Unpopular Music Opinions - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > General Music
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-03-2011, 11:16 AM   #6441 (permalink)
Live by the Sword
 
Howard the Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 9,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Ron View Post
ur joking about the beach boys right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedey View Post
He better be joking about Herbie Hancock as well.
no and no
__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Virgin View Post
what? i don't understand you. farming is for vegetables, not for meat. if ou disagree with a farming practice, you disagree on a vegetable. unless you have a different definition of farming.
Howard the Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2011, 01:46 PM   #6442 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Necromancer View Post
Isn't Dad-Rock and Classic Rock basically the same thing/genre?
I think of classic rock as stuff from the 70s.

I tend to think of Dad rock as dreary 90s music like Cast, Paul Weller, The La's & Ocean Colour Scene.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2011, 03:37 PM   #6443 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 73
Default

Rolling Stones were better than the Beatles.
Walkin' is a better album than Kind of blue.
BigSwede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2011, 03:47 PM   #6444 (permalink)
Divination
 
Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigSwede View Post
Rolling Stones were better than the Beatles.
That's not really an unpopular opinion.
Necromancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2011, 04:09 PM   #6445 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 73
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Necromancer View Post
That's not really an unpopular opinion.
It has been on every music related site I have been to.
BigSwede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2011, 04:13 PM   #6446 (permalink)
Buzz Killjoy
 
BastardofYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,692
Default

I have to diagree with that. Beatles are more consistent. Stones had 8 great years to about 40 bad ones. The Stones are better if you like image over art I think.

But to each their own.
__________________
last.fm

‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.
BastardofYoung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2011, 04:52 PM   #6447 (permalink)
carpe musicam
 
Neapolitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
I think of classic rock as stuff from the 70s.

I tend to think of Dad rock as dreary 90s music like Cast, Paul Weller, The La's & Ocean Colour Scene.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier View Post
Classic rock has got to be the most broadest of all terms and the decade designation does seem to be a great way to break it down. Even then its going to encompass a huge range of bands and albums, making the whole thing largely subjective anyway.

I`d say its needs to be both albums and bands that were hugely successful, influential and critically acclaimed to help narrow down what should be classified as classic rock.

Also should genres such as metal and punk be included in classic rock as well, two genres that despite being huge, largely have their own fanbase and are genres the average music listener may not really be into.

And another good comparison to Classic Rock which is very similar both in name and conundrum is Classical Music. The Classical period fell between Baroque and Romantic period, but there is constant use of the term "Classical Music" for what should be properly called Art Music, for the average listen considers all forms of Art Music as "Classical Music" - lol what would the lower classes do next, pray tell?

I would only include certain Metal bands that were back in the 70's like Led Zeppelin, Sabbath, and Deep Purple as "Classic Rock." And it wouldn't make sense to subsume Punk into Classic Rock when the whole point of Punk Rock was to rebel against the direction Prog Rock and Classical Rock was taking. What happens when a name for a genre start encompassing everything else it looses its (original) meaning. Folk e.g. lost it's original meaning and what use to be called Folk is now call Traditional.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mord View Post
Actually, I like you a lot, Nea. That's why I treat you like ****. It's the MB way.

"it counts in our hearts" ?ºº?
“I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” Jack Kerouac.
“If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” Aristotle.
"If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." John Lennon
"I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." Keith Richards
Neapolitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2011, 07:04 PM   #6448 (permalink)
Divination
 
Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BastardofYoung View Post
I have to diagree with that. Beatles are more consistent. Stones had 8 great years to about 40 bad ones. The Stones are better if you like image over art I think.

But to each their own.
There's really no comparison of the two. I like the blues/rock aspect of listening to the Stones music more so than listening to the Beatles. (Image over art)?.. Never! I don't hold image into account when personally rating a bands music. Race, genre, popularity, etc. Strictly the music only. I like the Beatles..I just prefer the basic, Blues/Rock rhythm section approach of the Stones music over the Beatles.
Necromancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2011, 07:44 PM   #6449 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Captain Ron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: in a boat with your girlfriend
Posts: 274
Default

led zeppelin 1 is better than 2
Captain Ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2011, 07:45 PM   #6450 (permalink)
Buzz Killjoy
 
BastardofYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,692
Default

To me The Stones were just always riding the coat tails of The Beatles. Beatles released "Sgt. Pepper", Stones put out the "Their Satanic Majesties Request" album, which was more less their attempt to emulate what The Beatles were doing with their experimentation at the time... hell Paul and John are even on the album...

I like The Stones, but I find The Beatles to be the better of the 2 personally. While yes, both bands had an image, I always felt like The Stones were more focused on the image, while The Beatles were focused more on the art. Both have their place, but I think years from now when new generations look back on what was happening at the time, and a lot of the stuff we know now will be largely forgotten by anybody not a music historian... The Beatles will go down as more important.

But I won't be alive to find out first hand, so I won't know..
__________________
last.fm

‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.
BastardofYoung is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.