Unpopular Musical Opinions

[revo333]

Have never heard anything from The Who that I liked. I feel they're really overrated, and more of a right time, right place type band that benefited from their reputation as being wild hotel room trashers.

'Who's next' was a fairly advanced album at the time and a lot of rock bands were not getting adventurous like that and pulling it off.

The only thing overrated about The Who was Keith Moon in my opinion, but just a little overrated.

 

[Hoos]

'Who's next' was a fairly advanced album at the time and a lot of rock bands were not getting adventurous like that and pulling it off.

Pretty sure that was the first time synths were used as a genuine instrument, rather than as background noise.

 

[deanc]

I don't doubt that there's a benefit to playing to a larger audience as the support act for a big headlining band, I'm just saying that those bands mentioned had the talent and the songs to make it regardless. Does anyone legitimately think that AC/DC wouldn't have cracked the big time without the KISS support slot? Especially by 77 they already had airtime and chart success. Highway To Hell and Back in Black were going to blow the door down regardless. A band like The Angels just don't have the same worldwide appeal - they're much more of an Australian niche band like Cold Chisel.
Even Judas Priest who were trying to crack the US market had to simply their sound with British Steel and Point of Entry in order to be more appealing to American ears. Their success was due to doing that and getting on radio.

Fair comment, but I also think you're overlooking the 'mutual benefit' aspect.
We can all speculate what any of these bands 'may have' been or become without performing on KISS tours but as Ted Nugent (who rarely has anything complimentary or positive to say) recalls; 'I will always be grateful to Gene and the boys given that 'disco rubbish' had captured most mainstream audiences at the time and our brand of music was exactly the opposite, plus we certainly couldn't afford to tour our own back then - and they organised and funded everything, basically all we had to do was agree on a time slot, turn up and play!'
The only negative reviews I know of from some artists (mainly Rush) who toured with KISS during that era was that supporting groups were paid a pittance of concert revenues...

 

[HeathySure]

Sure, Simmons was/is the king of self promotion but I think you'll find the reality of his claims was/is somewhere in the middle of 'who needed who' during that era.
For one thing most of the artists, irrespective of their establishment/following at the time, recognized the marketing machine that was KISS which gave them the opportunity to perform to huge audiences.

For example, while touring with KISS; in 1976 Bob Seger took to opportunity to perform a lot of tracks from his forthcoming album 'Night Moves', the album later went gold, then Platinum - Judas Priest often performed new material which helped their future album sales - and AC/DC have publicly acknowledged that the exposure to US audiences undeniably helped them crack into the tough US market.

Related, some may recall a few Aussie bands that followed shortly thereafter such as Sherbet and a few years later The Angels who, to be polite, both attracted very little interest in the land of the free.
When the The Angels (stupidly renamed 'Angel City' during their US stints) toured as a headline act for The Kinks, Doc Neeson later reflected on the experience stating; 'It was a bit deflating playing to near empty stadiums at most venues, then towards the end of our set suddenly 20,000 people would appear!'

The Angles would support bands then those bands wouldn't play with them again because they blew the main band off stage. At their best, Angels were the best live band bar none, in Australia.. and maybe the world.

 

[edgie]

Yep, actually according to this reference I've understated the number...

Wikiwand - Kiss discography

American hard rock band Kiss has released twenty studio albums, thirteen live albums, and sixty singles. Formed in New York City in 1973, the group initially consisted of bassist Gene Simmons, rhythm guitarist Paul Stanley, lead guitarist Ace Frehley, and drummer Peter Criss; this most...

www.wikiwand.com

I think KISS might have been better if they released less albums.

 

[deanc]

I think KISS might have been better if they released less albums.

Concur, and you'll note a big chunk of their albums are; 'Best Of/Hits/Essentials' etc. which were compilations of mostly the same tracks and let's not forget their embarrassing solo albums which, with the exception of Ace Frehley's effort, simply didn't chart.

