Unpopular Musical Opinions

[Damon_3388]

Ronnie James Dio was the best singer Black Sabbath ever had.

Heaven and Hell was Black Sabbath's best album, followed by Born Again.

I'm a big fan of Ozzy-era Sabbath (particularly Sabotage, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, and Vol. 4), however Dio era was awesome too. Two different bands really though.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Not a bonafide massive star though, always seemed to bubble as a bit more of a big alternative artist. A bit like Sky Ferreira. A great album artist.

KP and Swift did well but I never got the Beyonce hype, it just never appealed to me.

Football terms wise, would she be the music world's feminine equivalent of a great club man?

 

[Damon_3388]

AC/DC isn't AC/DC without Malcolm Young.

 

[Damon_3388]

I actually like 'St. Anger' by Metallica. It's almost like a companion piece to another low-fi puzzlement of a metal album that came out the year before it, System of a Down's 'Steal This Album!'. Takes a couple of cues and tropes from 'Songs for the Deaf' by Queens of the Stone Age (probably the biggest album in rock the year before), and I can also hear elements of White Zombie, Ministry, latter-day Motorhead, 'Against'-era Sepultura, Slipknot's suffocating 'Iowa', Melvins and Nirvana at their sludgiest in there too. It's visceral and violent, a bold, interesting experiment for a veteran (and then, "mainstream") band, but I tend to think they did it too late. If they'd pre-dated nu-metal by releasing this in, say, 1996, instead of 'Load' and 'Reload' (not sure where 'Garage Inc.' and 'S&M' would fit on the timeline here, though), I think the reception would have been entirely different, and it'd have been seen as an inventive, forward-thinking metal release, a bridge between the grunge and nu-metal eras, and punk as all hell, coming back with something so opposite to 'Metallica' (The Black Album). Would have made Slayer look like copycats with 1998's 'Diabolus in Musica' as well, which is basically a more focussed, better produced version of 'St. Anger', with guitar solos.

What they should have done was this:

- Kill 'Em All (1983)
- Ride the Lightening (1984)
- Master of Puppets (1986)
- And Justice for All (1988)
- Metallica (1991)
- S&M (1993)
- St Anger (1996)
- Death Magnetic (2001)
- Garage Days (2004)
- Load (2006)
- Reload (2007)
- Lulu (2011)
- New original album (2015)

That would have been the most logical progression. Obviously they would have had to have come up with the ideas at totally different times, which isn't possible, but I think their perception as a band and of the individual recordings would be totally different had things came in that order.

 

[james Dean]

Eminem is probably the most overrated artist of all time

 

[Ronnie Baby]

I actually like 'St. Anger' by Metallica.

Only album of theirs I still actually listen to.

 

[Norwegian Blue]

INXS were a woefully s**t band and Michael Hutchence an awful singer. (He was a rotten dad too but that opinion's probably not unpopular.)

 

[Cruyff14]

Yep, that's unpopular.

 

[Damon_3388]

'Insomniac' is Green Day's best album, and one of the better rock albums of the '90s.

 

[WALDENPOND]

'Insomniac' is Green Day's best album, and one of the better rock albums of the '90s.

I agree with this in full, and would add that it's their most timeless.

 

[Silent Alarm]

Los Campesinos! is the most underrated band around. That includes Swans or whoever else people wax lyrical about. Amazing lyrics that have changed from a-hundred-syllables-a-second to things a little more stanzaic and poetic, but constantly good. Always changing their sound, full of pop numbers and some growers... a gem of a band

 

[Corrosion]

'Insomniac' is Green Day's best album, and one of the better rock albums of the '90s.

Smash by The Offspring is the best album to come out of the so-cal/Punk Rock scene of the early to mid 90's.

 

[Gibbsy]

Los Campesinos! is the most underrated band around. That includes Swans or whoever else people wax lyrical about. Amazing lyrics that have changed from a-hundred-syllables-a-second to things a little more stanzaic and poetic, but constantly good. Always changing their sound, full of pop numbers and some growers... a gem of a band

And chock full of football references that warm the heart

 

[Damon_3388]

I've never understood the supposed "genius" of Luke Steele.

