I thought of this from looking at the "records to test your stereo" thread. A few mentioned Rush "2112". My wife bought this thing 26 years ago and I can not learn to like it. The music is a complete undisciplined mish mash and the vocals are worse than fingernails on a blackboard. I can't listen to more than two songs before I jump up and take it off.

p.s I am not talking about bad records that are thought of as bad. I mean ones that are nearly universally acclaimed that you just don't "get".

Add to my list any and all of Miles Davis' rock/fusion attempts. Blech!!

I think they are called Divo. They are promoted or produced By Simon Crowel fromAmerican Idol, which is another suckfest in itself. None of the Idol performer have realy impressed me. Also add anything from Foriegner, Journey or any post Humble Pie Peter Frampton albums, Including Live

Wow, I could pontificate for quite some time on this topic. Growing up, I never quite got the Beatles or the Rolling Stones. I liked lots of their songs but could never quite imbue either group with the godlike status they have since attained.

Eric Clapton's solo works after 461 Ocean Blvd. seem pretty weak to me. I also never got the Eagles after Desperado or the departure of Bernie Leadon.

I cannot fathom why such outfits as Counting Crows garner any praise and I really dislike the new Van Morrison album Magic Time.

The much hyped Wilco release Yankee Hotel Foxtrot leaves me scratching my head, as does most of Son Volt's music.

After Buckingham and Nicks hijacked Fleetwood Mac, it was never the same band and I still have not bothered to open a free copy Rumors that I have had for 10 years. Relatedly, Out of the Cradle by Lindsey Buckingham is a trite, brittle overrated (IMHO) album that serves up such tripe as this couplet: "Now, someone is dead and gone
The hurt that you feel makes you feel strong."


Then there is the whole playlist on top 40 radio. . .

I best go away now.

I have to admit myself that I never really liked The Rolling Stones. A few songs maybe but I do not even own 1 of their albums.

This is going to get ugly. I gotta add U2 and REM to the list. Also, any talking heads after that "wake up the baby" song. From Eno to crap...

95% of what I see mentioned on music forums.

*.PRINCE (or whatever its name is these days)
I just don't get it. Never have. :yuck:
I just found this thread after posting a similar comment on another thread. Two slams on Prince in two minutes! That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it!

It just goes to show how different people’s tastes are. I am a newbie here on AK and I have to say that I still laugh (and agree) every time I see the signature line (by a senior member who's name I am sorry that I can't recall at the moment) that says "The C in rap is silent". :lmao:

Please don't take any offense Strangeband, none is intended, just a difference of opinion. I did grow up with the Beatles and rode the wave of innovation that they started. I have most everything that they recorded on LP and CD. I like almost everything that they did and still do. The Rolling Stones are a band that I enjoy but not enough to buy more than one or two of their albums over the years. As to Fleetwood Mac, they are my favorite band especially since Buckingham and Nicks joined them. I think Lindsay Buckingham is amazing, Stevie Nicks is so-so, and both John and Christine McVie are great. Rumors is one of my all time favorite albums. I am still not sure what's up with the lyrics for 'Peacekeeper". They sound like marching orders for Alqueida.
So, there really may be no accounting for some peoples tastes, mine included.

Great thread by the way. I will watch with great interest. It should be fun. Sadly, I already don't recognize some of the names of newer "artists" mentioned.

King Crimson. This group gets the award for the most money I have spent on music that I don't really like. I guess that I thought that I was supposed to like it, and that If I bought another disc, that it would be the good one. The only thing that I like to listen to is In the Court Of the Crimson King, and that one is so poorly recorded that it's hardly worthwhile.

"Please don't take any offense Strangeband, none is intended, just a difference of opinion."

Oh, by no means am I offended. This thread is bound to reveal all sorts of polarized views and let's hope the sparring is all in good fun.

I'm going to have to agree with Tentoze. I don't like most of what has come out in the last 20 years other than Jazz/Fusion recordings.

But for a handfull of songs, I also never liked the Rolling Stones.

I can see nothing in U2 or Pearl Jam.

Never cared for the Eagles, Dan Fogleberg or Spinal Tap.

By the way, whoever mentioned the Pandora site, Thank you! I have created a number of killer, play only what I like, stations.

Hyfi

95% of what I see mentioned on music forums.

This thread topic is to me what ebay complaint topics are to you.

The Doors and the Dead...PLEASE.....let them rest in peace.

The Grateful Dead
Nirvana
Pearl Jam
Jethro Tull

Sushi, anchovies, Scotch, cigars, White Castle sliders.......

Oooooppps, wrong thread :lmao:

Bruce Stringbean-He makes me puke!

I forgot Springsteen... He would be on my list as well

The Grateful Led, Dead Zeppelin, Rush, Chicago, Bob Seger, Springsteen, Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, The Dave Matthews Band, Patti LaBelle, Derek & the Dominoes..... and a lot of other people I don't like.

The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Kiss, U2, REM, The Grateful Dead, The Doors, amongst others... :thumbsdn:

Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett,

TA, You sure you're from Joisey???

The Beatles, Pushed like hell to make money. There were a lot of Good bands about at the time and got pushed aside because of the Beatles. I think Elvis was the same in the states. COMERCIAL Rubbish.

Thanks for mentioning some of my favorites... but I punch another button if Phil Collins or Bob Seger come on... but nothing will make me change stations faster than Oasis!

Wilco... afraid I don't get it - but I've only heard one CD. Diana Krall does nothing for me, so many others I like better.

ANY Country Western music

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

Led Zeppelin - Never liked Robert Plant's voice and the band's music sure didn't sound like any of the blues great I was listening to at the time.

This thread topic is to me what ebay complaint topics are to you.

:thmbsp:

Woe and I thought it was just me that didnt really Like , Springsteen , The Rolling Stones , Genesis , U2.

I own none of the above

I do like some Jethro Tull and The Greatfull Dead In the Dark album

also never got the Eagles after Desperado or the departure of Bernie Leadon.

I really dislike the new Van Morrison album Magic Time. .

