I've heard people say this, or variations on it, so many times.
Give an example of a stock music opinion that you hear whoppers say far too much.
© DrownedinSound.com | From the Archive - Mission Of Burma: respecting a returning riot act
I've heard people say this, or variations on it, so many times.
Give an example of a stock music opinion that you hear whoppers say far too much.
abandon reply
Jag
No such
thing as a guilty pleasure.
there isn't.
i mean, there really really isn't. there's something pretty wrong with your confidence in your own opinions if you think that in order to remain 'cool', you have to make it look like you feel guilty for liking a band, or a song, or whatever.
music is meant to be a pleasure. don't make it a chore.
Agreed.
However, it is just a turn of phrase so no need to get so up-tight about it.
guilt is an emotion
and is not rational, trying to be cool does not come into it at any point
Sometimes
You can enjoy something even though you don't actually think it has any real worth though. That to me is a guilty pleasure.
Like watching a shit film and enjoying it even though you know it's shit.
yeah but if you enjoy it, doesnt it then become not shit?
just enjoyable in a different way
if you enjoy something,
then surely it has worth.
what gives music 'worth' anyway? indie kudos? the song having been produced by one of yo la tengo? bleh.
The 'shit film' analogy is a good one, though.
I mean no one could claim Snakes on a Plane is a 'good' film by the same standards that Jaws is a good film (note I'm staying within genres here).
They are both enjoyable but I wouldn't describe them as on a par.
While I agree with your point that 'guilty pleasure' is too often used as a get out, I think it has its place in this sort of context.
its not a guilty pleasure though
i enjoyed it because its trashy and fun. i think other films are much better, but i still enjoyed it, therfore i dont feel guilty about it.
No but the term is clearly somewhat tongue in cheek.
After all, if you were guilty then you wouldn't even admit it in the first place or something.
"Music is meant to be a pleasure. Don't make it a chore"
Is that a government warning?
Dunno how people can say that when you consider that...
"Last Night", their biggest hit, was directly taken from Tom Petty's "American Girl". So by that logic, they can't have reinvented something that had already existed and then which they used, you dig? Rediscovered is perhaps better.
Muse
are totally the best live act around
actually the Strokes did give guitar music a shot in the arm
when their Is This It? Came out it pretty much spearheaded a renaissance in guitar music in terms of musical style and fashion. They launched a thousand bands and loads of copy cat wannabees in terms of their look. Fair point they heavily mined late 60's early 70's Rock and Punk with the the likes of MC5, New York Dolls, The Ramones, The Stooges and other influences as mentioned in this thread but it cannot be underestimated about their contribution to rock music. I would say Is This It marks a milestone the way Nevermind and Appetite For Destruction did when those albums came out.
except
most of the bands that followed the strokes were a pile of shit. the datsuns anyone? a shot in the arm indeed. a shot of SMACK. see what i did there?
Motherfucker From Hell is fucking ace though.
was there second album worth getting?
*their.oh dear god
yes.
and their third is worth downloading about half of.
that maybe true
but it is undeniable that a lot of bands tried to play that loose style of clean fuzz style the Strokes specialised in. For the record the Datsuns first LP was ok.
doesnt mean they
reinvented rock music
they just started a trend
hmmm perhaps we are splitting hairs
i never claimed the Strokes reinvented anything. Did Guns 'n' Roses reinvent rock music? no. they just mined 70's hard rock; the likes of Aerosmith, the Pistols, Ted Nugent, ACDC, whatever. Nirvana nicked killing Jokes riffs for Come As You Are and were openly influenced by Captain America, the Meat Puppets, etc, etc. so did they truly revinvent rock music - the jury is out on that. My point is that Is This it? is still a superb album with some great tunes on it. and it is a milestone record.
I agree with this.
but the people normally making the statement tend to not have any knowlege about the bands you mention, and others. It's usually a 'there was Nirvana, then Oasis, then the Strokes, and nothing else' bit of guff.
OMFG!!!
You 4got The Stone Roses LOL best band ever!!!1!1!!1!onehundredandeleven!1!
But seriously, yes I think you're right there. The easiest way is just not to enter into music conversation with these people.
Joe - www.anewbandaday.com
it's
probably fair to say that there was a massive resurgence in interest in guitar music in 2001 which they were a large part of.
"reinvented" is a bit OTT. It's not like they came up with new and innovative ways to actually play their instruments.
Totally;
"reinvented" is way OTT given their lineage, but they certainly were a breath of fresh air in 2001 given the stai[n]d musical climate of the time - Is This It still sounds great today. But I could fully understand those who weren't around/old enough at the time to appreciate the change they brought about.
Way to repeat the prior post, eh?
"Eminem is the best rapper out there"
"Oasis defined a generation"
are two that make my blood absolutley boil.
The most recent one I read was...
Alex Turner writes songs that define a generation (you guessed it, NME!).
Sorry, but how is Mardy Bum or Dancefloor "defining" anything? They're just highly descriptive songs.
By the way, listen to the new Arctic Monkey's single here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfmAeijj5cM
I tell you what mate,
you're not too far off with that link. It's almost scary...
nah
they just dressed it up in leather jackets and gelled its hair up. First album is decent the rest boring...
First album is indeed great
They completely owe their ongoing popularity to releasing that album at precisely the right moment, though
interpol just sound like joy division
no they dont
yep that's another one I forgot;
I get the urge to visit violence upon those [predominantly cloth-eared gimps and lazy journalists] who say that. Similar genre, vastly different sound -- just fucking listen to it!
The first Interpol album is brilliant
and the rest are sub standard shit.
^This is a stock opinion that is clearly rubbish, right?
we should put them in quote marks to avoid confusion!
"The first Interpol album is brilliant
and the rest are sub standard shit."
You're right I don't agree with the statement above in quote marks, at all ash.
Its sort of true, is that. But other things I often hear:
"John Lennon was the best Beatle by far."
False. Lennon's best songs are probably The Beatles' best songs (Strawberry Fields, Tomorrow Never Knows), but Paul McCartney was the most consistently amazing songwriter of all nevermind of The Beatles.
Another Beatles one: "The only Beatles worth bothering about is anything after Revolver" - diediedie.
"Muse are a great live band"
But the songs they play are geared towards skateboarders and people with facial/nipple piercings.
"Pet Sounds is one of the best albums ever."
One of them, but that list is about a hundred albums long, and PS ain't nowhere near the top.
Word
I'm with you on the Beatles.
"John Lennon was the experimental Beatle"
Errr compare Lennon's stuff with what McCartney did. Some of McCartney's music is completely insane. "Oh but yeh he got killed so he didn't have the chance"... NOT ARSEDDD DIIIIIIIIIIIE.
MACATTACK all the way.
Totally agree about the Beatles...
Paul wrote some of the Beatles most out-there songs, "Helter Skelter", "Eleanor Rigby" and the whole of the medley on Abbey Road.
He was the most talented songwriter in the Beatles.
Though, I think the Muse and Pet Sounds comments go too far!
nah
helter skelter isnt out there, its just him trying to be heavy. eleanor rigby isnt out there, it's just got a string quartet on top. the abbey road medley is mostly shit.
I've not heard anything as 'heavy' as Helter Skelter pre68.
I don't like it though that much.
In the early days, Lennon was king. But as soon as the drugs started, McCartney had his head firmly screwed on. He had the ideas. He thought of Sgt Pepper. Thought of MMT. The medley on Abbey Road.
Paul kept The Beatles together when Lennon and Harrrison wanted to quit in 67. They owe him a lot I think. Were it not for his leadership, they wouldn't be classed as the 'gods' they became.
If you watch the anthology series it's clear Paul experimented as much as the rest of them
but he considered a pop song to be what he wanted to put out, I think.
Also, he was the guy doing all the tape loops in Tomorrow Never Knows, IIRC.
why does everyone feel the need to choose?
ALL of the beatles were great in their own right and they were even greater together. Everyone brought something incredible to the band. As brilliant as they all are individually, would they have had such an impact if they all started and continued as solo artists? And would they have reached such artistic heights without each other? They pushed each other's limits - that's why their records got better and better the longer they went.
Paul may have wrote some more
out there songs but Lennon's songs came out of nowhere and sat into the pop psych realm whereas Macca i felt had a bit too much of a standard base of music formula in the first place that he tried to reign away from, not always but i feel more often than Lennon. Either way they both rule.
I'd probably agree.
Barring 'Abbey Road' I think the Beatles records get weaker as they went on, but i expect people might not agree. The first two albums are blatantly the strongest.
AS IF
The first two Beatles albums are good records. Later stuff is killer.
they ARE good records
you can't compare them to the later stuff. it's chalk and cheese.
