-
Rd 13 Reviews + Club boards »
ADE v RIC · WB v BL · HAW v GWS · WCE v NM · StK v GCS · SYD v GEE · ESS v CAR · COL v MEL ·
And post your "Liked, Learned, Hated" right here.
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 14
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 13 Winner: Boyd oh Boyd
Artists generally considered good, but you hate
- Thread starter The_Big_Ship
- Start date
- Tagged users None
SugarShane
C12 H22 O11
Thanks Roy.
jfc.
- Banned
- #104
I don't listen to bands that I know I won't like, so it is hard for me to know whether bands I know I won't like could be considered good in the first place.
I took the bait and You Tubed Muse and Foo Fighters, they are about as vanilla as it gets. Competent in their musicianship, but doesn't strike a chord with me whatsoever. My loss I guess.
I can just look at bands like Coldplay and other JJJ/Pitchfork usual suspects and can just tell they suck, so no problem there.....
Gotye whoever/whatever they/he is might be the worst shit I have ever heard, someone here said he sounds like Sting, I think thats being generous. Sounds like crap that would be over the closing credits for 'The Secret Life of Us' or something. Atrocious.
PS - Can someone please explain to me how 'music needed Radiohead'?
I took the bait and You Tubed Muse and Foo Fighters, they are about as vanilla as it gets. Competent in their musicianship, but doesn't strike a chord with me whatsoever. My loss I guess.
I can just look at bands like Coldplay and other JJJ/Pitchfork usual suspects and can just tell they suck, so no problem there.....
Gotye whoever/whatever they/he is might be the worst shit I have ever heard, someone here said he sounds like Sting, I think thats being generous. Sounds like crap that would be over the closing credits for 'The Secret Life of Us' or something. Atrocious.
PS - Can someone please explain to me how 'music needed Radiohead'?
GreatBradScott
Horny for UFOs
- Aug 21, 2011
- 8,236
- 21,323
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Manchester City, Melbourne Victory
I love 'Appetite For Destruction'. It's a fun, period piece. Not sheened enough to be 'hair metal', but too pop-metalish to be taken as a serious 'challenging the status quo' record. It's like 'Brothers In Arms' by Dire Straits, songs are put together well-enough to constitute no matter how many times you've heard them, you can still enjoy it. (However 'Sweet Child O' Mine' is the weakest song on that album).
Use Your Illusion I & II is a ****. Jesus H. Christ, why, why does this thing exist. November Rain is arguably overrated, with Civil War being the only decent song. Never seen the appeal of this shite record.
Use Your Illusion I & II is a ****. Jesus H. Christ, why, why does this thing exist. November Rain is arguably overrated, with Civil War being the only decent song. Never seen the appeal of this shite record.
I'll take you up on both points. Well I won't go into Foo Fighters because I just feel them to be generic.
Irrespective of what some may think of the "current" Muse there is no other band that has the potency of this trio live right now.
I don't care for listening to thier albums but I'll watch them live over most other bands.
[YOUTUBE]BDyxrQOfKE4&start=191[/YOUTUBE]
Radiohead?
Don't listen to me, but hear other artists who may not care to (Read are not able to) emulate Radiohead, but thank them for what they've done for the industry as a whole.
The term "influential" does get bandied around regularly, but I can't think of another band that has altered pre-conceived ideas of what music is about as much as Radiohead has done so in the past 15 years.
The repercussions of that may not be immediate, but the net result is that the standard has been set for others to achieve.
- Banned
- #108
I'm not that knowledgable on Radiohead (havent heard them in 10 years), but I presume you are saying they have influenced a lot of shit bands? I like the albums of theirs I have heard, but I can pick their influences in a snap of a finger. I don't see what they have done as outstandingly original, I still don't see how they have 'altered pre-conceived ideas of what music is about'
That's not how it works.
When you're at the top of your game, (in an artistic fashion and not commercial fashion), you don't necessarily influence others by way of having them mimic you, but rather for the standard you have set.