After Buckingham and Nicks hijacked Fleetwood Mac, it was never the same band and I still have not bothered to open a free copy Rumors that I have had for 10 years. Relatedly, Out of the Cradle by Lindsey Buckingham is a trite, brittle overrated (IMHO) album that serves up such tripe as this couplet: "Now, someone is dead and gone
The hurt that you feel makes you feel strong."

Then there is the whole playlist on top 40 radio. . .

I best go away now.[/QUOTE]

Hey Strangeband
How many tries did you give Out of the Cradle? I am a die hard FM fan from P. Green to the current lineup. Some better then others but all have something to offer. It took me awhile for Out Cradle to grow on me but there is some great guitar playing on that album and what LP does not have some lyrics that may sound trite or forced (I am the Walrus coo coo ka choo :)
Rumours was so overplayed back then that even I was sick but now on a top notch vintage system it all sounds good and new again :music:

What do you think of V. Morrison's Days Like This?

I agree, I like the older Eagles better

Well, I don't get most post-Louis Armstrong jazz. Just sounds to me like a bunch of guys sitting together, each playing a different tune. Especially frustrating is if they say it is some old classic or song that I know, they start by playing a couple of bars of it, then they take off playing improve stuff that has nothing to do with the song they are supposed to be playing?
Wtf? :scratch2:

Alwayslooking:

Thanks for the dialogue (not sure what happened to the formatting):

"How many tries did you give Out of the Cradle? I am a die hard FM fan from P. Green to the current lineup. Some better then others but all have something to offer. It took me awhile for Out Cradle to grow on me but there is some great guitar playing on that album and what LP does not have some lyrics that may sound trite or forced (I am the Walrus coo coo ka choo :)
Rumours was so overplayed back then that even I was sick but now on a top notch vintage system it all sounds good and new again :music:"

----Well, I tried to listen twice and on the third time through, I just gave up. And you are quite right about the proliferation of bad lyrics.

"What do you think of V. Morrison's Days Like This?"
----I have not heard Days Like This. I've listened to quite a few other recordings by Van, and my favorite is Poetic Champions Compose. I liked the Healing Game OK. Saw him live once under a full moon---great concert.

"I agree, I like the older Eagles better[/QUOTE]"
----You might like a band called Farm Dogs featuring Jim Cregan and Bernie Taupin. Some of their songs sound like the Eagles I used to like.

Someone mentioned KISS. I don't think that would be a band that we are supposed to like (they hardly get any airplay on the radio outside of a couple songs). KISS have made a career out of trying to chase after the latest trend in order to make the most $$$.

Here's a review someone made for the Joshua Tree on rateyourmusic.com:


There are musical offenders out there, and they are everywhere.

They're the ones who barked back at "Who Let The Dogs Out."

They're the ones who play "Smells Like Teen Spirit" or "Stairway To Heaven" in guitar shops after they've had one guitar lesson.

They're the ones who bought the interview-only Britney Spears CD so their collection would be complete - and then made their friends listen to it.

They're the ones who think "Stuck In The Middle With You" is not only a Bob Dylan song, but it's his best song.

They're the ones who still rush the dance floor to "Billy Jean" as if it has never been done before. They promptly leave when the song is done though.

They're the ones who sing karaoke to "Fake Plastic Trees" with their eyes closed and fists clenched.

They're the ones who are planning a trip to Las Vegas just to see Celine Dion.

They're the ones who claim to "love reggae" even though they've only ever heard Bob Marley's Legend album.

They're the ones who got jiggy wit it.

They're the ones who buy Eagles or Meatloaf DVDs to play in the background at parties.

They're the ones who claim to listen to hundreds of different music genres. Dark metal, speed metal, thrash metal, progressive metal, black metal, Viking metal, glam metal, avante guard metal, stoner metal, melodic death metal, power metal, doom metal, new wave of British heavy metal…

They're the ones who let a sticker on the front of a CD that offers a free movie coupon if you buy Hillary Duff actually sway them to buy Hillary Duff.

They're the ones who never heard of soul music until they saw Ray.

They're the ones who still try to fit into a Great White or a RATT T-shirt from twenty years ago, completely ignoring the fact that they have gained 100 pounds and that their kids would die of embarrassment.

They're the ones who play Great White or RATT as they carpool kids to school, completely ignoring the fact that they drive a mini-van and their kids would die of embarrassment.

They're the ones who secretly want all the Pearl Jam official bootlegs, not to listen to, but to display.

They're the ones who can sit you down and tell you what's wrong with music today with a straight face while their new Rob Thomas CD plays in the background.

They're the ones who keep R. Kelly's career going.

They're the ones who have the first dance at their wedding to Lonestar's "Amazed."

Their Top 5 all time favourite albums (in order) are Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Abbey Road, The White Album, and then I guess it's a tie between Rubber Soul, Please Please Me, Let It Be, A Hard Day's Night, and Help!

They're the ones who voted Baz Lurhmann's "Everybody's Free To Wear Sunscreen" as their Grad song.

They're the ones who air guitar to Van Halen, whether the music is actually playing or not.

Out of millions and millions of bands out there, their favourite band is George Thorogood and the Destroyers.

They're the ones who think "Born In The U.S.A." is a patriotic song.

They're the ones who only buy music at Wal-Mart.

They're the ones who drive a $500 car real slow along the beach (with the windows rolled down) while pumping the latest club single through a $2000 stereo, all the while ignoring all crosswalks, traffic signs, noise pollution by-laws and common standards of good taste.

They're the ones who think Will Smith is "old school."

They're the ones who would 'word it up' to "Here Comes The Hotstepper."

They're the ones who only know Willie Nelson because of his duet with Toby Keith.

They're the ones who hum Broadway show tunes in a crowded elevator.

Lord knows how they do it, but they're the ones who feel empowered by the songs of Shania Twain.

They're the ones who think Bon Jovi is "grunge" or "alternative."

They're the ones who own a "traditional Irish pub" and still only play Nelly Furtado and Jay-Z in said pub.

