Bands that music snobs think are crap, but really aren't that bad
- Thread starter Melbourne Red
- Start date
Who gives a feck?
Always knew someone would bite if I dissed Radiohead.
U2 are dull. Don't get me wrong, they've done some good stuff but what's the point of them now, really? What boundaries are they pushing? What's new in their music? Where's the edge? It's bland stuff now. Fine, they are all middle aged and too rich to really want to take risks but they stopped trying about 10 years ago, as far as I can see.
There's little point in any of these dinosaurs roaming the earth any more (or the plastic dinosaurs in the form of tributes). Most people have got about 2/3 good albums in them at best and they should then have the decency to feck off.
I like this post.
I love them, such variety to their music over their years. And in terms of melodies their music is anything but bland. I can see other reasons for not liking them but its because they're music is so rich melodically that its so successful, rigthfully so.
Their last album was terrific. It had a bit of everything. It was better than anything else at its time, which IMO is usually the case with most U2 albums.
Their new album has been anything but safe. And its a very very good album. They've broken enough barriers in the past, they cant do it every single time. I'd rather appreciate the fact that i'm lucky to still be able to hear new albums made by them rather than pick on the fact that at 50 they arent reinventing music.
Why? They enjoy making music, millions around apart from a few people on redcafe.net love when they do and they're still better live than most of the younger acts. And most of the 'dinosaurs' have had a lot more than 2/3 good albums. You usually dont last that long with such few.
True, but it's harder for a band like U2 to experiment and feck about than it was for someone like Sonic Youth because of the sort of following they had/have. It is a rare band indeed that can knock out half a dozen class albums.
Of course they do. Because of sheep like fans. I loved Iron Maiden up to and including Powerslave but they`ve been just ordinary at best since.
I really don't care if U2 are pushing barriers, edge is the best gutairist ever, bono is a saint or that they had a few good songs 15 years ago, they make bland songs which get overplayed.
They're all fecking sell-outs nowadays anyway.
As soon as you sell your music for an advert or some bullshit you lose all artistic merit as far as I'm concerned.
As soon as you sell your music for an advert or some bullshit you lose all artistic merit as far as I'm concerned.
Seventh Son of a Seventh Son was a good album. And even if you say they were only good up until Powerslave, that was still their 5th album. I'd say Maiden have more than the '2/3 good albums' limit being mentioned here.
Yep. No argument there.
Actually over the last 50 years there are a number of bands that have done that. None of them have had their peaks in the last 20 years though.
Or because they still make cracking music. I wasnt talking about Maiden but in their defence quality albums arent a walk in the park, you dont just roll them out with a snap of the fingers. I love Maiden and they've earned the right to be below their best for awhile, it would awesome if they can release another one as good as their old classics.
Its like wanting Giggsy to retire awhile back. Why? It would stunning if Maiden could conjure up something special.
Why? Is it impossible to do both? Technically its not, so you'd be wrong to think that way. I could come up with an artistically brilliant song and yet have it playedon an ad. People are just bloody uptight.
No, it's not possible. The minute anything other than the craft takes precedence the art will suffer. See Wilco.
There aren't many bands left with any artistic merit by that measure, and not just 'nowadays'. A lot of older bands seem to sell tracks to video games and adverts. Even in cases where one or more members aren't happy with it (ie. Dead Kennedys) you still get it happening. Just taking The Doors as an example based on your username, they now license songs for ads and even re-recorded 'Riders on the Storm' with Snoop Dogg for 'Need for Speed Underground 2' for fecks sake. Obviously it has nothing to do with Morrison but do they lose all artistic merit for that?
Who says it takes precedence? Taking a piss during a recording session doesnt mean the piss took precedence. The promotion of ones art in all probability has very little to do with the creative input and output.
I have no idea what you're trying to convey. The point is the audience. Any artist with dignity who takes his or her craft seriously would never want themselves or their art associated with a fecking corporation. The point is creation for appreciation as opposed to creation for consumption. The latter is a bit of a contradiction to the whole concept of the term art. No?
That's not necessarily true, in fact some would argue that the commercial discipline often makes for better art. This is particularly true of Hollywood and directors forced to work within budget/artistic constraints producing better work than when they were allowed to be 'free' and self-indulgent.
All i'm saying is that its the music or in your words the 'art' you create that actually matters, not how far you go to sell or promote that 'art'. If one comes up with an artistic masterpiece, does it suddenly becaome an uncreative piece of nonsense if one of the songs appears in a television AD?
If the latter influences the former your point is valid but there's no evidence to actually validate that claim.
Amol, why do you like U2? And does it really matter whether most think they're bland or middle-of-road?
The yardbirds made some fantastic music. Seem to get forgotten by many.
I like this post.
I love them, such variety to their music over their years. And in terms of melodies their music is anything but bland. I can see other reasons for not liking them but its because they're music is so rich melodically that its so successful, rigthfully so.
Their last album was terrific. It had a bit of everything. It was better than anything else at its time, which IMO is usually the case with most U2 albums.
Their new album has been anything but safe. And its a very very good album. They've broken enough barriers in the past, they cant do it every single time. I'd rather appreciate the fact that i'm lucky to still be able to hear new albums made by them rather than pick on the fact that at 50 they arent reinventing music.
do you really mean to say this? Do you listen to alot of music?
So they toured the US ahead of the release of Led Zeppelin I as 'The New Yardbirds'...
Makes sense.
In the wider sense, of course not. But it matters to me.
Their first gig as Led Zeppelin was before the release of 'Led Zeppelin I'
Movies and music are two completely different animals. But it applies to film as well. Look at Wes Anderson's latest release. And as for your assertion, in no way does Hollywood do anything other than pump out tons of the boring, predictable same.
And all I'm saying is one does not come up with an artistic masterpiece only to hand it off to a bunch of suits. It's a matter of perspective. Art that goes commercial nearly always suffers. And the only reason I say nearly is due to glam or pop art such as Warhol or Bowie which was made for the spotlight in the first place.
True. However, 'The New Yardbirds' never existed.
You're going to regret asking me this
I remember when 'All that you..' was released their music was played all the time on the telly. A band i'd never seen before singing on a runway with a plane flying over their heads and they seemed to know they were good. And i was interesting in giving them a shot. There must much else to shout about in the music scene then.
After under the unfluence of my elder brothers choice in music, having spent a childhood listening to Michael Jackson and other embarassing and cringe-worthy pop acts, i then somehow escaped that and eventually got into the whole rock scene, immersing myself in it. My formula was picking an artist i thought was interesting (from the past obviously) and getting right into them.
With U2 i fell in love with that album right away. I was looking forward to it despite not knowing what to expect and due to the dire state of current (at the time) music. I mean everything i listen to is 'old' music.
But of all the bands i went through and love till this day, they were the one that hit me deepest. Their lyrics connected, i love their sound, i like the fact that i they had something relevant with every song. As much as i love the genre, a lot of bands, even the great ones, have tons of songs on their albums where they're just bashing instruments to death or screaming, and tend to forget about the music. U2 never forgot about the music. Back in the day they were more raw, 'War' for me was a brilliant album with them at their raw best. Then came U2 and Bono at the peak of their powers with Johua Tree, Achtung Baby etc and finally they've aged like few bands i know have. Their peak in terms of popularity has come this decade which is quite awesome.
The creative rebelious nature of 'Like a song..', 'Sunday bloody Sunday', the tenderness of 'the ground beneath her feet', 'With or without you' that connects with me on some level that i can barely explain, 'Beautiful Day' which just seems to make me smile like a spastic every time, the ode to a father in 'Sometimes you cant...', the pure edgy fun of 'Vertigo', and i'm thats just a snippet.
I cant think of another band who IMO have so many brilliant albums with terrific songs, one after another. Even near 50 they're doing a great job of it.
And as for the latter, its only here that people dont like them. Everyone i know absolutely loves U2.
Michael Jackson shits all over U2
Maybe i just cant see the connection.
For me 'Stairway to Heaven' is one of the greatest songs ever made. I dont care where all it appears and what all it promotes. And IMO i like a certain set of bands, most of which are commercial. And for me they've made the most commercially and artistically and most importantly musically pleasing music.
I don't think they are that different but if you want to confine it to music the 3-minute single is a commercial constraint that got people to produce superb art until twats got too much money and control and were able to produce abominations like Bohemian or Stairway.
Stairway to Heaven was released nearly 40 years ago. It's one of the iconic songs in rock & roll history. It wasn't being played all over the place back then.
And i dont disagree with any of the above.
i thought that when they toured the states it was as the new yardbirds, then changed it to led zeppelin after keith moon said it would go down like a lead balloon.
But actually, no i am wrong.
because they didnt call themselves lead zeppelin because they didnt want americans to pronounce it "leed" zeppelin. They must have changed it before they went to america - so therefore they must have toured there as led zep.
I think in terms of the mainstream i meant in the uk, they went many years before being as big in the uk as they were in the us, the stones were really the media darlings then. Zep never had good relations with the media.
Absolutely bizarre opinion. You have no grasp of music or art, only a narrow perception of what you think they should be.
Anyone who thinks Stairway to Heaven is anything other than pretentious drivel has got cloth ears and no sensibility.
Those are two of the greatest songs ever IMO.
What kind of music do you like Peter?