Unpopular Music Opinions III: Friggin Cobbler Vs. The World

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
^^^ This.

Like when Cobbler says The Beatles aren't in his Top 10 favorite bands and acts defensive, I don't think anyone would take issue with that. You love what you love. But Cobbler also says he respects and appreciates them, and really I think that's all anyone could ask for, as opposed to the contrarian dismissals we're seeing here.

To say shit like "XTC has more great melodies in one album..."-type shit is just straight-up trolling.
 
The Beatles are the epitome of the "respect more than like" trope. I get it. My brain understands they mattered. Too many smart people have told me. Denying it would be an exercise in contrarianism. But none of that can make me love them. I just don't and never have.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
U2 could be better than the Beatles, if the last 15 years hadn't been so mediocre for them. The Beatles never fell off and their peak material is iconic.
 
God damn it, I came in a little late for the meat of the Beatles discussion.

Not everyone has to like them. But overrated they are (mostly) not. The vast majority of pop/rock music that has existed since 1963 would not exist without the Beatles. Point blank.

The Beatles were in a position and were willing to do things that their contemporaries either could not or would not, and took music in the 60s to places it never ever would have gone otherwise. And they did it so well and so consistently. Don't get me wrong, they made a lot of utter shit. A lot of it was intended to be experimental, many times it worked and many times it didn't. But they always wanted to try something new, and worked so hard that what came out was magic.

There will never be another musical group quite like them. It may not be your thing to listen to, but you can't deny that they were truly some special force - musically, culturally, socially and politically - that was as game-changing in every possible way as a band can be. You don't have to listen to them or even like the music (although with such a wide-ranging catalogue I find it near-impossible to believe that someone could universally dislike everything they did) but to deny their uniqueness or downplay their skill or influence I think is just being contrarian and obtuse.
 
DaveC said:
God damn it, I came in a little late for the meat of the Beatles discussion.

Not everyone has to like them. But overrated they are (mostly) not. The vast majority of pop/rock music that has existed since 1963 would not exist without the Beatles. Point blank.

The Beatles were in a position and were willing to do things that their contemporaries either could not or would not, and took music in the 60s to places it never ever would have gone otherwise. And they did it so well and so consistently. Don't get me wrong, they made a lot of utter shit. A lot of it was intended to be experimental, many times it worked and many times it didn't. But they always wanted to try something new, and worked so hard that what came out was magic.

There will never be another musical group quite like them. It may not be your thing to listen to, but you can't deny that they were truly some special force - musically, culturally, socially and politically - that was as game-changing in every possible way as a band can be. You don't have to listen to them or even like the music (although with such a wide-ranging catalogue I find it near-impossible to believe that someone could universally dislike everything they did) but to deny their uniqueness or downplay their skill or influence I think is just being contrarian and obtuse.
Click to expand...

:up:

When I was a kid, I would have been suspicious, called you not a real fan for suggesting it was possible for people to respect but not be a fan of the Beatles. I agree completely now, though. But 10, 11 year old IWB probably would have tried to fight Liam. XTC can go fuck themselves.
 
Last edited:
DaveC said:
There will never be another musical group quite like them. It may not be your thing to listen to, but you can't deny that they were truly some special force - musically, culturally, socially and politically - that was as game-changing in every possible way as a band can be. You don't have to listen to them or even like the music (although with such a wide-ranging catalogue I find it near-impossible to believe that someone could universally dislike everything they did) but to deny their uniqueness or downplay their skill or influence I think is just being contrarian and obtuse.
Click to expand...


:rockon:
 
Frankly I think the "favourite" is not "best" distinction thing is rubbish. My favourite bands are my favourites because they make the music that I think is the best that I've heard. I don't expect anybody else to agree with my selections, because that's how music taste works, but if you ask me for the best bands I've heard or for my favourites you're going to get exactly the same answer.

"Influential", obviously, is another story. It's a fact that the Beatles were influential. But I am uninterested in their music, so I'm hardly going to be in a hurry to rate or respect it a whole lot. On the other hand, that very lack of interest means I'm not in much of a hurry to denigrate it either. Why would I? I don't usually sit around taking potshots at other old artists whose music doesn't interest me either. I normally avoid these discussions for the very reason that their music is so inconsequential to my life that I'm not motivated to participate in them, but clearly I was bored when I wandered into this thread.
 