They may not be obvious to the average music punter, but it is obvious for those within the music industry and by virtue of that, the efforts are harder and hopefully the end result better.
You'd look like a dick setting out to sound like Radiohead, but may come out a master by emulating their protocols.
- Dec 11, 2010
- 10,109
- 11,364
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Stipe once said Radiohead were "so good it's scary"..they influenced "Up" from what I've read,haven't listened to it.
And Coldplay - people rip on them but they come up with some genius melodies.
And Coldplay - people rip on them but they come up with some genius melodies.
Do you like Phil Collins? I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Christy, take off your robe. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. Sabrina, remove your dress. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Sabrina, why don't you, uh, dance a little. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Christy, get down on your knees so Sabrina can see your arseh*le. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. Sabrina, don't just stare at it, eat it. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite.
Do you like Huey Lewis and The News?
Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes, but when Sports came out in '83, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost. He's been compared to Elvis Costello, but I think Huey has a far much more bitter, cynical sense of humor.
In '87, Huey released Fore, their most accomplished album. I think their undisputed masterpiece is "Hip to be Square", a song so catchy, most people probably don't listen to the lyrics. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity, and the importance of trends, it's also a personal statement about the band itself.
Good thread but pointless. This isn't debate anymore(if it ever was), but just slavish fanbois/gals.
And thats what we are to the bands we like.
No-one can deny.
Discussion is good and healthy. But anyone even entertaining the thought of swaying another contrarian poster to your point of view, is surely extracting the urine?
Music is one of the most deeply subjective preferences - we are almost kamikaze and zealot like in our adherence.
And that is what music is to us
Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes, but when Sports came out in '83, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost. He's been compared to Elvis Costello, but I think Huey has a far much more bitter, cynical sense of humor.
In '87, Huey released Fore, their most accomplished album. I think their undisputed masterpiece is "Hip to be Square", a song so catchy, most people probably don't listen to the lyrics. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity, and the importance of trends, it's also a personal statement about the band itself.
Good thread but pointless. This isn't debate anymore(if it ever was), but just slavish fanbois/gals.
And thats what we are to the bands we like.
No-one can deny.
Discussion is good and healthy. But anyone even entertaining the thought of swaying another contrarian poster to your point of view, is surely extracting the urine?
Music is one of the most deeply subjective preferences - we are almost kamikaze and zealot like in our adherence.
And that is what music is to us
music needed brokeNCYDE
autechre were making better music whilst radiohead were still putting out boring fey britpop records. then radiohead took influence from booth/brown.
music was coping just fine before radiohead.
edit: before anyone mistakes for an anti-radiohead post, i think radiohead are a great band not because they 'altered pre-conceived ideas of what music is about' (bands like earth and my bloody valentine did this; not radiohead) but because they are capable of writing good songs many of which have a sort of timeless quality about them.
SugarShane
C12 H22 O11
Or just steal them from Satriani.
I generally find that musicians that are truly original and innovative often don't alter or develop their approach once they've hit upon their style. Most early blues songs, for instance, sound pretty much the same as each other, even though they don't sound like anything that's come before. Thelonious Monk was noted for just dropping this bizarre compositional approach out of essentially nowhere, then never really changing it for the rest of his life. Ditto early electronica, folk revival, most of that 90's IDM, etc.
Then there are bands that never do anything particularly 'original' per se, but do put a lot of effort into seeking out new sounds and avoiding stagnation. Their gift is refining the ideas of earlier musicians, and often making it more palatable (and, let's be honest, often more interesting) for a wider audience. These are your Radioheads and Rolling Stones and REMs and whatnot.
Occasionally you'll get guys like Miles Davis who find ways to both evolve and innovate across long periods of their career, but I reckon most fit into the former categories. Even then, though, you could say that Davis was only responsible for one major new approach (modal jazz).
And then there are the Chillis who just kick goals every time they drop a record.
