Unpopular Musical Opinions

[deanc]

I've always been interested in the AC/DC contradiction, known for being a no nonsense just about the music band, but Angus in the schoolboy outfit may be the most recognisable in rock, definitely outside of KISS, and a big stage show full of props and theatrics. It's not something they've ever been called on I don't think.

Yes, it did/does defy a 'jeans and t-shirt' no-nonsense band having a 'gimmick' - but as I understand it, initially suggested by his sister Margret as a joke, Angus saw the defiant cheeky angle in the costume as he hated school...

Moreover, while most Aussies just laughed along with it, the US audiences went nuts over his costume as, unknowingly to AC/DC, it represented something different to them as only elite wealthy Americans could afford to send their kids to schools that had uniforms...

 

[deanc]

Here's one that may generated some interest.

Is Elvis the most successful 'Karaoke singer' that ever existed - given the fact he never wrote any of the 700 odds song he recorded/performed during his career...?

 

[footyfan1978]

Yes, it did/does defy a 'jeans and t-shirt' no-nonsense band having a 'gimmick' - but as I understand it, initially suggested by his sister Margret as a joke, Angus saw the defiant cheeky angle in the costume as he hated school...

Moreover, while most Aussies just laughed along with it, the US audiences went nuts over his costume as, unknowingly to AC/DC, it represented something different to them as only elite wealthy Americans could afford to send their kids to schools that had uniforms...

Recently I've wondered if lead singer of Divinyls got the idea of school girl uniform from seeing Angus of AC/DC have that look here.

 

[Hoos]

Fair comments - but I am just stating an unpopular opinion in a thread seeking 'unpopular opinions'?

Despite critics always labeling them as a 'joke band' they have produced 44 albums of which many went Gold and Platinum which is hard to ignore - but to be brutally honest I couldn't name you more than 3 or 4 of their biggest hits...
Of course their commercial success, specifically during the late 70's into the 80's, mainly derived from touring with their elaborate costumes, make-up and spectacular stage shows, which even those not buying their music at the time wanted to experience.

With clever marketing/promotion and collaborations with other artists they had a good run of huge concerts around the globe for many years that also contributed to the success of; AC/DC, Bob Seger, Judas Priest, Rush, Iron Maiden, Tom Petty, to name a few...

Yeah, but easily the biggest band in the world in the late '70's? Just off the top of my head, I reckon The Who, Stones and Led Zeppelin had them covered back then.

 

[Hoos]

Here's one that may generated some interest.

Is Elvis the most successful 'Karaoke singer' that ever existed - given the fact he never wrote any of the 700 odds song he recorded/performed during his career...?

I think there's a bit of a difference between some hack butchering a song on karaoke night at the local and a genuine artist covering someone else's song.

Presley couldn't write songs, but he did rearrange countless others. He didn't do straight covers either, as he definitely put his own stamp on the material he recorded. And a great deal of his songs were written specifically for him.

Plus he just happened to be the greatest vocalist of all time (IMHO). That must count for something.

 

[backtozero]

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.

 

[PoopingHindi]

I think there's a bit of a difference between some hack butchering a song on karaoke night at the local and a genuine artist covering someone else's song.

Presley couldn't write songs, but he did rearrange countless others. He didn't do straight covers either, as he definitely put his own stamp on the material he recorded. And a great deal of his songs were written specifically for him.

Plus he just happened to be the greatest vocalist of all time (IMHO). That must count for something.

plenty of great jazz singers performed mostly songs they didn’t write, lounge singers too (Sinatra) and those classical/opera singers make a career from performing 200 year old covers.

but if the question starts with “Is Elvis the most successful…” then the answer is probably yes.

 

[Hoos]

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.

Each to our own. I'm at the other end of the spectrum, in that I consider them the best band of them all, particularly live. Massively influential, innovative and completely original. Their musicianship is top notch too.

Just out of interest, how much of their stuff have you heard?

Nothing they recorded with the original line-up (1965-1978) is underrated as far as I'm concerned. And a couple of their members liking for breaking up hotel rooms has nothing to do with what I think of their music.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. As I've said, each to their own.

 

[Hoos]

plenty of great jazz singers performed mostly songs they didn’t write, lounge singers too (Sinatra) and those classical/opera singers make a career from performing 200 year old covers.

Spot on.

 

[backtozero]

Each to our own. I'm at the other end of the spectrum, in that I consider them the best band of them all, particularly live. Massively influential, innovative and completely original. Their musicianship is top notch too.

Just out of interest, how much of their stuff have you heard?

Nothing they recorded with the original line-up (1965-1978) is underrated as, far as, I'm concerned. And a couple of their members liking for breaking up hotel rooms has nothing to do with what I think of their music.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. As I've said, each to their own.

I've gone through their early albums and nothing has jumped out enough to make me want to repeat listen and none of their hits appeal to me at all, unlike other bands of the same time period.

 

[Hoos]

I've gone through their early albums and nothing has jumped out enough to make me want to repeat listen and none of their hits appeal to me at all, unlike other bands of the same time period.

Fair enough.

Their debut album, Sell Out, Tommy, Who's Next, Quadrophenia and Who By Numbers are all classics as far as I'm concerned, but if it doesn't flick your switch then it doesn't flick your switch.

Live At Leeds is worth checking out before you completely write them off though.

 

[backtozero]

Fair enough.

Their debut album, Sell Out, Tommy, Who's Next, Quadrophenia and Who By Numbers are all classics as far as I'm concerned, but if it doesn't flick your switch then it doesn't flick your switch.

Live At Leeds is worth checking out before you completely write them off though.

I'll give it a whirl, thanks.

 

[Hoos]

I'll give it a whirl, thanks.

No problem.

Go for the original 6 track album. You can listen to the entire show, but that might be a lot to sit through for a first listen.

 

[edgie]

Fair comments - but I am just stating an unpopular opinion in a thread seeking 'unpopular opinions'?

Despite critics always labeling them as a 'joke band' they have produced 44 albums of which many went Gold and Platinum which is hard to ignore - but to be brutally honest I couldn't name you more than 3 or 4 of their biggest hits...
Of course their commercial success, specifically during the late 70's into the 80's, mainly derived from touring with their elaborate costumes, make-up and spectacular stage shows, which even those not buying their music at the time wanted to experience.

With clever marketing/promotion and collaborations with other artists they had a good run of huge concerts around the globe for many years that also contributed to the success of; AC/DC, Bob Seger, Judas Priest, Rush, Iron Maiden, Tom Petty, to name a few...

44 albums? That a typo or you putting more sauce on it than masterfoods can supply?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[the_interloper]

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.

I don’t see the fuss personally, have listened to the Live at Leeds and didn’t do heaps for me, maybe I’ll give some of their albums a spin.

A few of the big bands from that approx era don’t do much for me, Van Halen, Aerosmith, Kiss, maybe it was better if you were there at the time.

 

[Hoos]

I don’t see the fuss personally, have listened to the Live at Leeds and didn’t do heaps for me, maybe I’ll give some of their albums a spin.

A few of the big bands from that approx era don’t do much for me, Van Halen, Aerosmith, Kiss, maybe it was better if you were there at the time.

I wasn't there at the time for any of them. Not in their prime anyway. I like '70's and '80's Aerosmith and Van Halen, but only with David Lee Roth. Kiss never did much for me. A few songs that I like but that's about all.

I love The Who, but they can be an acquired taste.

 

[backtozero]

One of the worst things about Gene is his acting like he did so much for AC/DC, Rush, Priest etc. Reality is those bands would have succeeded without playing shows with KISS and were already on the upward trajectory.

 

[Hoos]

One of the worst things about Gene is his acting like he did so much for the likes of AC/DC, Rush, Priest etc. Reality is those bands would have succeeded without playing shows with Kiss and had already put in years of hard work. He acts like he invented them.

In AC/DC's case, they were formed around about the same time I think.

 

[backtozero]

In AC/DC's case, they were formed around about the same time I think.

Rush - 1968
Judas Priest - 1969
AC/DC - 1973
KISS - 1973

 

[Hoos]

Rush - 1968
Judas Priest - 1969
AC/DC - 1973
KISS - 1973

I didn't realise Judas Priest were formed as early as that.

 

[deanc]

One of the worst things about Gene is his acting like he did so much for AC/DC, Rush, Priest etc. Reality is those bands would have succeeded without playing shows with KISS and were already on the upward trajectory.

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!'

 

[deanc]

44 albums? That a typo or you putting more sauce on it than masterfoods can supply?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

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

 

[edgie]

One of the worst things about Gene is his acting like he did so much for AC/DC, Rush, Priest etc. Reality is those bands would have succeeded without playing shows with KISS and were already on the upward trajectory.

Van Halen too

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[edgie]

...

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 as most venues, then towards the end of our set suddenly 20,000 people would appear!'

Rose Tattoo never cracked it but done well enough to leave a mark on Axl Rose who regularly requests they open for GNR downunder and now regularly play at big festivals overseas.

Angels might've made it if they listened to Harry Vanda and George Young but they thought they were being held back and signed with another label, and went to America without proper guidance.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[backtozero]

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 as most venues, then towards the end of our set suddenly 20,000 people would appear!'

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.