They're the ones who do another cover of "Yesterday."

They're the ones who get $50 allowance a week from their suburbanite parents, but think a D12 album makes them gangsta.

They're the ones who write terrible poetry on their Blogs about girls who don't like them or cute boys who play in an emo band - all the while listening to Good Charlotte.

They're the ones who are, like, totally down with J-Lo. And not just as like a totally good singer and performer and actor, but also as an artist.

They're the ones who still know all the words to "Ice Ice Baby" and consistently bust it out at any informal get-together.

They're the ones who can still name at least 3 McMaster and James songs.

They're the ones who lit a candle to Nirvana's MTV Unplugged and kept it burning for at least 11 months.

They're the ones who sang that 'Cherry Cola' line from Savage Garden's "I Want You" over and over and over and over again.

They're the ones who ripped on N'Sync but party to Justin Timberlake.

They're the ones who listen to Faith Hill because 'she's hot.'

They're the ones who instantly get offended or outright scared at the mention of the word "jazz."

They're the ones who keep their music collection in Alphabetical order, from AC/DC to Anthrax.

They're the ones who say they "hate country" and/or "hate rap" even though they have never heard those genres outside of popular radio.

They're the ones who did "The Hamster Dance."

They're the ones who prefer "Sweet Home Alabama" to "Southern Man."

They're the ones who want to hear more from Chris Gaines.

They're the ones who engraved their name on the bottom of their CDs, so no one could steal them (I know someone who did this).

They're the ones who use "Madonna" and "musical genius" in the same sentence without being negative or sarcastic.

They're the ones who have a CD collection worth $40 tops, but they have a $600 iPod.

They're the ones whose favourite songs include commercial jingles and cell phone ring tones.

They're the ones who actually think world peace can be achieved if everyone in the world would just listen to "Imagine."

They're the ones who live in the dorm next to you, and play Dark Side of The Moon all the gawddamn time.

Remember that crappy song Adam Sandler performed on The Wedding Singer? He was on the airplane and he borrowed Billy Idols guitar and then did a song about how he'd love to grow old with Drew Barrymore. They're the ones who love that song.

They're the ones that write off every single song from the 1980s as crap that they never want to hear again. They also just so happen to listen to R.E.M.

They're the ones you overhear talking about the great lyrics in the latest Jo-Dee Messina, Rascal Flats, Gretchen Wilson, or Tim McGraw song.

They're the ones who own Elton John's Candle In The Wind CD single.

They're the ones who know a dozen alternate endings to the song "Happy Birthday."

They're the ones who hold up U2's The Joshua Tree as the pillar of their (and anyone else's) music collection.

*Read the message board that spawned from this review here (http://rateyourmusic.com/board_message/message_id_is_358057_and_board_id_is_1)

This thread topic is to me what ebay complaint topics are to you.

Absolutely. Give it a goddamn rest already.

Absolutely. Give it a goddamn rest already.


I usually don't respond to reactionary postings such as yours, but if you don't care for a topic, then don't read it and certainly don't presume to tell others what to do. The whole idea of a forum is to allow discussion on a variety of topics.

Here's a review someone made for the Joshua Tree on rateyourmusic.com:

This one hits on everyone. :scratch2:

My Vote:

Edgard Varesse, Equatorial. (I prbably spelled some or all of that wrong, I'm an Engineer!)

But really! A siren?

Here's a review someone made for the Joshua Tree on rateyourmusic.com:

If that is a review of Joshua Tree (or anything else for that matter), my uncle's the Pope. And I ain't Catholic. Or a U2 fan, for the record.

Odds are, the author is a zit-riddled, wankahaulic keyboard commando teenager. And not a terribly talented or knowledgeable one at that.

Christ, it has to be getting bad when I agree with Fropiler, but I'm starting to agree with him about this dog's breakfast of a thread.

A few mentioned Rush "2112"....I can not learn to like it.

I have to agree here, although I love moving pictures, signals, permanent waves etc.

OK, I'll say it. Led Zepplin.

The Grateful Led, Dead Zeppelin, Rush, Chicago, Bob Seger, Springsteen, Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, The Dave Matthews Band, Patti LaBelle, Derek & the Dominoes..... and a lot of other people I don't like.

Here ya go, mud flap...

http://www.mayberry.com/tagsrwc/weavers/jimnabors/jim_nabors_request_cd.jpg

If that is a review of Joshua Tree (or anything else for that matter), my uncle's the Pope. And I ain't Catholic. Or a U2 fan, for the record.

Odds are, the author is a zit-riddled, wankahaulic keyboard commando teenager. And not a terribly talented or knowledgeable one at that.



You've perhaps just illustrated what is wrong with this thread, by making that ad hominem argument against the author of said "review", by stating that his opinions are not valid due to his zit-riddled wankahaulic status. I believe that everyone ought to make up their own minds about which "albums/groups they are supposed to like but don't". Trust your own instincts about music, and don't allow yourself to be dissuaded by others from completing your collection of Bruce Springsteen albums, if that happens to float your boat. A thread like this often seems to hint at the idea that if you agree with what poster X has to say about a given album or group, then you will win favor with poster X and everyone else who agrees with poster X's opinion.

You've perhaps just illustrated what is wrong with this thread, by making that ad hominem argument against the author of said "review", by stating that his opinions are not valid due to his zit-riddled wankahaulic status.

Has absolutely nothing to do with who he/she is. It's drivel. Full stop.

What's wrong with this thread is it is a hater thread, and can never be more than that. So, AK'ers get their hate on about artists they don't like- not the end of the world. Then,what the hell, let's quote some unknown hater's hate from the nether regions of the internets.

I believe that everyone ought to make up their own minds about which "albums/groups they are supposed to like but don't". Trust your own instincts about music, and don't allow yourself to be dissuaded by others from completing your collection of Bruce Springsteen albums, if that happens to float your boat.

Can't argue with that. It also reinforcess the essential worthlessness of this thread, in case you didn't make the connection.

