The Explain Why You Like This Album ('cause i don't understand) Thread

[Terrible Lizard]

Originally Posted by boo boo

I challenge you to a ****slap.

My candysnake vs your **** of Steel, 3 stock, no items, Final Destination.

No.

[boo boo]

Are you ok?

You've been acting strange lately.

Either way, lets not argue, I don't like looking at your avatar.

[Terrible Lizard]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Are you ok?

You've been acting strange lately.

Either way, lets not argue, I don't like looking at your avatar.

I'm a strange and frightening fellow.

[asshat]

Originally Posted by boo boo

I'm not saying you have to be technical to be "talented", just look at how freaking high The Replacements are on my lastfm for crying out loud. Like I said before, everybody has a skill level, The Clash understood their limitations and put out some amazing music. I love a lot of punk music, but it tends to be the more disciplined and melodic punk bands like The Buzzc*cks and Ramones rather than the outright ear assaults made by the likes of The Sex Pistols and The Damned.

The Stooges were basically an inebriated garage rock band trying badly to sound like The Doors. Which I guess is their appeal.

The difference between the the clash and the stooges is the stooges tried something different. The Clash rode a wagonload of hype when they existed, hype they didn't deserve. The clash were a pseudo-revolutionary hard rock band trying to sound punkish.

.....the stooges were an inebriated garage band trying to sound like the who, james brown, and maybe little richard. The Doors comparison is probably meant to provoke people, so I won't bite.

[boo boo]

I don't care about their hype or their status as "punk", they had talent, so I guess they weren't real punk, you're probably right about that.

I also don't know how you could argue that The Clash were unoriginal.

[Urban Hat€monger ?]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Please don't generalize me like that, you know you hate it when people do that to you.

I'm not generalising you, I've genuinely never heard you have a good word to say about anything that could be considered radical or left field.

Originally Posted by boo boo

Hendrix, The Who, James Brown, Sonic Youth, King Crimson, Ornette Coleman, Hawkwind, Roxy Music, Frank Zappa. Those artists were quite abrasive. I love improvisitation, but that's something you can only do if you have the talent and a basic understanding of musical stucture. Even Sonic Youth had that.

Maybe they were considered radical , left field , abrasive or whatever in 1975 but it's 2009 now, things have moved on. Boundaries have been broken. That just looks like a list mostly made up of mainstream rock bands who got a bit loud once in a while. Not saying there's anything wrong with those bands I have albums by all of them. But like I said music has moved on.

Originally Posted by boo boo

Listening to The Stooges is like a train wreck, and I'm tired of train wrecks, the media is full of them.

Well at least they were a charismatic train wreck with some great songs

Originally Posted by boo boo

I was listening to Hawkwind last night, that was a band who had the raw power that The Stooges had, but they had the talent and melodicism to channel that energy.

If I wanted to hear melodious music in the first place I wouldn't be listening to the bloody Stooges would I.

Originally Posted by boo boo

I wouldn't even say The Stooges were less energetic that say ELP, I mean Emerson live was like a man possessed, he would stab the keys on his Hammond with a knife, turn it over, hump it, rape the f*ck out of it.

Probably the highlight of an extremely dull & boring show

Originally Posted by boo boo

Why is it "rock n roll" when a punk band does it, and when Emerson does it it's just "pretentious wankery"? It's the same goddamn thing, with the exception that Emerson was actually talented.

I don't call prog bands making noise "pretentious wankery". I call endless solos & boring neo classical rubbish "pretentious wankery".
If you do find any punk bands who use those two things feel free to point them out to me so I can dismiss them as "pretentious wankery" as well.

Originally Posted by boo boo

And I guess talent just gets in the way of rock n roll, who needs it?

Well talent stretches over lots of different aspects, the only one you seem to apply it to is musicianship.

Originally Posted by boo boo

I like energetic performers, but they still have to be able to perform, and it's not just about having energy. Nobody would have cared about The Who's energy if they couldn't play, nobody would have cared about James Brown's energy if he couldn't sing or dance. GG Allin had energy, doesn't make him anything more than a talentless hack.

What you mean is YOU wouldn't have cared, please don't speak on behalf of everybody. Personally i'm willing to look past someone's limitations if I find what they're doing compelling or interesting. It might interest me for 5 minutes or it might interest me for 5 decades, but as long as it says something while it has my attention that's fine with me. But then we already covered this the other day.

Originally Posted by boo boo

Now Iggy wrote some great songs so I wouldn't call him completely talentless, but I don't like his vocals and The Stooges were hardly even bar band material as far as their talent goes. They had tremendous influence, some of it was positive, but I think the impact of punk rock in general is mostly negative, it really lowered the standard.

That's because you choose to ignore the post punk era save for a couple of successful bands that everybody likes. Although I dislike a lot of punk rock punk was the best thing that ever happened to music because it took music back out of the hands of the boring public school educated middle class musos that was like an epidemic in your own beloved prog movement and inspired people to get up & say something. Making for some really interesting & diverse music.

Originally Posted by boo boo

The Stooges had energy, but that's all their music was. And while they clearly had fun making the music, that really doesn't matter to me if it sounds like crap.

That's why I hear so many successful rock bands of the last 30 years covering ELP songs on a regular basis.

Oh wait

Originally Posted by boo boo

The MC5 were far superior anyway.

For every one good song the MC5 wrote the Stooges wrote three.