Of course this was all about marketing and providing product for the 'KISS Army' and to be fair they didn't really hide this fact with Simmons publicly stating once - "We are as much a Rock and Roll 'Brand' as we are a Rock and Roll 'Band'.

For the record (pun intended) the only KISS album in my house growing up was 'Dynasty' and that was birthday gift to my older sister from one of her friends...

 

[edgie]

Concur, and you'll note a big chunk of their albums are; 'Best Of/Hits/Essentials' etc. which were compilations of mostly the same tracks and let's not forget their embarrassing solo albums which, with the exception of Ace Frehley's effort, simply didn't chart.

Of course this was all about marketing and providing product for the 'KISS Army' and to be fair they didn't really hide this fact with Simmons publicly stating once - "We are as much a Rock and Roll 'Brand' as we are a Rock and Roll 'Band'.

For the record the only KISS album in my house growing up was 'Dynasty' and that was birthday gift to my older sister from one of her friends...

I think as well they just pumped out album after album in the 70s and to my knowledge, their best received album is one of the pretend live ones, which is essentially, a compilation.

Seems like you know your KISS, so please tell me, why in god's name did they make an album called "Unmasked", and not have it be the album that they ditched the makeup on?

 

[revo333]

I think as well they just pumped out album after album in the 70s and to my knowledge, their best received album is one of the pretend live ones, which is essentially, a compilation.

Seems like you know your KISS, so please tell me, why in god's name did they make an album called "Unmasked", and not have it be the album that they ditched the makeup on?

Some of their early albums were well received, 3-4 really good tracks on each up until the 'Love Gun' album and then the quality fades a fair bit.

If they stopped there then they probably would of had better reputations but they wouldn't of been as stinking rich.

 

[edgie]

I like their 80s stuff.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[mr bagcroft]

Some of their early albums were well received, 3-4 really good tracks on each up until the 'Love Gun' album and then the quality fades a fair bit.

If they stopped there then they probably would of had better reputations but they wouldn't of been as stinking rich.

Fair Call. never got the hype for Hotter than Hell personally. Really average songs, and has to be one of the worst albums ever sonically. Sounds like uttter garbage, mix wise.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Paul Stanley’s voice is a reason why I don’t listen to KISS.

 

[deanc]

I think as well they just pumped out album after album in the 70s and to my knowledge, their best received album is one of the pretend live ones, which is essentially, a compilation.

Seems like you know your KISS, so please tell me, why in god's name did they make an album called "Unmasked", and not have it be the album that they ditched the makeup on?

Not really - I've been a book worm of sorts for many years, predominately sports related biographies, then my older (late) sister started giving me music related biographies for birthdays and at Christmas. Gene Simmons's "Sex Money KISS" was one of these and his life journey was/is fascinating and thereafter I purchased two more KISS related books.
In an earlier post I mentioned Sherbet and The Angels having an unsuccessful crack at the US market, I left out Skyhooks who toured with Uriah Heep on their World tour for six months in 1976 and were actually booed/abused by US audiences at several concerts during their US leg of the tour - a story for another time perhaps.
You also mentioned The Angles being poorly managed/advised during their US tour with the Kinks - well, I'll need to go back to my books, but also recall when GNR toured Aus in 89 and The Angels headlined for them, it was such a successful partnership that GNR offered The Angels a future European tour but, unbeknownst to Doc Neeson at the time, his manger declined the offer apparently because of 'other commitments'...

Anyway, Unmasked - well if it hadn't been for KISS's global popularity at the time it could of been the death of them.
Prior to it's release the media (mainly US) speculated the proposed title 'suggested' KISS would be removing their make-up? Simmons (unwisely in hindsight) didn't rebuke the rumour at the time thinking the publicity would increase the albums sales. This spectacularly back-fired on them as the 'KISS Army' were angry and felt deceived after the albums release.
Then Simmons, attempting to quell the issue, just fueled the flames further by posting a blunt statement on the KISS Armies newsletter; 'neither he or anyone associated with the band had publicly announced they would be removing their make-up!'