A thread like this often seems to hint at the idea that if you agree with what poster X has to say about a given album or group, then you will win favor with poster X and everyone else who agrees with poster X's opinion.

I have absolutely no idea what this means or what it has to do with anything.

I guess we agree on the main point you were trying to make, that this thread can tend to cater to the hater side of things. I'd rather not put anymore gasoline on any fires.

Christ, it has to be getting bad when I agree with Fropiler, but I'm starting to agree with him about this dog's breakfast of a thread.

Have we met? :)

Tentoze, I am getting old. Is that a picture of Mick Fleetwood on your avitar or Rasputin?

Tentoze, I am getting old. Is that a picture of Mick Fleetwood on your avitar or Rasputin?

I think it is Ox Baker, a retired professional wrestler.

I think it is Ox Baker, a retired professional wrestler.

It's actually Ox Baker masquerading as Mick Fleetwood rehearsing for a play about Rasputin.

Joan Baez
The Mothers

for you rolling stones ??? try "Get your Ya-Yas out" This live album will change your mind.
I have big problems with 100% Roger Water's Floyd, too.

It's actually Ox Baker masquerading as Mick Fleetwood rehearsing for a play about Rasputin.

A very scarey thought.

Wellllllll, what it really comes down to is taste. I have seen and heard many groups that were supposed to be great and weren't IMO, and I've been a fan of others I thought were great but people hated.

I was in the music business in the late 60s and throughout the 70s working at Columbia and then Atlantic Records and I've seen and heard almost everyone during that time. Living in NYC had its privileges as everyone came to play in NYC and it was also great that there was reciprocity between record labels so I got to see and hear music from all the labels not just the one I worked for. It also didn't hurt that I reviewed music and concerts for several small independent music rags.

While I disagree with many of the opinions regarding many of the groups/acts listed, it's your right to pick and choose what music you like.

Khorn.... well any of the speed thrash metal that came out in the nineties... for that matter the grundge era in the nineties... all the music sounded severely compressed and sounded like they cant play their instruments... i used to love metallica.... but St anger? horrid
cant understand it cant get into it..., just weird. although i will say it forced me to diversify... instead of just rock and roll and heavy metal i now listen to jazz, classical, some pop, instrumental and oh yes.... i never got the gansta rap thing
either.. doon doon chicka da da doon doon chicka da da doon doon chicka

I'm in the Beatles camp as well. I don't have a single album, tried like hell to get into Revolver and Sgt. Pepper...but no dice. I know what they mean to the world of Rock 'N Roll and they should always stand at the top of Rock's pantheon, but I just don't dig 'em.

I understand the antimosity with certain mega-popular acts. Blame it on radio. I still like The Eagles and Fleetwood Mac, but haven't heard them in a while. And when I do want to hear them, all I need do is tune my radio to any number of classic rock format stations that have played the same setlist for 20-40 years.

Its why I avoid radio anymore.

for you rolling stones ??? try "Get your Ya-Yas out" This live album will change your mind.

Amen to that brother! That album kicks major ass!!

WTF does anybody get out of that whiney Dave Mathews? At least he could try to look like a rock star. Looks more like a cop I think.

Although talented at least, I never really got Metallica.

AXhole Rose forces Guns and Roses to suck........

Sushi, anchovies, Scotch, cigars, White Castle sliders.......

Oooooppps, wrong thread :lmao:

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: Stellar Post

U2, Journey, Foreigner, B. Segar sucks :butt1: (too many too list)

What about 99% of the "popular" music shoved down our throats by the industry in the last 10 years....at least. NEVER LIKED A F'ING OUNCE OF IT!!! Is America really full of this many yuppies!!!! I know all the women out there love recent pop music...but where has the voice of the males in this country gone. You know, the real ones... Its a sad state, the PUSSIFICATION of the male in this country. Gone country? Not to say you cant find good stuff today...its just that none of it's being played. I'll name some of the specific turds I'm talking about. In addition to every boy band, teeny idol, and gangsta rap, let me give a shout out to Nickelback, 3 Doors Down, Blink 182, Creed, and every other rock wanna-be. Like every dumbass kid who learns a few power chords suddenly rocks. These are the ones that hurt the most. These are the ones supposedly taking over rock for a newer generation...and they have all gotten plenty of radio play over the years...and they have all FAILED MISERABLY. I think its directly related to these "musicians" having no serious musical background today...but what do they care, the public is biting.

RIGHT ON Sugardawg.

What about 99% of the "popular" music shoved down our throats by the industry in the last 10 years....at least.

I keep seeing this referred to all the time. Who's shoving anything down your throat, or anyone else's for that matter? I know for a fact nothing gets in mine that I don't let in.

I keep seeing this referred to all the time. Who's shoving anything down your throat, or anyone else's for that matter? I know for a fact nothing gets in mine that I don't let in.

The radio stations, the awards ceremonies, all other forms of public recognition, advertising, etc. Believe me, I try to get as far away from it as I can, but you just cant when its promoted everywhere on the TV and radio...2 of the biggest forms of entertainment. I dont know what I'd do without the internet.

I believe what Sugardawg is referring to is the state of pop music culture, and the musical literacy of the average American (the literacy of taste and discernment) on the whole seems to be going downhill steadily. Of course maybe every generation says the same thing about the up and comers (wishful thinking).

I have never understood the popularity of Van Morrison, Bruce Springstien and Bob Dylan as singers. All three write good songs and then ruin them by singing them.

Peter Gabriel. I think he's very talented, and based on my other tastes, I should really like PG, but he's just never done anything for me.


Jim

Springsteen
U2
Beatles-Sargent Peppers Lonely Hearts Whatever...

The day the music died...

hey i like journey and u2 and the stones and prince and... sliders. prince is one of the most talented muscisians around. i admit i didn't like him much during the whole name change thing and that era of his music kinda sucked but did anybody but me see him at the induction to the rock and roll hall of fame concert for george harrision? he stole the freaking show and blew everybody off the stage. and just think he can sing and play bout four other instruments this way.

sliders rule
vegaman

oh by the way pink floyd sssuuuccckkksssss!!!!


let the fallout begin

vegaman

I have to admit myself that I never really liked The Rolling Stones. A few songs maybe but I do not even own 1 of their albums.

