Paul Smeenus

Well it's your opinions and your list, which is fine, but I'm curious to discover how Who's Next doesn't rate as a classic album when every single track on it has been a staple of AOR ever since there *was* such a thing as AOR.

Not saying you're wrong, just somewhat surprised. Personally I love The Who (for the most part) up until about Who Are You

__________________
Gentle Giant Catalog Review

The entire Ditty Bops catalog reviewed

Taxman

Well then, 5 most underrated bands

1) Ween
These guys are geniuses. They should be as big as The Beatles were. Their songs are gorgeous when they want, extremely hilarious when needed and always highly listenble. Melodic songs with great sense of humor, who could ask for more??
2) Guided By Voices.
Pollard is a genius. His melodies are something I could kill for. Also that welcoming atmosphere their songs have makes me feel great. Who needs professionalism when you have got real talent?
3) The Move
Another sixties band, that's what everybody says if he even has heard about them. But they were much more. They were much better than Floyd and nearly as good as The Who. Start with their debut which includes great hippie-influenced but still ironic pop rock songs.
4) Electric Light Orchestra
They rule. Whatever someone may say about Lynne, he's wrong. It's true they started to suck in the eighties, but hey, everyone did so? Their seventies albums are classic. Think about songs like Turn To Stone, Evil Woman, Living Thing and Telephone Line and you'll see. They are one of the best pop songs ever. **** the public and the punkers who disliked them.
5) Paul McCartney
Yeah, I know. This one may seems laughable, since he's the most famous songwriter ever. But I'll try to explain. While nearly everyone admits he was great as a Beatle, some people and especially some critics seem to think he started to suck after that and lost his talent. They say his songs are pastiches, too lightweight, silly pop songs and whatever.
But they're wrong. His solo works, especially in the seventies, were just as good as his work as a Beatle. Silly love songs are allright for me if they have a classic melody like Paul's songs always had. And Paul never recorded crap like Lennon. (Two Virgins, eh?). Okay, Press to Play is pretty much crap, but still...
Everybody should check out Ram, Band On The Run, Venus And Mars, Flaming Pie, Memory Almost Full and also New. They are all pop masterpieces with no flaws. **** the critics.

Taxman

Oh, that's important. If I insulted your favourite band, don't take it as an offence. I know I used hard words, but I don't wanna insult anyone.

Well, Who's Next is so unbalanced. There are several great tracks on it, Baba O'Riley, Behind Blue Eyes and Won't Get Fooled Again.
But then it has too many fillerish songs on it, like Going Mobile. They are not offensive, they are perfectly listenable but they are somewhat weak.
But the biggest problem are songs like The Song Is Over and Getting Tune. Those Lifehouse leftovers are a little bit too pretentious. And also I don't like that much that synth-heavy sound. But anyway,Who's Next is definitely good album, but not a classic one.
I prefer the more guitar-based Who,like on Leeds and My Generation. Tommy is too pretentious. And while Quadrophenia is also synth heavy, it simply has better songs on it.

Okay, I was a little bit too fan boyish when I wrote that all the Beatles albums are classic...maybe only nine or eight out of them are real classic but still, I grown up listening to them so maybe I'm unable to tell.

Key

Um....what?! Boring? The only reason I question this is because I prefer the Gilmour-Waters Floyd over Barrett, due to the fact that Syd can't sing his way out of a paper bag. Also, have you even listened to Animals? Wish You Were Here? Even The Division Bell? I mean, yeah, like Smeenus said, you can have your opinion on things, but at least be prepared for criticism, especially for things that really make no sense.

Taxman

Well, boring. I have listened to them and I don't like them. They are just, you know, it's hard to explain, but they suffer from the lack of good melodies and also that overall monotonous.
And what?? Syd had a such a great voice. You can have opinions but he prepared for criticism when your opinions make no sense

But yes, only Dark Side of The Moon by the Gilmor-Waters led Floyd could be considered as a classic, in my opinions.
As an album, WYWH is not that great but that title track is good.
But when I listen to Floyd I get a feeling that 'they had nothing better to come up with so they filled record with stupid experiences and monotonous melodies.
But, maybe, I'm unable to tell cos I always prefer pop music over art rock

Key

You forgot to mention The Wall, Animals, and perhaps Ummagumma but that's debatable. I don't think a day goes by that I don't hear Another Brick In The Wall on the classic rock radio station. I also think you need to revisit Animals, because the first time I heard that, it blew my mind.

For the second bolded part, they weren't even considered art rock, they were psychedelic and progressive rock.

Taxman

Blah, I think them as a art rock. Barret-era was psychedelic rock but then I'd rather follow George Starostin's footsteps and call them art rock, but does it really matter?
And yeah, I will revisit Animals, since in this case I would like to be wrong- I mean, if everyone else find them to be great, I would also like to learn to find out what makes them great, so I'm gonna try again.
The Wall, though, would be a classic if it were not a double album. It includes too many fillers and bores for me.

Key

Now there are parts in this I can agree with. And I am glad to hear you will revisit it. Perhaps look at the influence behind the album and then listen? I usually do that if I can't exactly follow the lyrics.

I agree with you on The Wall as well. I don't find it as terrible as a lot of people say it is, in fact, I find it rather enjoyable, however I do think it is far too big of an album, but then again, it's a concept album, so it's focusing more on telling a story than anything. The filler is understandable, but I think they could have easily brought it down to a single album if they wanted to.

Taxman

The lyrics do not bother me that much. Since I'm a Finn, I can just decide to not to listen to them if they are not good. I can deal with bad lyrics if the music is good.

Taxman

And I admit I usee a little bit too rough words. Cos I really don't hate Floyd, I just can't see what everybody else sees in them.