Jump to content
Why become a member? ×

Unpopular Musical Opinions: What are Yours?


Mykesbass

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, BigRedX said:

 

His lyrics are pretty good. If he chose to publish them, unaccompanied, as poetry I would have no problem with that. It's that he chooses to set them to dull repetitive music (and IMO the music would still be dull even if it wasn't so repetitive) that means they need to be judged as songs, taking both the music and the lyrics into account. And on that level it fails miserably, the music being so terrible that it completely negates the genius of the lyrical content.

 

 

Opinions and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Leonard Smalls said:

 

There's 2 major points here!

Firstly, the idea of "self-indulgence" and "niche appeal". Self indulgence is usually applied to virtuosity in music one doesn't like, whereas a similar, or possibly far lower, level of skill in another piece of music could be called "genius". And those types of music with by far the highest levels of skill are also those with niche appeal - frinstance classical and jazz.

Now could this lack of appeal of more complex music be because of the first point, a failure in music education at a young age? After all, most (UK) school music lessons are an excuse to misbehave, it's not treated as a proper subject, media largely ignores any music outside of the simplest of popular warbling.

So in order to continue your musical education you have to either go it alone - often because of parents' hot-housing' efforts via private lessons - or being self-taught, or braving the school education route with all its difficulties. And by musical education I don't just mean playing an instrument, but an appreciation (not necessarily a liking!) for all forms of music.

And there's been many Berkeley alumni in all sorts of musical genres: Les Claypool, Stewart Copeland, Adam Duritz (Counting Crows), Susanna Hofs, Phil Lesh (Grateful Dead - attended for a while!), Raymond Pepperell (Dead Kennedys), Terry Riley...

 I wouldn't disagree with you at all about the lack of appreciation of complex music down to failure in music education and it not being treated as a proper subject. Then again throughout English speaking societies there's a prejudice against all 'higher' art forms as being 'snobbish' or just for the middle classes. When you have governments that cut funding for the arts  - as with the current shower the UK suffers - this reinforces the view they're not important. I say English speaking as this is definitely not the case in countries such as France, Italy, Germany, China and Japan where there's a lot more respect for their own cultures. Let's be honest, in Britain there's a cultural vacuum where it's seen as smart to be anti-intellectual.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Leonard Smalls said:

Indeed...

In the red tops scientists are always "boffins".

And kids in ordinary schools get a kicking if they're a swot!

 In both the UK and US, scientists are usually portrayed on TV and in films like the Big Bang Theory characters, 'Doc' in Back to the Future. In both US and UK, the 'cool' kids are the ones that con the system (e.g. Ferris Bueller) or who don't play the system (e.g. Danny Zuko in Grease). The studious kids in US dramas are usually referred to as 'Pointdexter'. Trying to educate the masses is an uphill struggle.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Steve Browning said:

Eric Clapton should have never picked up a Strat. 

 

6 hours ago, dclaassen said:

-What should have EC played, then?

 

Washboard. Spoons. Or with himself, perhaps. Anything other than a guitar. Then I wouldn't have been subjected to him at various points during my life. 

(And if there's one thing I've taken away from this thread, it's the pleasure of knowing that I'm not the only one who finds him mindbuggeringly tedious.)

 

Edited by Rich
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rich said:

 

 

Washboard. Spoons. Or with himself, perhaps. Anything other than a guitar. Then I wouldn't have been subjected to him at various points during my life. 

(And if there's one thing I've taken away from this thread, it's the pleasure of knowing that I'm not the only one who finds him mindbuggeringly tedious.)

 

He probably has the dullest back catalogue of any rock and pop musician that came out of the 60s/70s

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Seashell2 said:

 I love Nickelback! Haven't had time to read all 15 pages, so don't know if anyone else agrees with me 🙂

Yes, they have been confessed to - you are not alone. But I think you're safe with this being an unpopular opinion 😆

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steely Dan,hated em back in the 70s,i thought this Donald Fagan Fella who told him he could sing,altogether different now i love them,in part i think that's Down to You Tube and being able to hear stuff one wouldn't dream of listening to back then as it costs money,they had very little Radio play back Int Daay.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Groove Harder said:

Red Hot Chili Peppers would be better without the front man... 

 

I love RHCP musically, can't stand Kiedis though. 

He's definitely the weak link. Not just that, his vocal is primarily why I didn't like them for many years. It's only recently I've partly come round to them mainly due to learning many Flea basslines

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a myth that old stuff sounds better.

 

Whether that's items which were actually made a long time ago, or new stuff made with obsolete tech, like tube amps.

 

I think the reason people think this is because with a lot of such gear, you can just plug it in, and it will sound good, but with modern gear, the same sounds are there, you just have more options.

 

Eg - old instruments which sound super warm and organic - that's because a load of high frequencies are being attenuated, you could get the same results with a modern sounding bright instrument and a good enough EQ.

 

Tube amps - whatever magic is in there is emulatable, and not even just digitally, which is cheating. I'm confident that given a good enough ear, and judicious use of the right effects (mostly compression, distortion and EQ) and you could get that sound from any nasty sounding solid state amp.

 

The flat, dead sound of a modern class d amp when it's first plugged in is just because it doesn't already have a load of frequencies sucked out in a characterful way - it's up to you to shape the sound.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vin Venal said:

It's a myth that old stuff sounds better.

 

I don't think that is entirely true, I think back in the past before mass production the quality of things was really variable, so for instance, if you had 10 les pauls, 1 would be fantastic, 2 would be very good, 5 would be ok and two would be firewood. Over time, the ones that were ok and firewood weren't really looked after or cherished and broke or dissapeared, but the fantastic ones were kept.

So it provides this myth about them being great - no, just the good ones were.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Buddster said:

I don't agree that vinayl sounds better than cd's

 

Yes, I'd rather hold a record sleeve than a CD case, but I'd rather listen to a CD. 

 

It's a matter of perspective I think. In technical terms, digital recording is demonstrably cleaner and more analytical than vinyl. That ship has long since sailed.

 

On the other hand, vinyl has a certain sound character that many listeners find very appealing. A limitation made into an asset, so to speak.

 

 

You pays yer money, you makes yer choice. Personally I'm happy to listen to either.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats an interesting one. I personally prefer the sound of vinyl, but I don't think it's better, I think that's subjective.

 

I also think comparing vinyl to digital as if that's one monolithic group is a trap a lot of analogophiles fall into, certainly I've been guilty of it, when in reality digital formats vary enormously.

 

And, this is only a suspicion I hold, but I reckon if people really wanted to, it would be possible to digitally emulate that vinyl quality accurately enough to fool the human ear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm amazed at how many posters in this Forum have 'gold standard' hearing, despite the sometimes kilowatt rigs and shed-building drummers they apparently frequent, and the age groups of many. I'm pleased for them, naturally, and long may that last, but I'm still amazed. -_-

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Woodinblack said:

if you had 10 les pauls, 1 would be fantastic, 2 would be very good, 5 would be ok and two would be firewood.

 

Depends on the period. There's been times when 7 out of 10 Lesters have been dreadful and even now some horrors are still escaping from the Gibson electric solid-body plant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...