I can't even say i don't like them. except of "under my thumb" which makes me shiver they are just not interesting me, i have NO record of them.

i have problems with those bombastic rockers like Genesis, Saga and whatever... can't understand how one could like this :)

prince is also one of the musicians that are sure very good.. but, i don't care...


Helge

Hi yawl,

Hate Brian Johnson! Except for his debut with "Back in Black" for which I think I will graciously give him credit. But after that album he was like a Bon Scott wannabe and singing all of the older AC/DC songs like Bon, it irritates me so much tht my wife had to throw a bucket of water on me!

Yes and when I am wet after being drenched like tht; I like to listen to Brian Johnson doing Bon Scott's "Highway to Hell" and laugh. That always calms me.

Hmmm ...
cosmicdust

Journey&Prince&Styx&PenisFrampton&U2&Rush etc.etc...also hate any terrestrial(?) radio stations, hate ALL awards shows and pretty much hate CDs.

This thread topic is to me what ebay complaint topics are to you.


Why, pray tell, do you read them?

I have never understood the popularity of Van Morrison, Bruce Springstien and Bob Dylan as singers. All three write good songs and then ruin them by singing them.


I agree with this 100%

lol these are cases where (to qoute Springsteen) "I don't want to sit around talking about it, but I probably will"

But its all good fun to read someone else's opinion on things you feel you know about (whether you really do or not) it matters not in the least.

Elvis Costello. And Elvis Presley, for that matter.

Must be an Elvis thang.

The only beatles album l ever owned was let it be, Until recently I bought the 67-70. They were much overplayed. I grew up late 60's early 70's. After 30 years I am still burned out on fleetwood mac, they played it so much on the radio. Bruce , that voice.....is that really music.

p.s I am not talking about bad records that are thought of as bad. I mean ones that are nearly universally acclaimed that you just don't "get".Blech!!

The Who ~ Quadrophenia (and others) and anything by the Rolling Stones. I've never found anything except a few of the Stones' Vietnam-era tunes to be platable, and the Who just escapes me.

the dave matthews band and coldplay both to me are extremely overrated.

most of their songs sound the same. their ok at best.

You've hit the nail on the head Sugardawg..........
James Blunt, Chris Isaac, Bryan Adams etc. etc.
We used to get the inspiration for the next purchase from radio playlists but more and more I don't listen to music on the radio. I'd spend more time changing stations than listening.
I thought that it was just a local thing but from reading these posts it seems to be worldwide.
The thread appears to be heading off topic but WTH...that's what threads do.

U2 too!

Why, pray tell, do you read them?

You weren't even around AK when this thread started, that's how old and tired it is.

It remains as useless as ever. As to why, pray tell, do I read them?

Would it somehow help you if I told you, or are you just trying to start something?

There are plenty of bands that I don't like. But some that I felt I "needed" to like but just can't get into are:

Nirvana, The Doors, U2, The Who, Rush, Pink Floyd, Journey, Radiohead, The Grateful Dead, Led Zeppelin, KISS, Meatloaf, Chicago, Bob Seger, Bruce Springsteen, and John Coltrane.

Most have already been mentioned. I don't hate these bands. They just all seem like bands I'd love, but I don't. Hopefully, they'll all grow on me and I can come delete this post.

Believe me, I'd love to love Pink Floyd and Rush. It would make some of these message boards here a lot less annoying.

BTW,this thread is JUST for fun. No one is going to throw away their Springsteen albums, and I'm certainly not throwing away my Counting Crows albums. It's just fun reading what other people can't get into. Consider it a study of psychology. If you consider this a "hate-thread", you just don't get it. Take your smart ass replies and pessimist attitude somewhere else.

Beatles' "Sgt. Pepper"; Grateful Dead; Miles post "Bitches' Brew"; (S)Nora Jones; Herbie Hancock; the electric piano (instrument, not a band); Frank Sinatra; American Idols; Coltrane post "Love Supreme"; 95% of every currently active performer; rap "music"; poorly recorded blues legends; avant garde jazz; Mahler; Prokofiev; Tchaikovsky; Elvis; Nirvana; war protest songs; ...

Never really liked....

Who
Stones
Dead
Kinks
Floyd
Springsteen--he really sucks

ah hell whats the point. And yet all i can listen to these days is classic rock stations..

Anything that might be considered as "Classic Rock". Who, Grateful Dead, Allmans, Led Zeppelin... and to me, the only Classic Rock group that doesn't suck is The Doors. Everything else has been overplayed as to turn me off totally.
Tom

U2, The Grateful Dead, Bob Dylan, Rush.

I never got Springsteen. To me he is 200 pounds away from being Meatloaf. Pearl Jam is just awful. Do any of their songs have melodies?
Diana Krall. She sounds like someone you would hear at a piano bar.
Dave Mathews. Can't decide if fingernails on a chalkboard or his voice is more annoying.

Albums/groups you are supposed to like but don't


Queen

The worse of the worse.

Oh god what a question
Well here is my big three

Billy Joel
Fleetwood Mac
Elton John

only because there so over played

Oh god what a question
Well here is my big three

Billy Joel
Fleetwood Mac
Elton John

only because there so over played

I'd have to think that these are very good choices.

pk5555 (5555? how many are there?) - Try Fleetwood Mac when Peter Green was heading it up. You'll likely strike them off of your sh*t list, or maybe you'll at least qualify it with "the Stevie Nicks era". Seriously, the early stuff is a totally different sound - its great - its great hearing the original "Black Magic Woman" tune, which was not penned by Santana, but Green. Try "The Pious Bird of Good Omen" (only $6.99 www.yourmusic.com) and even an early one after Green split, "Kiln House".

poohsan - your picture is extremely distracting - in a good way - a really really really good way. Thank you for using it.