Are you having a laugh?
I'm right there with you with Please Please Me and With The Beatles being good records - they aren't appreciated by anyone, but I think they're beautiful albums - but they're just not on the same page as the likes of Sgt Pepper or Rubber Soul. Surely anyone can see that? They're just rock n roll love songs. They don't change your life.
"they aren't appreciated by anyone"?
are you sure?
have you ever seen Muse live?
I can't
be bothered with anything pre 'a hard days night'. I like it but it does nothing for me.
LOL
Is this another NME thing? Those silly people.
haahaha
whoever says that is an idiot
probably most allusions to spokepeople of a generation
I guess this applies most irksomely to that junkie zombie scumbag doherty, some stupid child was on tv saying about how the arena touring babyshambles were cool for not selling out. Apparently wembley arena is the new barfly, eh?
Oh and any old fucker that sees said crackhead/the vines or whoever behaving like utter twats and go "ah, the flame of rock is still burning..."
Is This It
came out after Madonna, Relationship of Command and Rated R.
sigh.
"x is the best 'insert genre here' album of the decsde"
said far too many times to count.
None of those records
say anything to the majority of 'rock and roll' fans though. I've only heard Madonna all the way through, but its not very 'cool' is it? Its like metal almost. At The Drive In are similar, just too shouty and teenage. There's no class to it.
Is This It is effortless genius. Its a rehash of everything, but so what? Its a record that meant so much to so many people, SOLELY for the fact the music is so good. It has no message or any of that sort of bullshit.
Dunno what Rated R is. But come on. Madonna? Doesn't it have that song with the "FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU..."etc. on it? Most people would just laugh at that.
For once i have to agree with wrighty ^
At The Drive In's Relationship of Command and Trail of Dead's Madonna are cult underground records loved by the few, unknown by the masses. I love both of those records as do many other people on this site. However The Strokes were the ones who took things into the mainstream with Is That It. It is a great record and that cannot be denied. The haters dislike it cos it sold millions and would probably have loved it if it was as underground as Relationship of command. Oh and Wrighty, Rated R is a record by Queens Of The Stone Age which you should really check out as it is rather good.
even if you dimiss those
You can't ignore The Argument. Post hardcore could be clever all of a sudden.
not my point
i quoted three records that - without doubt - showed that guitar music wasn't "dead", nor did it require "reinvention".
Those 3 records were much, much more exciting
and were really influential in shaping my music taste. The Strokes I could listen to at the time, but I certainly found them a lot less exciting- it's very digestable, and I think that's a reason why I don't have the urge to listen to them any more, on hearing one of their early singles now it sounds a bit flat. Compared to the likes Mistakes and Regrets, Feel Good Hit of the Summer or One Armed Scissor, the Strokes just sound weedy and underpowered.
Strokes ripped off VU and THE FEELIES
reinvent: euphemism for rip-off.
Strokes are great tho
whoops, THE FEELIES ripped off VU too
sorry
But was it not ATDI that paved the way
for the strokes?? when ATDI split people did'nt know were to look!
anton newcombe is a musical genius.
i love bjm, i think anton's rad and a great songwriter, but he not blazing any new musical path and he sticks almost religiously to one sound. yet people always refer to him as a goddam genius.
Clapton is God
He wasn't. He isn't. He never will be.
The strokes are just bland
I'm not sure terms like reinvent apply to straight up mid tempo rock.
truesay
re. Clapton, not The Strokes
Definitely
agree re Lennon's the best Beatle. Can see why he appeals so much, but I think Paul was prob the best songwriter in the band.
How about "the legacy of the smiths is britpop/ emo" for vomit-inducement
I think
Anton Newcombe may have said it best...
"People talk about Eric Clapton. What has he ever done except throw his baby off a fuckin' ledge and write a song about it?"
He is consistently decent
because of that, but i agree, he is not necceserily a genius for patching shit together brilliantly, pastiche and nostalgia. Damn interesting though.
I think it's fair enough
Though never a big fan, I'd say The Strokes (Interpol etc) popularity made all the KROQ skater bands' fans scratch their heads and say, "hey Limp Bizcut sucks," and thus sorta revitalized indie rock.
Of course there was Built to Spill and Pavement and stuff in the late 90s, but we were in danger of music becoming totally Linkin Park-shite...until this 2001 "reinvention" of indie-guitar rock.