Unpopular music opinions

[Hell's Belle]

[video=youtube;vtPk5IUbdH0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtPk5IUbdH0[/video] Here's something unlikely to elicit a positive response, but it takes me back to simpler times. Almost makes me want to buy a pair of Chinese made, reissue Pro-Keds.............

I secretly love this song. I get a tad giddy when it pops up in my iPod's shuffle every so often.

 

[Hell's Belle]

[video=youtube;KUP5rwVNJko]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUP5rwVNJko[/video]

I have no idea what you are talking about, but I wanted to thank you for posting some SCOTS. I love 'em. Are you saying you like them or don't like them? I saw them last Good Friday and will see them again later this month and they put on a great show.

 

[HepKitty]

What do you dislike about him? His clever, witty lyrics? His insouciant singing style? His natty wardrobe? The roster of stars he attracted to Capitol Records?

actually I'd just like to know what a "huckleberry friend" is supposed to be. I don't mind him at all but some of his lyrics are a bit um different

 

[Kirstenkat]

I don't like most classic rock. I realize it was a stepping stone to modern rock which I thoroughly enjoy, but I just don't like the sound. No intelligent reason why, just not my thing. I had a lot of friends in high school who went off anytime I chimed in saying I didn't like Metallica or Led Zepplin.

I find this thread interesting but I am a big believer that music is opinion. I find it unfair when someone gets genuinely mad because you don't like a certain type of music. Debating is one thing, but at the end of the day you'll like your music they'll like theirs.

 

[Bourbon Guy]

I have no idea what you are talking about, but I wanted to thank you for posting some SCOTS. I love 'em. Are you saying you like them or don't like them? I saw them last Good Friday and will see them again later this month and they put on a great show.

I like SCOTS. That's why I put them up. Not everyone's taste, but I like
'em. Not sure why.

"WPVE"= White Presbyterian Velveeta Eater.

"Little Debbie, little Debbie!" is a line from Camel Walk. Little Debbies are a desert snack, like Twinkies or Ho Ho's.

 

[Bourbon Guy]

I really dislike "artsy modern jazz" that does not sound like music. You know all the pretentious stuff from the late 1950s through today (I guess after bebop and West Coast Jazz, I know I am not using the correct terms since I really do not care for this 'music'). It always reminds me of the the skit Jazz Club from The Fast Show.

-what are you gonna play for us today?
-trumpet
-ah, no the tune...
-tune? this is jazz!!
[video=youtube;MsQYzpOHpik]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsQYzpOHpik[/video]

Hahahahahaha. Agree completely, but I would expand it to all jazz. I can't stand any of it. The modern stuff, with all the pretensions, that you have to be qualified to TEACH a course in music theory to even begin to appreciate? To me it is not music at all. The older jazz, all of it, all the way back to its origins, to me is just auditory masturbation.

 

[Bourbon Guy]

I find this thread interesting but I am a big believer that music is opinion. I find it unfair when someone gets genuinely mad because you don't like a certain type of music. Debating is one thing, but at the end of the day you'll like your music they'll like theirs.

Well said.

 

[Fletch]

Hahahahahaha. Agree completely, but I would expand it to all jazz. I can't stand any of it. The modern stuff, with all the pretensions, that you have to be qualified to TEACH a course in music theory to even begin to appreciate? To me it is not music at all. The older jazz, all of it, all the way back to its origins, to me is just auditory masturbation.

What music do you respect?

 

[Bourbon Guy]

What music do you respect?

Actually, almost everything. Just not jazz. I listen to classical a lot while I work, but beyond that I listen to a bunch of stuff. Sometimes early rock and roll or delta blues, or early electrified blues, big band, Doc, relatively current pop music, a little crunk, bluegrass, old-time, early country, cowboy, jock jams, almost everything. Just not jazz. Don't know why. Just don't have the gene. It sounds like musical doodling to me. Pointless and going nowhere.

On the other hand, with my primitive musical taste, I don't know how anyone can listen to this and not smile. It directs a straight course back in time, following a cultural vein. Michelle, Tamika and Tanya wanna ride this train.

[video=youtube;B-DpRcxK_N8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-DpRcxK_N8[/video]

 

[Lincsong]

Why don't you choo choo? C'mon ride the train.

