or appreciate him, i just find myself wondering what a lot of the fuss is about when listening to an awful lot of his albums, the first 4 or 5 aside.

Those first few U2 albums are really good. The later stuff has a couple of really stong songs but overall they disappoint. All this separating the music from the artist goes without saying.

I was a huge U2 fan right up to War. After that i like Achtung Baby and that's about it. Theres the Joshua Tree which has some good songs but doesn't merit its legendary reputation to my mind. But that is just my opinion. I just feel only the most blinkered of fans could speak up for a lot of the mediocrity they have been releasing over the past 15-20 years and more.

I mean what's the impetus to be creative when people are going to fill out the stadium no matter what you release

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:38pm

Kory wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:33pm

I mean what's the impetus to be creative when people are going to fill out the stadium no matter what you release

Yet, you'd think that that kind of assured market (plus a gorillion dollars in the bank) would give them the freedom to be more creative. Whatever people think of Radiohead's music—and I ain't a fan of most of it after OKC—they took their mainstream success and ran the other way with it.

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:38pm

Kory wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:33pm

I mean what's the impetus to be creative when people are going to fill out the stadium no matter what you release

Yet, you'd think that that kind of assured market (plus a gorillion dollars in the bank) would give them the freedom to be more creative. Whatever people think of Radiohead's music—and I ain't a fan of most of it after OKC—they took their mainstream success and ran the other way with it.

Low Down Low wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:46pm

Kory wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:33pm

Low Down Low wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:22pm

Marky Dread wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:13pm

Low Down Low wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:10pm

Kind of a tricky question i think. I'm not into the Doors much either, but i'm not so sure exactly how they are rated in the pantheon to being with. Same with Blur. I can say with confidence that Ed Sheeran is vastly overrated as are U2, the waves of adulation that come their way are simply in no way commensurate with the quality of their output. With more reluctance i think i'd have to say the same for Springsteen, not that i dont like or appreciate him, i just find myself wondering what a lot of the fuss is about when listening to an awful lot of his albums, the first 4 or 5 aside.

Those first few U2 albums are really good. The later stuff has a couple of really stong songs but overall they disappoint. All this separating the music from the artist goes without saying.

I was a huge U2 fan right up to War. After that i like Achtung Baby and that's about it. Theres the Joshua Tree which has some good songs but doesn't merit its legendary reputation to my mind. But that is just my opinion. I just feel only the most blinkered of fans could speak up for a lot of the mediocrity they have been releasing over the past 15-20 years and more.

I mean what's the impetus to be creative when people are going to fill out the stadium no matter what you release

Well, Pride (in the name of love) for one thing! But i suspect its probably more of a case of a band being 40 years on the go with no change in personnel and running out of creative juice. Actually i think they reached that point many moons ago, how many bands go more than, say, 15-20 years on the go and still retain the creative spark and impetus of their early years? Not many i would hazard a guess...

Low Down Low wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:46pm

Kory wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:33pm

Low Down Low wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:22pm

Marky Dread wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:13pm

Low Down Low wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:10pm

Kind of a tricky question i think. I'm not into the Doors much either, but i'm not so sure exactly how they are rated in the pantheon to being with. Same with Blur. I can say with confidence that Ed Sheeran is vastly overrated as are U2, the waves of adulation that come their way are simply in no way commensurate with the quality of their output. With more reluctance i think i'd have to say the same for Springsteen, not that i dont like or appreciate him, i just find myself wondering what a lot of the fuss is about when listening to an awful lot of his albums, the first 4 or 5 aside.

Those first few U2 albums are really good. The later stuff has a couple of really stong songs but overall they disappoint. All this separating the music from the artist goes without saying.

I was a huge U2 fan right up to War. After that i like Achtung Baby and that's about it. Theres the Joshua Tree which has some good songs but doesn't merit its legendary reputation to my mind. But that is just my opinion. I just feel only the most blinkered of fans could speak up for a lot of the mediocrity they have been releasing over the past 15-20 years and more.

I mean what's the impetus to be creative when people are going to fill out the stadium no matter what you release

Well, Pride (in the name of love) for one thing! But i suspect its probably more of a case of a band being 40 years on the go with no change in personnel and running out of creative juice. Actually i think they reached that point many moons ago, how many bands go more than, say, 15-20 years on the go and still retain the creative spark and impetus of their early years? Not many i would hazard a guess...

Kory wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:48pm

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:38pm

Kory wrote: ↑

28 May 2019, 1:33pm

I mean what's the impetus to be creative when people are going to fill out the stadium no matter what you release

Yet, you'd think that that kind of assured market (plus a gorillion dollars in the bank) would give them the freedom to be more creative. Whatever people think of Radiohead's music—and I ain't a fan of most of it after OKC—they took their mainstream success and ran the other way with it.

Right, which is even more reason to dislike them. They are lazy.