Floyd being cold and emotionless I've never quite been able to understand either. I listened to Animals this morning and it's still as fantastic as ever. Such a thrill.

iron yuppie said:
I don't really see how the artistic, technical, and even philosophical accomplishments of The Beatles can be denied. Trying to do so (not that anyone really is here, but some posters do on occasion) is just contrarianism for the sake of it. But there absolutely is a difference between appreciation and enjoyment. I wouldn't challenge someone who doesn't necessarily enjoy or "get" The Beatles, even though personally I find the back half of their catalogue almost uniformly brilliant.

There's also a distinction between "favorite " and "best" that I think is often lost in these types of discussions. If you asked me my favorite band right now, in terms of a group I am most likely to reach for, it would probably be Beach House, but I would never claim they are the best or most influential band out there right now.
Click to expand...

This is a good post.
 
I don't know how someone can listen to Wish You Were Here (entire album) and hear it as emotionless. It borderline pours it on too thick.
 
I can maybe understand how someone could say Pink Floyd is a bit cold - some of their stuff is kinda depressing, I'm sure we all can admit - although I would counter that person probably hasn't listened to them in any real kind of depth.

Emotionless is right out to lunch though. The vocals (both delivery and lyrics) and music are the polar opposite of emotionless, from Gilmour's mournful cries at the end of A Saucerful of Secrets, Rick Wright doing Us and Them, Waters on the second half of Hey You, even Mason's drums on One of These Days (go watch the Pompeii version and tell me that isn't incredible)...there are countless examples, and this is a huge reason why I love Pink Floyd so much.

Emotionless? Hell no. Anyone who says that should consider that it might be the listener.
 
After doing a music project last school year where I listened to two hours of music each day from 900 albums (not the full albums, just select songs) that I got from the Album Project on futurerocklegends.com I have a newfound appreciation for Pink Floyd and some other bands that I previously considered overrated. But they still just don't appeal to me, I just can't put my finger on it. I like certain songs like Money and Another Brick in the Wall, but I just don't get that emotional connection like I get when I listen to U2. But music is subjective and that's just how it is.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
DaveC said:
I can maybe understand how someone could say Pink Floyd is a bit cold - some of their stuff is kinda depressing, I'm sure we all can admit - although I would counter that person probably hasn't listened to them in any real kind of depth.

Emotionless is right out to lunch though. The vocals (both delivery and lyrics) and music are the polar opposite of emotionless, from Gilmour's mournful cries at the end of A Saucerful of Secrets, Rick Wright doing Us and Them, Waters on the second half of Hey You, even Mason's drums on One of These Days (go watch the Pompeii version and tell me that isn't incredible)...there are countless examples, and this is a huge reason why I love Pink Floyd so much.

Emotionless? Hell no. Anyone who says that should consider that it might be the listener.
Click to expand...

As I recall Peef's done a lot of Floyd listening over the years, so I would take him at his word. Some music just doesn't connect with you. I've found maybe only two R.E.M. songs that I really, really, like. I think the grandiose nature of their music can put people at odds, and I've heard and seen a lot of people say that Pink Floyd leaves them cold. Even a song like Comfortably Numb, I could see people listening to that and going "well it's all there but just ehhhh".

Of course I don't agree at all, I'm firmly on your side. Time might be the most perfect Pink Floyd song, and the easiest to invoke what I'm talking about; it has all the overblown instrumentation and conceptual bullshit in it, 15 solos, heavy riffs, wistful, esoteric lyricism, but it all just works so amazingly well.

Rick Wright is a hero in that song. Easily my favourite and the (second) most underrated member of the band. It's no coincidence that most of my favourite Floyd moments contain Wright. Time, Echoes, Us & Them, Any Colour You Like, the list goes on and on.
 
cobl04 said:
As I recall Peef's done a lot of Floyd listening over the years, so I would take him at his word. Some music just doesn't connect with you. I've found maybe only two R.E.M. songs that I really, really, like. I think the grandiose nature of their music can put people at odds, and I've heard and seen a lot of people say that Pink Floyd leaves them cold. Even a song like Comfortably Numb, I could see people listening to that and going "well it's all there but just ehhhh".
Click to expand...