 

[W4ASZ]

My unpopular opinion -

I've read enough of this thread to conclude that it's the least worthy on the entire FL site.

 

[Undertow]

VitaminG, from my experience in a recording studio, your description is quite accurate. The concept of recording and performing are simply two different things.

Recording, at least in the modern sense, is about capturing the very best possible take within the limited time in-studio. Although this sounds like a behemoth undertaking, most bands don't have unlimited budgets, thus they must actually be able to play their instruments and they must be able to compose the music live as well as in pieces. This often requires multiple takes while utilizing multiple tracks, and yes, computer become involved.

Performing requires the ability to put a song together and play the finished product in one take. Simple as that.

Although it may seem counterintuitive, performing is far easier than recording. Sure, there are those geeks and prodigies who can sit down in a studio (aka basement at home) and record excellent material prior to learning how to perform, but they are obviously not the rule. An excellent example would be Trent Reznor from Nine Inch Nails; he was recording music on a little 6 track in his basement with Casio keyboards and cheap guitars. The result, Pretty Hate Machine, would likely never have gone far had it gone through a label first.

On the other hand, a great example of being proficient at performing AND recording would be Swedish metal band Meshuggah. They first perform the material together live, enter the studio, record very complex drum sequences entirely electronically and/or via computer (not even through triggers, just a program) as well as tracking guitars separately, and then play everything live with the same precision.

 

[martinsantos]

I don't know, Undertow... I always remember, about tricks in recording studios to get something different than a "live" playing, some records made in early 60s (Phase 4, I think). The recording company (London?) claimed a different experience in listening. The only really good was Ted Heath Orch's; the other LPs were only jokes (the most terrible was Tchaikowsky's 1812).

I always will think that the sound engineer have to make the best record possible - and the musicians to play the best they can.

 

[Undertow]

I don't know, Undertow... I always will think that the sound engineer have to make the best record possible - and the musicians to play the best they can.

I agree in the sense that every band/musician performs and records differently. Some bands can pull off a consistent live performance that's just as good, or better, than a recorded one. Bands like Led Zeppelin, Nirvana, and Rage Against the Machine could play an entire set "live" in the studio and produce a clean, finished product which didn't require much engineering work.

A good example would be Nirvana's first album Bleach. 15 songs were recorded and produced in under 30 hours (only 11 made it on the first cut of the album). So imagine - a band goes in, records, mixes and masters 1 song in 2 hours. That's pretty darn fast, my friend!

 

[martinsantos]

I believe that this is quite fast! In old days of direct-to-disc in 78rpm recording they used to record just a little faster - 6 sides in a 3-hour session. But they didn't have to mix or something like this. The engineering work was limited to recording levels from the several microphones - and that's all.

I don't listen these bands you talked about - but my point is exactly this. When a musician goes to the studio and record what he plays, then at least the recording, as an art piece, is sincere.

 

[Bourbon Guy]

I've read enough of this thread to conclude that it's the least worthy on the entire FL site.

Hahahaha. That's good. With over 1,200 posts, this thread is the second most popular thread in the Radio forum. Therefore, your post criticizing this thread expresses what appears to be a most unpopular opinion, which is perfectly appropriate in a thread for unpopular opinions. Well done.

 

[Fletch]

Actually, almost everything. Just not jazz. I listen to classical a lot while I work, but beyond that I listen to a bunch of stuff. Sometimes early rock and roll or delta blues, or early electrified blues, big band, Doc, relatively current pop music, a little crunk, bluegrass, old-time, early country, cowboy, jock jams, almost everything. Just not jazz. Don't know why. Just don't have the gene. It sounds like musical doodling to me. Pointless and going nowhere.

Hey, thanks for answering in such detail. It seems you have very catholic tastes (Presbyterian tho you may be lol).

So here's the thing. As a jazz player, I always ask people who don't like jazz, "What kind of jazz don't you like?" Most of the jazz I listen to is big band, with '20s and '30s small group right behind. 3 1/2 minute mini-essays, meant for dancing and happiness, with little time to noodle away.

So I guess the next question is: what is jazz to you?