The fallout over this affected the albums sales so much that it charted much better outside the US (which was a first for KISS) and was the sole reason KISS only ever performed one live concert performing tracks from the album in the US.

Moreover, as poorly explained later by Simmons; "'Unmasked' was a title related to the bands change in musical directon by 'exposing ourselves' to outside influences given a lot of tracks on the album were written by '3rd parties'" - relating to the fact it was the first KISS album that included tracks that were not all written by the band...

 

[edgie]

Did you just suggest that something Gene Simmons put on the KISS website, affected album sales, in 1980?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[deanc]

The Angles would support bands then those bands wouldn't play with them again because they blew the main band off stage. At their best, Angels were the best live band bar none, in Australia.. and maybe the world.

I was and remain a huge Angels fan, saw them live twice back in the day. The first time Doc has recently broken his leg but refused to cancel concerts - so he appeared on stage in a wheelchair and was propped up in front of the mic with a plaster cast from hip to ankle...!

Being fairly well read on the subject I only know of one instance where The Angels were 'no longer required' to perform as the headline act during a tour and that was their 2nd US tour with Kinks in 83'. Related:
Areosmith dumped them after two concerts but I believe that was related to contractual issues and not performance - no surprise here as Tyler was notorious for regularly dismissing managers/producers/publishers/technicians/roadies etc. just because he could!
The Angels also headlined for David Bowie's first Australian tour and I'm pretty sure they didn't blow him off the stage?
Gudenski stuffed up related arrangements with The Angels and other proposed support artists when AC/DC toured in 88', which ended with AC/DC performing towards the end of their tour in Perth with no supporting act/s...

Sure, as Australia's top drawing live band during their peak The Angels could of/should of been far more successful than they were but from what I've read the main two aspects that prevented this was:
A. They were poorly managed/promoted. For example, after leaving Albert Productions (Vander/Young) they boldly attempted the mange themselves and at one stage they had four different publishing contracts at the same time!
B. Their focus was never really about being anything more than a 'pub band', a sticking point the Brewster's and Neeson were/are happy to concede. NB. Neeson himself intended to leave the band in the early 80's to pursue an acting career. Also note, the revolving door of various musicians who performed with the band apparently left because as some stated, 'it was a bit of a circus'..

 

[deanc]

Did you just suggest that something Gene Simmons put on the KISS website, affected album sales, in 1980?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

Whoops, a typo, of course it was their 'Newsletter'...

 

[edgie]

How successful were Midnight Oil in the rest of the world? Seemed for a brief period in the late 80s to early 90s they were a thing.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[HeathySure]

How successful were Midnight Oil in the rest of the world? Seemed for a brief period in the late 80s to early 90s they were a thing.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

They were pretty big. Have listened to podcasts from America not related to music and their songs were brought up to my surprise. From memory Diesel and Dust was a big hit in the USA and songs like Beds are Burning and King of the Mountain are still played on their classic radio Not so much their stuff before hand.

They also were a really good live band and I reckon Rob Hurst is Australia's best drummer

 

[deanc]

They were pretty big. Have listened to podcasts from America not related to music and their songs were brought up to my surprise. From memory Diesel and Dust was a big hit in the USA and songs like Beds are Burning and King of the Mountain are still played on their classic radio Not so much their stuff before hand.

They also were a really good live band and I reckon Rob Hurst is Australia's best drummer

The Oils are not in my library so my knowledge of their career is limited. A few thing off the top of head though are:

- The bands name was drawn out of a hat and shortly after they founded their own recording company.
- They were a popular choice to support some big groups overseas; The Who in the UK and GNR in the US I think.
- They actually toured a lot internationally over their journey, they always seemed to be at the big music festivals in Europe and the UK and accordingly, after AC/DC, are arguably the 2nd most successful Australian 'Rock and Roll' export...?
- Not sure where I read this, but Garrett had a thing for Hot House Flowers, reckons their version of 'I can see clearly now' was the best cover he had ever heard from any band - or something along those lines. Refer enclosed - and admit I like the Irish boy's haunting vocals/keyboard work and the sax break is awesome...

