Unpopular musical opinions II

[beau99]

-Radiohead sucks, except for "There There".

-Thom Yorke is an asshole.

-Lady Gaga sucks.

-Zooropa > All other U2 albums combined.

-Tiny Tim was more than a novelty act, contrary to popular belief.

 

[LemonMelon]

You don't give HTTT enough credit. I do think that it's inconsistent, but it's at least half great, if not moreso.

God knows I've tried. I've listened to that record more often over the years than a few albums in my top 50 all-time. Maybe 4-5 songs I really like, but the rest is flat. Radiohead will always be one of my favorite bands, but Hail and Pablo Honey aren't worthy of the Radiohead name. Amnesiac gets a lot of grace from me because of the handful of tracks that rank among their greatest, but it has its flaws as well.

 

[If you shout...]

-Tiny Tim was more than a novelty act, contrary to popular belief.

Is this really that unpopular? Maybe I'm just out of touch with the general populace, on this one, but the dude was clearly some kind of insane genius.

 

[Imperor]

 

[lazarus]

 

[The Sad Punk]

Oh man that is mega nasty

That is dog shit

 

[coolian2]

i would hit that with the ugly stick, if you...oh wait, he already has.


incidentally, how did we get to star wars innuendo from isabel lucas?

 

[BVS]

-Zooropa > All other U2 albums combined.

That is one BOLD statement.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

He should never be permitted to smile.

 

[cobl04]

Anybody can sing. I think what you meant, perhaps, was that Thom Yorke can't sing well.


But then, of course, you'd be wildly incorrect.

i can definitely see where people are coming from when they say it's his voice that puts them off the band altogether. i love radiohead, but he is a long, long way from my favourite singer.

Sulk

God knows I've tried. I've listened to that record more often over the years than a few albums in my top 50 all-time. Maybe 4-5 songs I really like, but the rest is flat. Radiohead will always be one of my favorite bands, but Hail and Pablo Honey aren't worthy of the Radiohead name. Amnesiac gets a lot of grace from me because of the handful of tracks that rank among their greatest, but it has its flaws as well.

it's a hard album to like, i've found, hail to the thief. not one track on there that really stands out to me as a 10, and they are some truly ordinary songs on there. as you've said in the past there's potential for a great EP.

Amnesiac is my least favourite album though (by Radiohead), as i think the only redeeming features are the incredible Pyramid Song, the hypnotic Packt, and the drunken brass of Life in a Glasshouse. I Might Be Wrong might have a great riff, but Thom destroys it with a nothing vocal.

 

[LeafsNation]

If not for Kurt's death...

...I'm not convinced Nirvana would have been the legendary band it is consered to be today. After the all the hype of "Nevermind", Nirvana had already begun to experience a slide in sales and attention in the press before Kurt died. Groups like Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains had become just as popular, and the Smashing Pumpkins were on the bubble for being the next big thing in "Alternative" rock. Nirvana was really just another "grunge band" by early 1994. Kurt's tragic death changed all that. Alice in Chains is already considered a legendary band by many (including by yours truly) in its own right, but had Layne Staley died in 1994 near the height of their popularity instead of 2002..instead of Kurt...AIC may be been viewed as THE band of that generation instead of Nirvana.

Don't get me Nirvana fan (and Nevermind, and In Utero are of my favourite albums) MTV live proved they were more than a 3-chord band...and the one thing they did have over the other bands I mentioned was Smells Like Teen Spirit which was a massive crossover hit. I'm still not so sure they would be idolized like they are today if Kurt hadn't died .


Two other "unpopular" opinions related to this one:

1) Dave Grohl's Foo Fighters are far and away a better band than Nirvana. It's strange to think that there would have been no Foos if Nirvana had continued on.

2) The convention wisdom that "Grunge" was "hair metal's" death knell isn't entirely correct. The seeds of Hair Metal's demise were planted long before Nervermind. Guns'N'Roses Appetite for Destruction (released in 1987 but took off in 1988-89) is what killed the hair metal bands. It was stripped down, agressive no-nonsense album that was hard rock but not quite metal, was the antithesis of 80s pop metal, and a breath of fresh air that even influenced some bands that later became "grunge' like Alicve in Chains.

Cheers,
LN

 

[intedomine]

While I'd agree that the legendariness of Nirvana has probably been escalated since '94 due to the suicide of Cobain, I don't think Alice In Chains were capable of capturing the same high regard, even if Staley had died in identicial circumstances to Cobain in '94.