The Doors, Nirvana, The Allman Brothers (I'm sorry but ramblin' man is, IMHO, one of the worst songs I have ever heard)

and the sex pistols, good god, the sex pistols

Beatles
Queen
Tom Petty
Bag pipes sound like a cat being strangled lol

I'll add Kiss to my earlier entry of Queen.:thumbsdn:

You know, I've never really understand the purpose of threads like this (other than to let people rant or expose their idiocy). As Duke Ellington was fond of saying, there are only two types of music, good and bad.

I listen to and have in my collection: classical (string quartets to symphonies to opera), rock (mostly 50's thru late 70's), jazz (from King Oliver to free, but prefer 20's-early 60's), blues (prewar acoustic and postwar electric), some world (African, Brazilian, Celtic, Reggae, etc, even several Yazoo collections of early recorded music from around the world), some country, soul, funk, pop, and well you get the idea.

It doesn't bother me much when someone disses Madonna, Queen, Rush, or Britanny Spears since in general they deserve it. But when someone cannot stand the Beatles, or Bruce Springsteen, or Van Morrison, or opera, or jazz, or some other truly creative artist or genre of music, I think it only shows their shallowness, lack of ability to discern good music from bad, or is merely an attempt to rile people.

A few nights ago my wife and I dined at a mid/upscale pizza restaurant. Our seats faced a large screen TV which was turned to the 2006 World Poker Championships (sound off, all the excitment of watching paint dry) and near the bar sound system which played an uptempo, bass heavy, nonvocal dance music, which seemed not to vary melodically, rhythmically, or harmonically for the hour or so we were waiting and eating. It made me wonder (something my wife and I talked about) whether the younger generation has become so inured to crap that they no longer notice what they watch or listen to is the visual and aural equivalent of potato chips (vapid entertainment to go with junk food and a trivial existence).

Has any significant new music come from the U.S. in the past 25/30 years? I remember listening to hip-hop/rap some 20 years ago when it was still considered cutting-edge, but quickly tired of it because it mostly recycled the same materials over and over (and began to steal more and more from past artists and recordings), and quickly pegged itself into a self involved viciousness towards others (exemplified by a glorified gangsta lifestyle, which debased women as objects) and a materialistic narcissism (the visual equivalent of which was expressed by wearing pounds of ostentatious gold jewelry). Is our present age so vacuous that only the lowest common denominator/most banal/most faddish, garish, or loudest can now achieve popularity or acceptance? Can something like the Beatles (simultaneously the most popular and most creative/talented) ever happened again (oh, and I might ask, if the Beatles were only concerned with money, why did they stop touring after 1966 and why did they never reunite after they split—imagine the money to be made from a Beatles 78 tour)?

But when someone cannot stand the Beatles, or Bruce Springsteen, or Van Morrison, or opera, or jazz, or some other truly creative artist or genre of music,

Or maybe it just annoys them for some reason. Nothing that says you have to like something, no matter how genius it may be :)

I do agree with a lot of your post though...

You know, I've never really understand the
Itnce).



Can something like the Beatles (simultaneously the most popular and most creative/talented) ever happened again (oh, and I might ask, if the Beatles were only concerned with money, why did they stop touring after 1966 and why did they never reunite after they split—imagine the money to be made from a Beatles 78 tour)?


THEY, who ever they are, will not allow it. There is no room for experimentation. Formula is the only thing that matters to the powers that be. It is sad!

There's music I like, music I don't like, music I can't stand. In the last category you'll find: U2, The Rolling Stones, Nirvana, The Black Crows, REM, most Led Zepplin, anything with Stevie Nicks, any form of RAP the list can go on and on. However I like RUSH, Aerosmith, The Eagles, The Who. Most newer musical groups are so controlled by the record companies they all sound alike to me

But when someone cannot stand the Beatles, or Bruce Springsteen, or Van Morrison, or opera, or jazz, or some other truly creative artist or genre of music, I think it only shows their shallowness, lack of ability to discern good music from bad, or is merely an attempt to rile people.
Or maybe some people dont like the Beatles, or Bruce Springsteen, or Van Morrison, or opera, or jazz, simply because it's not their cup of tea for whatever reason. There's simply no way everyone will like what someone else likes. I know a guy who despises the beatles just because they are "wimpy" and "wuss-like"-- songs too. That's not shallow or not being able to discern good music or riling anybody.

It doesn't bother me much when someone disses Madonna, Queen, Rush, or Britanny Spears since in general they deserve it.

Rush happens to be my favourite band and has been since Caress of Steel was a brand new album. Their music has always made me feel good and has inspired me. I don't feel they "deserve" to be dissed at all. On the contrary, receiving the Order of Canada says something completely opposite to me and to lump them into the same sentence as Britney and Madonna is ridiculous. It seems folks either love Rush or hate Rush with not much in between. You obviously don't care for them but there are millions of people worldwide that do. You want to diss? Turn on American Idol. What that stands for and the influence that has makes me want to be sick to my stomach.

It seems to me that people like the music of their era. Play some ELP: Brain Salad Surgery for any ipod-born teen and they'll cringe in angony. But I grew up with ELP- so the synthesizer's-in-excess sound okay to me. But put on modern DJ-Mixmaster-whoever and I'll do the same. What music am I supposed to like but don't? Almost anything modern. But then being an old fart ... I'll stick with vintage Rush, Zeppelin and others from "my era".

I played some Zepplin for my 17-y.o. son a few months back. He was interested in why they were called a hard rock band. After a few songs, he got up and left because it didn't coincide with his opinion of goth-death-metal moden stuff.

ETA: Broonsbane -- carry on, dude. Rush rocks. Always has, always will. 2112 until I die. :thmbsp:

Depeche Mode

I'm a big fan of electronic music. Depeche Mode is often described as being the gods of electronic music. Most of my favorite bands say they were influenced by Depech Mode, or they are described as sounding similar. I recently listened to Depeche Mode's complete discography, and apart from a few hits I already knew about, none of it really did anything for me. I can spot the influence, but most of their songs seemed incomplete and didn't really go anywhere. I must be the only electronic music fan who doesn't get Depeche Mode.

Let me clarify things a bit. Life is a journey of growth, learning, and discovery. Expanding your horizons, be it musical or any other way can only enhance your life experience. I started liking mostly rock and a little classical as a teenager (am 60 now). From there I expanded my musical horizons to blues and jazz in my 20's. Classical, world, and more in my 30's. Opera in my 40's. And my present passion is blues (from the prewar acoustic to postwar electric, particularly that recorded between the late 20's to early 60's—I now have hundreds of blues CDs and LPs including the complete recorded output of many prewar blues artists).

I don't necessarily like everything the Beatles or Springsteen or Louis Armstrong or Billie Holiday or Charlie Parker or Muddy Waters or Beethoven or Mozart or etc, etc, ever did. But I own recordings of many of their seminal works. And I listen to most of the above (and many others) probably once a month or more. The music they created bears repeated listening, becomes richer with repeated listening (can the same be said for Kiss or disco or rap or most pop). Now there is nothing wrong with throw away music (we are a throw away culture after all). But to still be listening to such pap 20 or 30 years down the road means you have not grown in the intervening years. If you want to remain the shallow, self-centered, know-it-all individual you were at 22 when you're 52, go right ahead, this is America after all. But if you get tired of the musical equivalent of cheeseburger, fries, and a coke, expand your horizons.

The idea is not to like everything. The idea is to broaden ones perspectives, in this case musically. I've recently bought retrospectives of Johnny Cash (the Sun years), Buddy Holly, Ray Charles, The Carter Family, Woodie Guthrie, Elmore James to name a few, not because they are all my favorites, but because they all made great music (which can bear repeated listening). Expand your horizons musically, and otherwise. You may just find not only some great music to listen to, but that you've grown and enriched your life. And isn't that what living is all about.

Oh, and jfine you're right "a guy who despises the Beatles just because they are "wimpy" and "wuss-like"-- songs too" could hardly be described as "shallow or not being able to discern good music or riling anybody." He sounds like a like person whose opinions are thoughtful and mature, who impresses people with his insights about music and the world.

It's worth noting that many people viewed groups such as the Beatles with the same contempt we have for Brittany Spears. Only time will tell what will become classics and what will be forgotten.

Let's see
Rush
John Mellincamp
Bob Seger
Lynerd Skynerd (may not be spelled right)
Well just about anything that gets over played on the radio.

Oh, and jfine you're right "a guy who despises the Beatles just because they are "wimpy" and "wuss-like"-- songs too" could hardly be described as "shallow or not being able to discern good music or riling anybody." He sounds like a like person whose opinions are thoughtful and mature, who impresses people with his insights about music and the world.
Your tastes are your own, and so is your maturity and growth of your own musical tastes.

The guy I am talking about is a vietnam vet, and has been thru his own maturity and growth, different than anyone elses. His thoughtful and mature opinions are not meant to impress anyone. Is he less thoughtful and mature because his tastes differ than mine or yours? He just prefers things like hendrix and stones. He just doesnt like beatles, and not liking beatles does not reflect how well or how mature your insights are about anything.

It seems to me that people like the music of their era.

Yes and no. I can't stand a lot of the disposable pop music that's out now, but there are a few modern artists that I like. I think overall, my playlist does tilt heavily back to stuff 20 years and older. And I do even have some rap on my laptop for when I have a party or need a bass fix.

I can't diss rap too much, after all, it's these teenagers wanting huge subwoofer setups that have made me money doing install work :D There's money to be made off these wannabe-gangsta suburbanites and their SUV's on twenne-fo spinnaz :)

It's worth noting that many people viewed groups such as the Beatles with the same contempt we have for Brittany Spears. Only time will tell what will become classics and what will be forgotten.


I think time has already told. Britney ain't no Beatles.

"Only time will tell what will become classics and what will be forgotten." I don't agree with you in regards music. We haven't after 40 years decided the Beatles were great and their music worth listening to. That was the consensus years before they split up. And 40 years from now I doubt hardly anyone will remember Britanny Spears "contributions," which seems to be the consensus now. After all how many can recall the Dave Clark Five, who were for a short time considered the Beatles great rivals (or vice versa). Where are they now? Who even cares? From my knowledge of music, very little of the truly significant stuff takes until some future time to be recognized, it is usually recognized as great or pap pretty quickly, or it goes into the great middle ground of interesting, but nothing special (this is the best area to try to find hidden gems). Music does go through cycles when it's been around long enough. Bach was unappreciated for about a century after his death. The operas of Haydn are making a comeback, after being virtually ignored for along time. Dixieland and swing jazz make periodic comebacks about once a generation. Some jazz and bluesmen were not appreciated till much later than they should have been (at least by most white people, though I chalk that up to the prevailing racism of the times more than anything else). But Louis Armstrong (probably the greatest single musician of the 20th century) was essentially recognized as such by the mid 30's (he was an internationally renown star by this time, even making cameo appearances in otherwise all white movies, though usually as a stableboy singing to a horse, or some such demeaning part), though his financial rewards would never be commensurate with his status, and his home country would never come to venerate him as Europeans and later Africans and even Asians came to (which to some degree is still the case). The same goes for the Beatles (probably the greatest musical group of the 20th century), except for the financial remuneration, and veneration by their home country, and having to deal with racism parts.