Cheers.

 

[DaRick]

(For an Australian)

Alice in Chains is the best of the Big Four grunge bands, with Nirvana a close second.

Of course, this is a matter of taste, but here's why I prefer them over the other four:
- Heaviness (really a heavy metal band which appropriated elements of hair metal and grunge to create something terrific)
- Songwriting (they rarely wasted a note, especially after the relatively uneven Facelift)
- Jerry Cantrell (his vocal harmonics with Staley gave Alice in Chains both a pop sensibility while infusing their music with an unnerving haunting quality that reflected the dark nature of the music underpinning it, not to mention that he was a master of conjuring creative riffs while using the fewest notes possible - he's just an OK lead vocalist, though)
- Layne Staley (probably only the 3rd best grunge vocalist, but he is nonetheless real good. His screams in Man In The Box send that song into another stratosphere, his plaintive cries on Nutshell turn that song from an emo song into a documentation of an ongoing personal tragedy, and his baritone burr just adds to the dark, heavy, haunting nature of the music)

Their rhythm section was good, but not the standout. Inez/Starr could hold their own, but Jeff Ament (Pearl Jam) and Ben Shepherd (Soungarden) were IMO better. Sean Kinney could certainly hold a beat, but he's well behind Grohl/Cameron, and probably on par with someone like Jack Irons.

Nirvana are great, and obviously I can't begrudge people preferring them - but as good as their songwriting and lyrics were (when Cobain was interested), technically (Grohl aside) they weren't much to write home about. I feel that he was a negative influence as a guitarist, because he has inspired a generation or two of largely talentless power chord merchants.

As for the others in the Big Four, quoting one of my old posts:

Soundgarden have the best vocalist (Cornell) and a very good rhythm section. Compositionally they are interesting due to their unusual time signatures, and on a gut level they can certainly hit hard, but for mine their songwriting was not consistently tight enough to consistently compete with AiC or Nirvana.

I've never quite understood Pearl Jam's prolonged appeal in this country. Granted, Australians prefer classic rock (AC/DC) over outright metal like Black Sabbath, but for mine their songwriting is not tight or consistent enough. Some of the riffs they came up with on Ten absolutely cooked, but even on that album I thought that their songs were somewhat compromised by overlong jams. It's kind of like they sought to emulate Journey's success in the US - their songs often have a surprisingly similar structure - verse, chorus, verse, chorus, long solo, before sometimes ending with the chorus. However, there were just a few problems: 1) Journey weren't that great a band, 2) Vedder is a step behind Perry in terms of vocal ability and 3) McCready/Gossard aren't in the same bracket as Neal Schon, so their jams failed to capture the imagination in the way that Schon's soloing sometimes could. Many Australians would place them at #1, but for mine they are #4.

Stone Temple Pilots were sometimes included. Scott Weiland was a talented, versatile vocalist with impressive power and range (if not originality) - I'd rank him well ahead of Cobain but probably behind Staley. Their guitarist and drummer were decent, but not outstanding. The drummer IMO isn't as good as the Big 4 drummers, and technically I'd place their guitarist behind everyone except Cobain (who wins on influence anyway).

 

[No eye deer]

Man, you read too much into it. Just dig what you dig!
Haha sound like a hippy, that’s alright though!
I ******* love them all!
STP good, but the only ones I don’t absolutely love.

 

[No eye deer]

Man, you read too much into it. Just dig what you dig!
Haha sound like a hippy, that’s alright though!
I ******* love them all!
STP good, but the only ones I don’t absolutely love.

To expand a bit, Nirvana we’re more about the punk ethos, not technical guitar playing, or singing.
But their rawness was what made them so great. As far as songwriting goes, you only have to listen to unplugged to realise how much of a genius Kurt was, when the songs are stripped back to their acoustic roots.

Its why the grunge tag is such bullshit (though convenient), all those bands were so different, but all so ******* awesome.
But DaRick you know this already!
Here’s me saying don’t read too much into it, then I come out with this! Haha! Can’t help myself either!

 

[the_interloper]

(For an Australian)

Alice in Chains is the best of the Big Four grunge bands, with Nirvana a close second.

Of course, this is a matter of taste, but here's why I prefer them over the other four:
- Heaviness (really a heavy metal band which appropriated elements of hair metal and grunge to create something terrific)
- Songwriting (they rarely wasted a note, especially after the relatively uneven Facelift)
- Jerry Cantrell (his vocal harmonics with Staley gave Alice in Chains both a pop sensibility while infusing their music with an unnerving haunting quality that reflected the dark nature of the music underpinning it, not to mention that he was a master of conjuring creative riffs while using the fewest notes possible - he's just an OK lead vocalist, though)
- Layne Staley (probably only the 3rd best grunge vocalist, but he is nonetheless real good. His screams in Man In The Box send that song into another stratosphere, his plaintive cries on Nutshell turn that song from an emo song into a documentation of an ongoing personal tragedy, and his baritone burr just adds to the dark, heavy, haunting nature of the music)

Their rhythm section was good, but not the standout. Inez/Starr could hold their own, but Jeff Ament (Pearl Jam) and Ben Shepherd (Soungarden) were IMO better. Sean Kinney could certainly hold a beat, but he's well behind Grohl/Cameron, and probably on par with someone like Jack Irons.

Nirvana are great, and obviously I can't begrudge people preferring them - but as good as their songwriting and lyrics were (when Cobain was interested), technically (Grohl aside) they weren't much to write home about. I feel that he was a negative influence as a guitarist, because he has inspired a generation or two of largely talentless power chord merchants.

As for the others in the Big Four, quoting one of my old posts:



Stone Temple Pilots were sometimes included. Scott Weiland was a talented, versatile vocalist with impressive power and range (if not originality) - I'd rank him well ahead of Cobain but probably behind Staley. Their guitarist and drummer were decent, but not outstanding. The drummer IMO isn't as good as the Big 4 drummers, and technically I'd place their guitarist behind everyone except Cobain (who wins on influence anyway).

AIC are my favourite grunge band but that's probably common for metalheads, they do have some sort of metal tinge to them I think. Cantrell is such a great guitar player too, great tone, tasteful and heavy when he wants to be. Staley was a massive loss obviously but with Duvall they are still excellent and have made some really good albums with him.

 

[No eye deer]

AIC are my favourite grunge band but that's probably common for metalheads, they do have some sort of metal tinge to them I think. Cantrell is such a great guitar player too, great tone, tasteful and heavy when he wants to be. Staley was a massive loss obviously but with Duvall they are still excellent and have made some really good albums with him.

Yeah mate, you won’t get a much heavier album than Dirt.
In the guitar tone, vocals or the lyrics. Dark as *, but perfection.
5/5.

 

[the_interloper]

Yeah mate, you won’t get a much heavier album than Dirt.
In the guitar tone, vocals or the lyrics. Dark as fu**, but perfection.
5/5.

Yeah I taped that one off a mate in year 9, couldn't believe it, Nirvana were the big thing then but I immediately preferred AIC. Dark is almost an understatement lyric wise, I'd never heard s**t like that before (though when Korn's album came out it got close).

 

[Suspense]

Mike Patton is the epitome of “the voice is an instrument” - his vocal range and capabilities are unparalleled. On a similar theme I feel like Faith No More defined alternative music more than any other.

Mike Patton is still probably the greatest metalcore vocalist - despite only recording 3 songs in the genre.