As you said, Smells Like Teen Spirit was a massive single, Nevermind a massive album, and the crossover factor was huge. Nirvana had it, Alice in Chains didn't and this factor is crucial. I do however wonder whether Pearl Jam (had Vedder died in such circumstances) might be more substitutable in this grunge argument. Though I do think Pearl Jam's star has risen post the peak of "grunge". They have proven they were more than Ten.

 

[LMP]

incidentally, how did we get to star wars innuendo from isabel lucas?

Her last name.

 

[The Sad Punk]

While I'd agree that the legendariness of Nirvana has probably been escalated since '94 due to the suicide of Cobain, I don't think Alice In Chains were capable of capturing the same high regard, even if Staley had died in identicial circumstances to Cobain in '94.

Grunge used to be my favourite thing in the world and Alice in Chains were my most favourite band in all the lands and I always listened to all the major records of the time and read all kinds of stuff about smelly Washingtonians with long hair, and not saying that gives me any kind of authority, especially since I couldn't care less about genre and subculture nowadays, but I do feel pretty much the same way. AiC just didn't have that same impact as Nirvana, and while they probably would have a bigger dent in the history of the time had Staley died eight years earlier, Nirvana would still be seen as the prime guys of the day, even if Kurt survived and they released a bunch of albums in the late nineties that were only marginally better than Puddle of Mudd. As it is though, I think Cobain, Grohl and Novoselic were all talented and smart enough to do better than that - hell, I still think the self-titled Foo Fighters album is really neat - it's more of a question of how much longer they'd last even if Cobain didn't kick the bucket.

I was really disappointed when I listened to Dirt at a mate's place recently and it didn't sound a tenth as good as it did when I was 15, but such is life.

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

Is that a Yorkeshire terrier?


Ahhhhhhh, snap!

 

[lazarus]

Well played, sir.

It's either that or a lhazy eyepso.

 

[phillyfan26]

I played "High and Dry" at an open mic night one time, Gaffer.

There were no survivors.

I played Paranoid Android. Think about that for a second.

I was an idiot for ever thinking that would get a good response.

 

[lazarus]

I hope you really gave it to them during the "when I am king you will be first against the wall" part.

 

[coolian2]

Her last name.

ah, i get it.

 

[iron yuppie]

Having just recently listened to some New Order, I can say that they would be a tremendous band if only Sumner were able to sing. His vocal performance on Power, Corruption & Lies is rather deplorable.

 

[gvox]

^

 

[lazarus]

For what it's worth, Ian Curtis was an even worse singer.

Sumner got better as the band continued. On P,C & L he was still trying to imitate Curtis, to an extent.

Also, I think he does a very good job on Leave Me Alone, and I can find no fault in ANY part of Age of Consent, one of the greatest songs ever recorded.

 

[U2isProgressive]

Manic Moonlight is the best King's X album since they stopped working with Sam Taylor on their Self-titled album in 1992,

 

[iron yuppie]

For what it's worth, Ian Curtis was an even worse singer.

I'd have to disagree here. Curtis, while certainly lacking in technical proficiency, was always emotive and lent the songs the despondency that they needed. Sumner, however, always sounds self-aware to me, as though he has no sense of tuning his delivery to the song's mood. In my mind, PL&C would have greatly benefited from his voice being electronically treated.

 

[lazarus]

I found Curtis rather one-note and boring. His voice suited the material, I guess, but I certainly wouldn't have wanted to listen to more albums of it.

Unfortunately, the guy from Interpol eventually took up the mantle.

Bernard isn't a great vocalist, and I see what you're saying about not adapting to the mood, but he deserves credit for being able to go pretty seamlessly from rock to dance to balladry, and being serviceable in all three.

Also, his breaking into laughter on Every Little Counts FTW.

I could sit here and come up with a list of his best vocal perfs, but I don't feel like it. I do think he's great on Lonesome Tonight, one of the b-sides on Disc 2 of Substance.

 

[If you shout...]

I found Curtis rather one-note and boring. His voice suited the material, I guess, but I certainly wouldn't have wanted to listen to more albums of it.

I love me some Joy Division, but I couldn't possibly agree with this any more. Spot-on.

 

[lazarus]

...and I think he occasionally sounded like Kermit the Frog.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

as a fan of both bands, i think neither of them are particularly good singers. i guess the best way to describe my opinion is i think their singing fits the music. when i think of each band, i can't imagine anyone else singing but them.

 

[Saracene]

I think that Bernard Sumner is one of the dullest vocalists I've heard (not quite as boring as the Interpol dude though, someone should check if he's actually a robot). Ian Curtis to me is one of the bad-but-compelling singers.

 

[cobl04]

1) Dave Grohl's Foo Fighters are far and away a better band than Nirvana. It's strange to think that there would have been no Foos if Nirvana had continued on.

i've never been a grunge fan.