I don't mean to belittle his opinion, and I hope that didn't come across that way. There's lots of music that doesn't connect at all with me either emotionally but I can still understand and appreciate that a song is played or sung with emotion. That's what I mean when I say I don't understand how someone could say Pink Floyd is "emotionless". If it doesn't strike something inside you, so be it - but I consider that to be an entirely different story, personally.
 
I just found this thread and I will confess to all of you something so unpopular that my friends and relations will not bring this subject up of this band because of my hatred of them and the fact they are loved by 99.99998% of the world... I just never "GOT" them or how they were so popular.

Nirvana

:hides from the villagers with pitchforks:
 
I really like About a Girl, the first half of Nevermind, all of In Utero and MTV Unplugged. As far as I'm concerned, they ended at their artistic peak. Nevermind is overrated as far as I'm concerned, but there are awesome songs on it. In Utero is their masterpiece.
 
Easily my favorite thing on side 2 is Something in the Way, but even then I prefer the unplugged version. I can't stand the production on Nevermind, so the more average songs can't get by on sound alone. I really think Butch Vig ruined that album. Thankfully, the great songwriting in tracks like In Bloom and Lithium keep it afloat.

In contrast, In Utero has some of my favorite production of all time, though I realize Kurt himself wasn't wild about it. Then again, was that guy happy with anything they recorded?
 
Last edited:
LemonMelon said:
Easily my favorite thing on side 2 is Something in the Way, but even then I prefer the unplugged version. I can't stand the production on Nevermind, so the more average songs can't get by on sound alone. I really think Butch Vig ruined that album. Thankfully, the great songwriting in tracks like In Bloom and Lithium keep it afloat.

In contrast, In Utero has some of my favorite production of all time, though I realize Kurt himself wasn't wild about it. Then again, was that guy happy with anything they recorded?
Click to expand...


What? The production on Nevermind is absolutely perfect. Everything is so crystal clear, the guitars sound great both clean and distorted, you can hear the bass in the mix, and the drums sound amazing. The production on In Utero is great too.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Forget the grunge tag, they're ultimately a noise rock band and the sound lacks grit. "Crystal clear" doesn't serve their songs as well as the dry, crackling production that Steve Albini gave them, particularly with regards to Grohl's drums. You're mostly talking about mixing and clarity above, not texture.

I'm also not crazy about Kurt's tendency toward chorus and reverb during that period, but that's not Vig's fault.
 
Last edited:
LemonMelon said:
Forget the grunge tag, they're ultimately a noise rock band and the sound lacks grit. "Crystal clear" doesn't serve their songs as well as the dry, crackling production that Steve Albini gave them, particularly with regards to Grohl's drums. You're mostly talking about mixing and clarity above, not texture.

I'm also not crazy about Kurt's tendency toward chorus and reverb during that period, but that's not Vig's fault.
Click to expand...


Butch's production played a huge part in making Nirvana. The production was amazing, and exactly what Nirvana wanted at the time.

Nirvana was a great band, but not the legendary band they are now touted.

Yeah, saying they are overrated isn't an uncommon opinion.

Nirvana was a good to great band, the time and place made them "legendary".


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I don't know if this opinion is unpopular or not, but was Cobl4 the one who suggested a while back that I should listen to Disclosure? I'm pretty sure it was Disclosure that was mentioned. Anyway I've had occasion to hear some of their stuff without making any effort to.... and I loathe it.
 
Assuming it was either WHENAFIRESTARTSTOBURNRIGHTANDITSTARTSTOSPREADSHEGONBRINGTHATATTITUDEHOME or nowivegotyouinmyspaceimlatchingontoyouDAADAAAAAAA

I like both of those songs but I could understand an averse reaction to them. The album Settle is a lot better. Terrific listen overall.

One of the most underrated songs in recent times:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
83
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus
H
Setlist Issue
Replies
3
Views
488
lazarus
lazarus
Reggie Thee Dog
Are we NOT discussing the Dolby Atmos Mix of Achtung Baby?
Replies
13
Views
1K
count rushmore
count rushmore
DaveC
2024 NFL Playoff Pick 'Em
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
DaveC
DaveC
O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
289
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom