Unpopular Music Opinions

clutnuckle · 06-21-2010, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCunningStunt

That's partly what pisses me off about Floyd. They're so groundbreaking and experimental they don't have a genre. They're Progressive rock ffs.

It's progressive 'by default'. You haven't really listened to many of their albums, so I wouldn't say you have the full handle of what they have done. Wikipedia genre titles are just fairly accurate, and they give you next to no information of what the band sounds like. It's also pretty wrong to allow the fact that people read a lot into them to affect your opinion of them.

ALSO: Fun Last.fm group on the subject: http://www.last.fm/group/Pink+Floyd+...+is+primitive!

TheCunningStunt · 06-21-2010, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clutnuckle

It's progressive 'by default'. You haven't really listened to many of their albums, so I wouldn't say you have the full handle of what they have done. Wikipedia genre titles are just fairly accurate, and they give you next to no information of what the band sounds like.

ALSO: Fun Last.fm group on the subject: http://www.last.fm/group/Pink+Floyd+...t+is+primitive!

Surely you don't need to listen to a band's entire discography to realise what type of music they're making? Piper was very psychedelic, then as their career got on I guess they went more Progressive with DSOTM.

I think with most bands, 2 of their best records you know what they're about. Blur - 13, Modern Life Is Rubbish. Bob Dylan - highway 61 revisited, blood on the tracks. Black Sabbath - S/T.

So 3 is more than enough.

Last FM discussions piss me off. I read one about the best band in Manchester.. laughable, almost.

~~James~~ · 06-21-2010, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent & Funky

Dude, your definition of britpop sucks...

No it doesn't
NME might have tried to make it a genre, but it wasn't. It was an Era. Notice how none of the main bands sound the same.

TheCunningStunt · 06-21-2010, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james1

No it doesn't
NME might have tried to make it a genre, but it wasn't. It was an Era. Notice how none of the main bands sound the same.

Oasis vs Blur back up your statement..

~~James~~ · 06-21-2010, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCunningStunt

Oasis vs Blur back up your statement..

Wut?

TheCunningStunt · 06-21-2010, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james1

Wut?

Both Brit Pop, both completely different.

~~James~~ · 06-21-2010, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCunningStunt

Both Brit Pop, both completely different.

Yes
Also take into account:
Super Furry Animals
Suede
Oasis
3 Britpop bands, that couldn't be more different.

TheCunningStunt · 06-21-2010, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james1

Yes
Also take into account:
Super Furry Animals
Suede
Oasis
3 Britpop bands, that couldn't be more different.

I think Oasis Blur suffices..

Blur were innovative and experimental.

Oasis were plug in and play, apart from Liam's tambourine. - key to their success.

Then again, Wiki > you.

I love Wiki.

~~James~~ · 06-21-2010, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCunningStunt

I think Oasis Blur suffices..

Blur were innovative and experimental.

Oasis were plug in and play, apart from Liam's tambourine. - key to their success.

Then again, Wiki > you.

I love Wiki.

My example was more advanced as all 3 had diifferent influences, styles, genres, everything.
But Oasis vs. Blur will do.

TheCunningStunt · 06-21-2010, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james1

My example was more advanced as all 3 had diifferent influences, styles, genres, everything.
But Oasis vs. Blur will do.

Suede and Blur were similarish. I think Oasis/Blur were polar opposites, I really can't find anything they really have in common apart from having front men as dicks.