quote:

Originally posted by SanchoPanza!!!:
M83 - The most boring band/group/whatever to ever receive praise. "Run Into Flowers" was good, but they should have stopped there. All their songs essentially use the same overly simplistic chord structure. The beats are lame. Cheezy, shimmery keybs don't help. Their albums are the epitome of a period piece, and not even very entertaining ones.

Could not disagree more.I think M83 is more than a period piece group/artist.The simplicity of the songs is what makes them so "pretty" and compelling.

I don't know how you can't get Big Star. Alex Chilton is up there with the Velevet Underground and the Stooges for releasing stuff that was light years ahead of it's time. "Third/Sister Lovers" sounds like it could've been released last week, not thirty-some years ago.

I absolutely do not get the Mars Volta. Aside from some scattered critical respect, what I don't understand is that a lot of people who I consider to have otherwise excellent musical taste love this band. I just don't get the appeal. To me it's just overly showy musicianship, with a singer that often sounds way too close to Geddy Lee, singing incredibly dramatic, pretentious lyrics. Their fanbase is so rabid, and I'm sure I'll be forced to defend my claims here soon. I'm not sure I'll be able to adequately do this, seeing as I can only stomach about 4 minutes of them before I have to put on something else. Sorry fans, but I just don't get 'em.

Indeed, The Mars Volta are pretty horrible. Comparing the singer to Geddy Lee is too kind. I'd say he sounds more like the lead singer from '80s metal band Kix, without testicles.

I've tried hard to get these guys, and haven't unlocked the secret yet. I bought "De-Loused in the Comatorium", listened to it once or twice, wasn't impressed, and sold it. But I've heard such raves about them, I thought maybe I gave up to soon, and picked up the EP "Tremulent"...gave it a couple listens and haven't caught on yet.

Some of the bands and albums that I just don't get:

-- Husker Du :: I have never understood the heaps of praise Bob Mould gets. I've owned "Zen Arcade" and it's just goes right over my head. I would much rather listen to The Replacements albums from that era than Husker Du.

-- Joy Division :: I must concur with the gentleman above that stated he didn't get this band. I think my reasons differ though. I know this might be the point (though it's lost on me) but their music is just lifeless to my ears. I openly admit the only songs I like are "Warsaw" and "Love Will Tear Us Apart". I've owned both studio albums and I've really tried to "get" it..to no avail.

-- Led Zeppelin :: Again I find myself agreeing with the poster above. Robert Plant's shrieking ruins what is essentially very powerful rock/blues music. I heard the lead singer from Jethro Tull (also a band I don't get) once make some comment to the affect that Led Zeppelin are the best band in the world, except for Plant (I'm really paraphrasing here). I would much rather listen to The Who (minus "Tommy").

-- (Hodge Podge of artists) Quicksilver Messenger Service, Skip Spence, Moby Grape... like a jet airliner flying "over my head".

quote:

Originally posted by soundandvision:
Some of the bands and albums that I just don't get:

-- Husker Du :: I have never understood the heaps of praise Bob Mould gets. I've owned "Zen Arcade" and it's just goes right over my head. I would much rather listen to The Replacements albums from that era than Husker Du.

I have to admit I don't really like Zen Arcade. If you haven't tried New Day Rising, I think it's a little more accessible. In general, with Husker Du, I tend to like Grant Hart's songs a lot better than Bob Mould's. Grant released a solo album a few years ago called "Good News for Modern Man" that is really good. I would agree with you that The Replacements are about 100 times better than Husker Du though.

I get that people don't get Husker Du. I guess I was drawn to them as a teen because they were from my hometown and I got to see them live a lot.

I would certainly say that the most ACCESSIBLE Husker records are the latter ones: New Day Rising is good. Flip Your Wig is GREAT. Candy Apple Grey is very different, but the songs are staggeringly sad. Warehouse: Songs and Stories is a little schizo, but very good.

As far as the solo works, Grant Hart's work post-Husker has been sporadic but filled with the poppy songwriting he's so good at. His first solo record, 1989's Intolerance, is an oft-overlooked amazing record filled with sad, personal songs. "2541" is the tale of the break-up of Husker Du, filtered through the metaphor of a divorce. His records with Nova Mob have their moments, as well.

Bob MOuld's post-Huskers career has had some highs and a few lows, in my estimation. His solo bow, Workbook, is one of the Top Ten records of the 80's for me. His other solo records have been great (Black Sheets of Rain) and good (Bob Mould, The Last Dog and Pony Show) and not-so-good (Modulate). His records with Sugar are uniformly excellent. And I can very highly recommend his latest solo disc, Body of Song, which is out this month. It is a well-deserved return to form for Bob: great songs, great music, and some experimentation (the electronic flavors he's into since becoming a club DJ in DC).