 

[PaddyO]

Jeff Buckley was just a good looking dude with a good voice. "Just one album, mostly covers" as Chris Hansen, the only affable Chaser, once said. If he didn't die no one would revere him. Kurt Cobain would've been revered either way. For some people, death's their best album.

So absurd. Jeff Buckley had an amazing voice, incredibly gifted sing writer, excellent atmospheric guitar player.

I was a massive Jeff Buckley fan at the time he died, as were plenty of my peers. He was already revered, and his legacy would've grown ridiculously if he'd lived on.

 

[PaddyO]

The thing that shits me about this type of thread is that people fill them with inane comments like..

"ACDC/Cold Chisel are overrated music wot only bogans like...

Nick Cave is ok but he's overrated...

Foo Fighters are overrated bland commercial rock...

Radiohead are overrated and actually s**t"

In actual fact, everyone of those artists is unique, and rated absolutely precisely accurately, because people rate them as they will. They are also all very very good at what they do, all have interesting stories, etc etc.

Music snobbery shits me. Just say "I don't like (this band) because..."

Saying "this band is overrated" is just elitist snobbery that is essentially just saying "my tastes are better than everyone else's"

 

[La Dispute]

Popular artists will also ways be overrated in some capacity though and primitive, one dimensional music is always celebrated by those in the lowest common denominator. Most don't critically examine what they're consuming and perpetuating.

It's the same reasons bogans love Acca Dacca, pillheads love Tiesto and 12 year olds listen to One Direction - It's just the nature of the culture cycle.

 

[james Dean]

The thing that shits me about this type of thread is that people fill them with inane comments like..

"ACDC/Cold Chisel are overrated music wot only bogans like...

Nick Cave is ok but he's overrated...

Foo Fighters are overrated bland commercial rock...

Radiohead are overrated and actually s**t"

In actual fact, everyone of those artists is unique, and rated absolutely precisely accurately, because people rate them as they will. They are also all very very good at what they do, all have interesting stories, etc etc.

Music snobbery shits me. Just say "I don't like (this band) because..."

Saying "this band is overrated" is just elitist snobbery that is essentially just saying "my tastes are better than everyone else's"

Is it any different to people who say Chris Judd is overrated? Or people who say anything else is overrated? When something is popular and you don't like them, then in your opinion they are overrated. Of course it's just one persons opinion and the point of this is to get something off your chest, not too say that 'my taste in music is better than yours'

 

[PaddyO]

Is it any different to people who say Chris Judd is overrated? Or people who say anything else is overrated? When something is popular and you don't like them, then in your opinion they are overrated. Of course it's just one persons opinion and the point of this is to get something off your chest, not too say that 'my taste in music is better than yours'

Yeh, so people should say why they don't like them. Not that they're "overrated". It makes no sense. And it's far better discussion than just saying they're "overrated".

 

[Damon_3388]

Popular artists will also ways be overrated in some capacity though and primitive, one dimensional music is always celebrated by those in the lowest common denominator. Most don't critically examine what they're consuming and perpetuating.

It's the same reasons bogans love Acca Dacca, pillheads love Tiesto and 12 year olds listen to One Direction - It's just the nature of the culture cycle.

I get what you're saying, but why to people necessarily have to critically analyse these artists? Some people just like to hear music, and don't want to intellectualise it.

Deep down, I think most artists would also like to get to the level of popularity and renown where critical opinion doesn't matter. Do you think an average review or it being said that they're doing "more of the same" is really going to hurt sales for AC/DC or Foo Fighters? I don't think so.

 

[Damon_3388]

Yeh, so people should say why they don't like them. Not that they're "overrated". It makes no sense. And it's far better discussion than just saying they're "overrated".