Then there are bands that never do anything particularly 'original' per se, but do put a lot of effort into seeking out new sounds and avoiding stagnation. Their gift is refining the ideas of earlier musicians, and often making it more palatable (and, let's be honest, often more interesting) for a wider audience. These are your Radioheads and Rolling Stones and REMs and whatnot.
Occasionally you'll get guys like Miles Davis who find ways to both evolve and innovate across long periods of their career, but I reckon most fit into the former categories. Even then, though, you could say that Davis was only responsible for one major new approach (modal jazz).
And then there are the Chillis who just kick goals every time they drop a record.
I recall listening to the Radiohead's O.K. Computer for the first time, before reading a review and only hearing a track or two on Triple J.
Before the CD had finished, I knew I was listening to something special. It was just that obvious.
Loveless, Nevermind and The Stone Roses also did that to me, but Radiohead backed it up over and again, and that's the difference.
If you really don't think they influeced the music industry at all.............it doesn't matter.
no, the difference is i can clearly explain why an album like loveless actually did 'alter pre-conceived ideas of what music is about'.
loveless changed conceptions about pop music in the way in which guitar tones/sounds were produced, the use of vague vocals buried beneath the guitar, the use of slabs of guitar drone which are woven into pop melodies and the quality of production for it's time.
as shields explains himself:
“I found that if there was only one guitar track whilst the vocals were going, split between different amps and mics, the sound was bigger, especially when you use open strings and tunings and the tremolo arm. I didn’t have to consciously think about it; I was able to express this constant feeling of expression. It’s hard to explain the sound of the guitar bending. What you hear is what it is between the sound.”
perhaps you'd like to explain what it is about OK Computer that 'altered pre-conceived ideas of what music is about' beyond "i just knew it was something special".
um, i never said they weren't influential.
i said music never needed radiohead (music never needs anything; this is simply a cute narrative espoused by people who want to appear as if they are saying something meaningful) and they didn't 'alter pre-conceived ideas of what music is about'.
You see I was living a share house in London in 1997 and these chicks I was living with would this album all the time and I remember thinking this is ****ing irritating. Then when I'd read NME and their constant fanboy gushings over this album it made me want to puke. Your musings have a similar effect.
Let's use a footballing analogy then.
When a player comes into the system that is by far and away better than his opponents, the League prospers as a whole.
Radiohead had this effect upon the music industry, and more than any other band that in recent times.
People listened to O.K. Computer, they talked about it, they wrote about it, they waited for what was to come next, weren't disappointed and they're still talking now.
It's still widely regarded as the best album of the 90s for a very good reason.
Whether you like it or not, Radiohead are the Beatles of our times and not My Bloody Valentine and yes, the music industry does need to have their crictically acclaimed shining lights and there are currently no better examples of that than Radiohead.
Reasons for that are covered and don't need any further explanation, surely.
Let me use some quotes as you have:
Why don't we throw it to a neutral party then:
Pitchfork has O.K. Computer as the best album of the 90s and Loveless at #2
Arm wrestle?
When a player comes into the system that is by far and away better than his opponents, the League prospers as a whole.
Radiohead had this effect upon the music industry, and more than any other band that in recent times.
People listened to O.K. Computer, they talked about it, they wrote about it, they waited for what was to come next, weren't disappointed and they're still talking now.
It's still widely regarded as the best album of the 90s for a very good reason.
Whether you like it or not, Radiohead are the Beatles of our times and not My Bloody Valentine and yes, the music industry does need to have their crictically acclaimed shining lights and there are currently no better examples of that than Radiohead.
Reasons for that are covered and don't need any further explanation, surely.
Let me use some quotes as you have:
Why don't we throw it to a neutral party then:
Pitchfork has O.K. Computer as the best album of the 90s and Loveless at #2
Arm wrestle?
No problem.
Then please don't read anything further unless you want to choke on your vomit and thank you for your considered input.
- Banned
- #124
Kid A and Hail to the Thief still had some good songs. Idiotech and There there were excellent.
It's odd that I just don't get HTTT.
I can listen to all the other albums and can't get through HTTT, yet that is the album many of their fans like most.
Similar threads