I agree that much of the most critically acclaimed jazz is intellectual more than rhythmic or mood in appeal. I don't listen to it much, except to appreciate the musicianship. Some I respect more than love. A lot of it, I, like you, don't dig at all.

Jazz has really suffered with the public because the critics and musicians look down on the old styles, and the new styles offer little to even a niche fandom of non-musicians.

 

[Fletch]

In old days of direct-to-disc in 78rpm recording they used to record just a little faster - 6 sides in a 3-hour session. But they didn't have to mix or something like this. The engineering work was limited to recording levels from the several microphones - and that's all.
[...]
When a musician goes to the studio and record what he plays, then at least the recording, as an art piece, is sincere.

So true, martin. Or even if it's not meant to be art, it has an authenticity as a piece of craft work and, so often with those old 78s, a moment in time that is fully real. It gains, over time, what Benjamin, the philosopher, called an aura.

 

[vitanola]

...I listen to a bunch of stuff. Sometimes early rock and roll or delta blues, or early electrified blues, big band, Doc, bluegrass, old-time, early country, cowboy, jock jams, almost everything. Just not jazz...

How odd!

You profess not to like "jazz", and yet many of your
preferred musical genres are directly derived from this form.

There were strong back and forth influences between "Jazz", the blues, "Bluegrass" and much else that counts as "country music" today, and early rock and roll can creditably be considered a jazz form. Swing, on the other hans, is unquestionably a form of jazz.

Fletch does ask a good question. What, precisely do you consider to be "Jazz"? When you refer to "old" jazz are you referring to 1960 or 1920?

I would think, for example, that the opening cadenza to Armstrong's "West End Blues" might be just up your alley, and how can anyone with ears call the ride-out to Bix's "Goose Pimples" pointless noodling.

Are you quite certain that you are not lumping these gems in with the Bop and Post-bop dross (er, excuse me, "stuff")?

If your idea of jazz compasses Ornette Coleman's score to "Naked Lunch" (which I fear sounds to me like a complicated cat-fight in a mustard mill), I could certainly understand why you place it in the same class that I place much of the work of the "SERIOUS" John Cage and the other composers of the "Ode to a Dead Mock Turtle" class.

Oh, and any electrified instrument save, perhaps a lap steel and an Electro-Spanish guitar is an abomination.

Now, the above should definitely include some unpopular opinions!

 

[Bourbon Guy]

How odd!

You profess not to like "jazz", and yet many of your
preferred musical genres are directly derived from this form.

There were strong back and forth influences between "Jazz", the blues, "Bluegrass" and much else that counts as "country music" today, and early rock and roll can creditably be considered a jazz form. Swing, on the other hans, is unquestionably a form of jazz.

Fletch does ask a good question. What, precisely do you consider to be "Jazz"? When you refer to "old" jazz are you referring to 1960 or 1920?

I would think, for example, that the opening cadenza to Armstrong's "West End Blues" might be just up your alley, and how can anyone with ears call the ride-out to Bix's "Goose Pimples" pointless noodling.

Are you quite certain that you are not lumping these gems in with the Bop and Post-bop dross (er, excuse me, "stuff")?

If your idea of jazz compasses Ornette Coleman's score to "Naked Lunch" (which I fear sounds to me like a complicated cat-fight in a mustard mill), I could certainly understand why you place it in the same class that I place much of the work of the "SERIOUS" John Cage and the other composers of the "Ode to a Dead Mock Turtle" class.

Oh, and any electrified instrument save, perhaps a lap steel and an Electro-Spanish guitar is an abomination.

Now, the above should definitely include some unpopular opinions!

Show off. You lost me early on. I intended to put together a serious answer to fletch's post, but you just kinda hacked me off with this. Clearly I don't have a music major's understanding of what is included in the classification of "jazz." And I don't care. So, from my uneducated and subjective personal perspective,

this to me this is jazz, and I don't like it:

[video=youtube;SmhP1RgbrrY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmhP1RgbrrY[/video]

You may say it has some connection to old time or country or bluegrass, but I don't buy it. You beat that monkey hard enough and he'll tell you anything you want to hear (get that?). I can't hear what connection it has with this

[video=youtube;bDJPnG3RDxU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDJPnG3RDxU&feature=related[/video]