I have to agree with Mars Volta. I liked at the drive in but Mars Volta is too strange for me I think. I also found it hard to get into NON. I like the more folkish and collaborations Boyd Rice had done but i cannot listen to the NON albums. I never understood the appeal of groups such as Weezer and Fountains of Wayne. Maybe I just need deeper lyrics or a better vocalist. I also cannot stand Gwen Stefani. She annoys me and her music has always been annoyingly subpar and it seems her fanbase is just little girls. I cannot relate to her lyrics. I also found it hard to get into Aesop Rock. Once again, strange lyrics that are hard to understand.

I don't get Franz Ferdinand. I know they're supposed to be this great pop-rock band, but I bought the CD recently and I don't get it.
To me it sounds really superficial and empty.
They now say that Bloc Party is this year's Franz Ferdinand. All I have to say about that is one thing:Franz Ferdinand could only wish to be as good as Bloc Party.
They have some catchy tunes, but no amount of hype and critical jubilation can convince me that this emperor has clothes. I see the bare ass waving in the breeze.

Ok, so Franz Ferdinand is first.
-The Mars Volta to me is harder to get with the second CD because there's way too much echoing grinding noise, within and between sound. But since I started listening to music with Rush (the old prog stuff), I do get it. I think the singer is THE shit.
-The White Stripes. Ok I know it's blasphemous, but all they play is rock, right? I mean, that shit isn't very complicated is it? It's good rock, but I don't see why Jack White is suddenly seen as a demigod.
-Weezer after the Pinkerton Album. What the hell is that? To me it sounds like derivative soulless crap, to be very polite. Beverly Hills is just purely unadulterated shite in my eyes, and ears...
-Metallica. How are they still making albums? To me the Peak came at Masters of Puppets. After the Load Re-Load debacle, they went up a bit with the St. Anger CD, but really, can they not see that they are completely and totally washed up now? This downward spiral has got to end.
-U2. Yes I do love sacrilege. How is everybody so in love with that very average band with an awesome singer? How is it that their last album was seen as something bestowed upon us, as if by gods themselves? Their music I've always found to be too radio-ready, and lasking mostly in punch. Also I cannot stand Bono's race to get a Nobel Peace prize. Seriously biatch, I'm from Canada, stop praising that moron of a prime-minister that we have. He's a right-wing economist who made his money using fiscal paradises in the bermudas, so please stop the f-ing praise. U2 blows, they are and over-hyped, over-praised band that only does average music. There, I said it. They have a charismatic frontman, and that's it.
-Radiohead. Now, I know Radiohead is brilliant, but in this case I think it is my own artistic perceptions that are too limited. In this case I really am unable to grasp their greatness I believe.
-Coldplay. I think the first two CD's are good, but if they didn't play very 4 seconds on the radio, i guess I could enjoy them more. But alas, overexposure means under-liking in my case.
I do so love to blaspheme.

quote:

Originally posted by Tunguska:

-U2. Yes I do love sacrilege. How is everybody so in love with that very average band with an awesome singer? How is it that their last album was seen as something bestowed upon us, as if by gods themselves? Their music I've always found to be too radio-ready, and lasking mostly in punch. Also I cannot stand Bono's race to get a Nobel Peace prize. Seriously biatch, I'm from Canada, stop praising that moron of a prime-minister that we have. He's a right-wing economist who made his money using fiscal paradises in the bermudas, so please stop the f-ing praise. U2 blows, they are and over-hyped, over-praised band that only does average music. There, I said it. They have a charismatic frontman, and that's it.

If anything, I would argue that your assessment of U2 is backwards. I would say that they are a great band with a good singer. Listen to their catalog up through Zooropa, and you'll hear an incredibly innovative group of musicians. Granted, their past few albums are real stinkers, but The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby alone make U2 great.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:

quote:

Originally posted by Tunguska:

-U2. Yes I do love sacrilege. How is everybody so in love with that very average band with an awesome singer? How is it that their last album was seen as something bestowed upon us, as if by gods themselves? Their music I've always found to be too radio-ready, and lasking mostly in punch. Also I cannot stand Bono's race to get a Nobel Peace prize. Seriously biatch, I'm from Canada, stop praising that moron of a prime-minister that we have. He's a right-wing economist who made his money using fiscal paradises in the bermudas, so please stop the f-ing praise. U2 blows, they are and over-hyped, over-praised band that only does average music. There, I said it. They have a charismatic frontman, and that's it.

If anything, I would argue that your assessment of U2 is backwards. I would say that they are a great band with a good singer. Listen to their catalog up through Zooropa, and you'll hear an incredibly innovative group of musicians. Granted, their past few albums are real stinkers, but The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby alone make U2 great.

Perhaps. But 2 good cd's don't justify this kind of attention, other than on a popularity level. I mean even Zooropa wasn't anything special. So really since perhaps 10-15 years, they've just coasted on their first albums, which kind of sucks. I just wish they weren't marketed as THE band so much. It annoys the crap out of me... As for your band/singer assessment, perhaps you're right.

Well, those 2 albums are great....I didn't mention their near great albums like "Boy", "War", and "The Unforgettable Fire". During the 80s and through the early 90s, I can't think of a band that released so many back-to-back classics, except maybe R.E.M. or Prince. These guys do have some cred, it's not all hype.

quote:

Originally posted by Tunguska:

-The White Stripes. Ok I know it's blasphemous, but all they play is rock, right? I mean, that shit isn't very complicated is it? It's good rock, but I don't see why Jack White is suddenly seen as a demigod.
I do so love to blaspheme.

I'll agree with you that "all they play is rock" since rock 'n' roll came from blues and country. I don't think there's anything about Jack White which could be considered all "suddenly"-like. But, even though technically they're all the same thing, the Stripes play rock, country, blues and rock 'n' roll (at least.)

I'm not gonna touch the others right now, but glad to have you posting here, Tunguska. Welcome to the site.

OK, I've listened to Jeff Buckley's album a couple times. I cannot even begin to get into any of this stuff. If it hadn't received such high praise here and elsewhere, I would've trashed it after 4 songs or maybe given it to my Mom. Maybe I have a genre bias or something, though it seems to me that the most accurate label for this stuff is adult comteporary. That's not to take anything away from this guy's singing ability though. His voice is flawless.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
Well, those 2 albums are great....I didn't mention their near great albums like "Boy", "War", and "The Unforgettable Fire". During the 80s and through the early 90s, I can't think of a band that released so many back-to-back classics, except maybe R.E.M. or Prince. These guys do have some cred, it's not all hype.

I'll back you up on this one. With all of the questionable moves U2 has made over the last decade or so, it's easy to overlook how great their entire catalog, up through Achtung Baby, really is. Even their work since then is not without it's charm, (I'm one of probably only a handful of people who will defend POP as an underrated album). My main complaints about present-day U2 aren't about the music, but about ridiculously over-priced concert tickets, commercial apprearances, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:

quote:

Originally posted by Tunguska:

-The White Stripes. Ok I know it's blasphemous, but all they play is rock, right? I mean, that shit isn't very complicated is it? It's good rock, but I don't see why Jack White is suddenly seen as a demigod.
I do so love to blaspheme.

I'll agree with you that "all they play is rock" since rock 'n' roll came from blues and country. I don't think there's anything about Jack White which could be considered all "suddenly"-like. But, even though technically they're all the same thing, the Stripes play rock, country, blues and rock 'n' roll (at least.)

I'm not gonna touch the others right now, but glad to have you posting here, Tunguska. Welcome to the site.

Thanks for the welcome, I have been visiting the site for a long time, but I hadn't heard of the forums before.
As for all the U2 replies, I'm glad I got your attention with that. I'll look up more of the old stuff I guess.
I do agree that what I think pisses me off more about U2 right now, is that they are more concerned about everything else it seems than their music.
Won't nobody comment on Metallica? I guess maybe it's pretty clear for everyone...

quote:

Originally posted by Tunguska:
Thanks for the welcome, I have been visiting the site for a long time, but I hadn't heard of the forums before.
As for all the U2 replies, I'm glad I got your attention with that. I'll look up more of the old stuff I guess.
I do agree that what I think pisses me off more about U2 right now, is that they are more concerned about everything else it seems than their music.
Won't nobody comment on Metallica? I guess maybe it's pretty clear for everyone...

I have to admit I was never a huge fan of Metallica, but I think everyone can agree that everything after "The Black Album", including the god-awful "St. Anger" is pretty much crapola.

U2 is just entering that phase of their career where they're past their creative peak. They're not going to make another "Joshua Tree" or "Achtung Baby". They still churn out some good songs every now and then, but that's all we can hope for.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
U2 is just entering that phase of their career where they're past their creative peak. They're not going to make another "Joshua Tree" or "Achtung Baby". They still churn out some good songs every now and then, but that's all we can hope for.

I think U2 is still capable of making really good music, but after the relative commercial failure of POP they're too concerned with pleasing their massive audience. Their last two albums aren't bad, they're just too "safe". Listen to "The Ground Beneath Her Feet" from the Million Dollar Hotel sountrack for proof that U2 are still capable of making stunning music.