Saying they're "overrated" implies that not only you don't like them, but others shouldn't either, and the artist should be selling less albums and tickets, winning less awards, and generally have a lower standing in the public consciousness than the currently do. Basically, it's a way for people to afford more weight to their own tastes and opinion.

Assumedly they're saying these other bands are "overrated", because they feel bands they like are "underrated", and should be more popular, except these same people are usually the first to argue though that popular doesn't equal good too, and that they don't like X band because they've become "too popular" or something like that. They really should just focus on what they like, and not stress about stuff they don't enjoy.

 

[PaddyO]

Saying they're "overrated" implies that not only you don't like them, but others shouldn't either, and the artist should be selling less albums and tickets, winning less awards, and generally have a lower standing in the public consciousness than the currently do. Basically, it's a way for people to afford more weight to their own tastes and opinion.

Assumedly they're saying these other bands are "overrated", because they feel bands they like are "underrated", and should be more popular, except these same people are usually the first to argue though that popular doesn't equal good too, and that they don't like X band because they've become "too popular" or something like that. They really should just focus on what they like, and not stress about stuff they don't enjoy.

That's true. There's plenty of bands I dislike that a lot of other people love.

Let's take the ol' whipping boys Nickelback. I dun like 'em wun lil but. BUT. Millions of people do. Which is fine, they're correctly rated, massively popular. I still think they're bland and corny and predictable. BUT. They are still good at what they do, and successful, and rated accordingly. My opinion of them doesn't matter, but I can still express it.

Take a band I like, maybe the Pixies, or Sonic Youth, or the Melvins. If I played them to most of the people I work with, they'd dislike them. I like them immensely. I think more people should like them. But not as many people like them as do Nickelback. So, they're "rated" as such. But this rating, overrating, underrating is so unnecessary, and so subjective. Music should be free of it. Like something or dislike it, and share your opinions either way, but "rating" is a very corporate/business thing to do imo.

And in response to james Dean above, I think it's a different thing to sport. Chris Judd is different to a band. If everyone/most ppl say "Chris Judd is the best midfielder in the game, ever", but in actual fact another midfield player has more possessions, more hardball gets, kicks more goals and makes more assists, and has better skill efficiency and better decision making skills, then Judd is overrated. It's pretty observable.

 

[mr_cellotape]

But this rating, overrating, underrating is so unnecessary, and so subjective. Music should be free of it. Like something or dislike it, and share your opinions either way

'Overrated' is simply short-hand for 'I know a shitload of people like this, and I can understand why some people like it, but personally I think it's terrible'. 'Underrated' is simply short-hand for 'I really like this artist, and it's surprising to me that more people also don't like them, and that I don't hear them talked about more often'. Short-hand is useful. Therefore these terms are useful.

 

[La Dispute]

I get what you're saying, but why to people necessarily have to critically analyse these artists? Some people just like to hear music, and don't want to intellectualise it.

Deep down, I think most artists would also like to get to the level of popularity and renown where critical opinion doesn't matter. Do you think an average review or it being said that they're doing "more of the same" is really going to hurt sales for AC/DC or Foo Fighters? I don't think so.

There's just a clear distinction between those that actually pay attention to what they're listening to, know what piques their interest and can engage with music on an artistic level, both in the aesthetics of its sound and the creativity of the songwriting. Most people don't do that and hence a lot of popular bands are quite ordinary, hence being labelled 'overrated.'

And again there's a clear difference between being a marketable, commodifiable artist such as U2 or Nickelback or Metallica and being a smaller artist. Once you've entered the mainstream, you're essentially driving your own product.

 

[the_interloper]

I'm a big fan of Ozzy-era Sabbath (particularly Sabotage, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, and Vol. 4), however Dio era was awesome too. Two different bands really though.

Would be hard to argue that Dio isn't a more talented singer than Ozzy. But Ozzy was... Ozzy, I dunno, he was just perfect for that band. And yeah the Dio era was great but nothing, NOTHING beats the first 5 Sabbath albums for mine (maybe the first 4 Metallica albums).