[5-Track]

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

Can - Ege Bamyasi

I'm sure there are a ton of reasons why I should like this album, I just can't figure out what they are! Plus, I find the long tracks Pinch and Soup particularly difficult.

I had trouble with this one, too, until I played it for my girlfriend on a road trip. It took me years to get into, tho has been rewarding since and now I play it often as it is less demanding than the superior TAGO MAGO. Background CAN.

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

I didn't mean it in a bad way but when you look at the big albums of the 60s are generally British: The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Black Sabbath (70s but whatever), etc the amount of American artists who put out albums put on the same pedestal as them isn't as much.

Back to why I like Pet Sounds. It's pretty simple I just think it's a beautiful pop album hah.

LIVE DEAD, Workingman's Dead, American Beauty

BLUE CHEER - Vincebus Eruptum

"Bless It's Pointed Little Head" by Jefferson Airplane

"Easter Everywhere" by the 13th Floor Elevators

(I'm digging for 'em, I know)

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

Alright, here's one. Somebody help meh out! Sly & The Family Stone - There's A Riot Goin' On: heralded by many as one of the best albums of the 1970s, I don't see how it's even one of the best FUNK albums of the 70s. I'm not even sure it's the best SLY album of the 70s. I've listened to it at least a dozen times. All I took away from it is that:

- it has about 3 very good songs,
- and another 35 or so minutes of what might as well be background music for a bar or a movie, devoid of any real hooks or anything particularly memorable
- the icing on the cake is that all of those non-singles tracks seem like some sort of great shameless drug-infused mess - which was probably never supposed to happen in the first place

So...am I missing something? Enlighten me.

Amazing record... the tones are unbelievable, analog mess at it's gloriousest... It sounds like it was recorded at home on a 4-track, twenty years before that was in vogue... no compression, all the levels pegged, no gratuitous displays of musicianship... just minimalist groove, raw semi-conscious slurred melody, and attitude so thick you can smell it (real attitude DOESN'T get right in your face... because it doesn't care about your face)

[debaserr]

Originally Posted by 5-Track

I had trouble with this one, too, until I played it for my girlfriend on a road trip. It took me years to get into, tho has been rewarding since and now I play it often as it is less demanding than the superior TAGO MAGO. Background CAN.

it also took me a while to get into can. i had tago mago and ege. the breakthrough happened with tago. maybe give that a shot? my favorites of ege: pinch, i'm so green, soup, and vitamin c. and i agree that it is a more laid back album than tago.

[asshat]

Originally Posted by 5-Track

Amazing record... the tones are unbelievable, analog mess at it's gloriousest... It sounds like it was recorded at home on a 4-track, twenty years before that was in vogue... no compression, all the levels pegged, no gratuitous displays of musicianship... just minimalist groove, raw semi-conscious slurred melody, and attitude so thick you can smell it (real attitude DOESN'T get right in your face... because it doesn't care about your face)

Riot was my favorite pot smoking record a few years back. The songs were sort of half-assed, but the grooves were so thick.Probably one of my all time favourites. Time is the greatest mopey song of all time.

[asshat]

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

I'm not generalising you, I've genuinely never heard you have a good word to say about anything that could be considered radical or left field.



Maybe they were considered radical , left field , abrasive or whatever in 1975 but it's 2009 now, things have moved on. Boundaries have been broken. That just looks like a list mostly made up of mainstream rock bands who got a bit loud once in a while. Not saying there's anything wrong with those bands I have albums by all of them. But like I said music has moved on.

Well at least they were a charismatic train wreck with some great songs



If I wanted to hear melodious music in the first place I wouldn't be listening to the bloody Stooges would I.




Probably the highlight of an extremely dull & boring show




I don't call prog bands making noise "pretentious wankery". I call endless solos & boring neo classical rubbish "pretentious wankery".
If you do find any punk bands who use those two things feel free to point them out to me so I can dismiss them as "pretentious wankery" as well.



Well talent stretches over lots of different aspects, the only one you seem to apply it to is musicianship.



What you mean is YOU wouldn't have cared, please don't speak on behalf of everybody. Personally i'm willing to look past someone's limitations if I find what they're doing compelling or interesting. It might interest me for 5 minutes or it might interest me for 5 decades, but as long as it says something while it has my attention that's fine with me. But then we already covered this the other day.



That's because you choose to ignore the post punk era save for a couple of successful bands that everybody likes. Although I dislike a lot of punk rock punk was the best thing that ever happened to music because it took music back out of the hands of the boring public school educated middle class musos that was like an epidemic in your own beloved prog movement and inspired people to get up & say something. Making for some really interesting & diverse music.


That's why I hear so many successful rock bands of the last 30 years covering ELP songs on a regular basis.

Oh wait



For every one good song the MC5 wrote the Stooges wrote three.

....In addition to what you said, the stooges changed the definition of what is acceptable and what is crap. Im certain that if there was no stooges there would be no sonic youth. Im sure prog played a lesser part.

To Boo Boo-most bar bands dont try anything new or write their own songs. Most bar bands try to make carbon copies of classic rock songs, and arent too abrasive and are easy on the ears for middle aged folks.

Im sure ``should I stay or should I go`` is a bar band staple. I dont think the same thing can be said about any stooges song. Just read about the reaction to the stooges at whatever bar the played: thrown bottles, taunts, rotten food thrown at them. They didn`t fit into the bar band mould and thats why they`re still relevant and a band like the Guess Who are not.