About people liking music from the era of their youth. I generally agree (I still like a lot of the music from my youth, but I also like vastly more from outside this period or particular genre), but that is exactly the point I am trying to make: GROW. There is lots of great music made from other eras, even in different genres of the era you're enamored of. Branch out, learn about and appreciate more than just the music you liked as a kid. The payoffs can be enormous, providing lifelong satisfaction.

jfine, hey people can listen to whatever they want, can like/dislike whatever they want. The point I'm trying to get across is to give great music a chance (as kids we often hate a lot of foods we come to love as adults, I for one can't imagine continuing to eat like I did as a kid for my entire life). Don't get stuck on nonsensical criticisms like "wimpy" and "wuss-like." Sure the Beatles can be a bit sacchrine at times, hey I don't care if I hear "Michelle" or "Lady Madonna" or "Long and Winding Road" again anytime soon either, but gee I think the Beatles recorded a few more tunes than that, and if you think something like "A Day in the Life" is either, pardon me for saying it, you're dumb as a stump. Just because a music is "up" or "happy" does not mean it is not great. I might add, it's not just me saying their importance in music is one of the greatest of all time. "Revolver," "Sgt Pepper," "The White Album," and "Abbey Road" are all considered among the greatest albums ever recorded and several others aren't far behind. They deserve a place in anyone's musical collection, if you are seriously interested in music. I love the Peter Green version of Fleetwood Mac. I think their importance is vastly underrated—though a lot of people that post here seem to recognize it. But I would never make the claim they are in the pantheon of the Beatles, or the Rolling Stones, or Jimi Hendrix (all of whose best recordings I have). What your friend does not seem to recognize is that there may not have been a Rolling Stones (who only begin to write their own songs because of the influence of Lennon/McCartney) or Jimi Hendrix (who had to go to England to be appreciated, and whose brand of psychedelic rock might never have seen the light of day if the Beatles hadn't existed) neither of whom despised the Beatles, from what I know. Indeed, the Stones were for a long time essentially Beatles wannabes, a lot of their early stuff sounds a lot like contemporary Beatles stuff (something, luckily for all of us, they abandoned any further attempts at after their "Sgt. Pepper"ish imitation, "Their Satanic Majesties Request").

JimJ[VT], that is what I'm trying to get across. There is lots of good music from other times, places, genres, expand your horizons. We seem to be in a time of little consequence musically (at least in mainstream music), but that doesn't mean you can't draw upon the rich endowment that comes to us from the past. I was lucky to have my youth coincide with the musical motherlode of the 50's, 60's, and even the 70's (I could name off the top of my head 20+ groups/individuals from that time, any of who are better than anybody now). But through the miracle of recording, you can purchase/download their best for what is a mere pittance and ignore the pap of the present.

Happy listening all.

I think time has already told. Britney ain't no Beatles.

I won't argue with that!

I think time has already told. Britney ain't no Beatles.

Amen brother.

Any Neil Young or Bob Dylan.......rather hear nails on a chalkboard!
Great composers, lousy singers!

Fatboy Slim completely sucks. On the other end of the spectrum Root Boy Slim completely ROCKS!

;1240712']Yes and no. I can't stand a lot of the disposable pop music that's out now, but there are a few modern artists that I like. I think overall, my playlist does tilt heavily back to stuff 20 years and older. And I do even have some rap on my laptop for when I have a party or need a bass fix.

I can't diss rap too much, after all, it's these teenagers wanting huge subwoofer setups that have made me money doing install work :D There's money to be made off these wannabe-gangsta suburbanites and their SUV's on twenne-fo spinnaz :)


That's the lamest excuse ever! Your reason to like rap-gangsta 'music' is the same reason it's popular! Beancounters! I think it's just fine that you make money from installations, but I'd rather think of the old adage: "laughing all the way to the bank".

Rethink, please.

Rick

Not into:

Grateful Dead
U2
Rolling Stones
The Who
Pearljam
Dave Matthews
Kiss
Van Morrison
Prince
Nirvana
Nevil Bros

I did like a few songs from some of them, but I have none of their albums.
My 3 brothers are gigantic U2 fans. It's fun to drink beer and stay up late trying to get them to pursuade me to like them.

Aaron Nevil! Man, talk about a lame excuse for talent!

The Rolling Stones? They're for people who stopped thinking at 17 years old.

Grateful Dead: okay band, but too low key for my tastes. Jerry is a good musician and I cannot say they are a 'bad band'.

Dave Matthews? nothing there to hook you. A formula band at best.

Van Morrison? A couple of songs he did were good. About as good as the Grateful Dead overall without the diversity.

Kiss: My signature: "Americans hate music, but they love entertainment" -Frank Zappa.

Prince: Cannot name one song except Purple Rain. He may be great, but not for me.

Nirvana: yech!

never mind

Hey jfine, couple of clarifications. My comment about not being a Rolling Stones without the influence of Lennon/McCartney refers to the mature song writing Stones. Both the Beatles and particularly the Stones were cover bands (did versions of other peoples songs) at first. The story goes that the Stones dropped in on an early Beatles recording session and watched John and Paul sit in a corner working out an original song together. Mick and Keith said "wow, that doesn't look so hard, we can do that" (or something to that effect) and begin working together to pen original songs. Would they have eventually begin writing songs on their own, probably, but it was the ease with which Lennon/McCartney seemed able to do it that provided the original spark.

As to Hendrix, I don't think he was that influenced by the Beatles. What I said is that his brand of psychedelic rock might never have seen the light of day if the Beatles hadn't existed. What I meant is that if the Beatles hadn't created the huge market for such material with the release of Sgt. Pepper, Hendrix probably would never had been as big as he was. And if you weren't actually there—I was 20—you cannot really understand what a supernova of a commercial and critical success it was, there has never been anything even close in the 40 years since. "Sgt. Pepper" created the market for psychedelia in the summer of '67 and suddenly it was everywhere. Many extremely talented black musicians had been virtually ignored over the years by the mainstream music business, Hendrix,in addition to being a huge musical talent, happened to be at the right place, at the right time, his success was as much luck as talent. It wasn't until around this time that many white people begin to realize what monstrous talents Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, John Lee Hooker, and B.B.King were. And they'd all been recording music of the highest order for 20 years or so.

As to "Their Satanic Majesties Request" imitating "Sgt. Pepper." You are both right and wrong. Sure the music is not particularly Sgt. Pepperish, but at the time of its release, within a half year of "Sgt. Pepper" it was widely criticized as a weak attempt by the Stones to make a psychedelic album to compete with/cash in on the Beatles move to psychedelia. It would be disingenious to say the Stones came up with the idea all by themselves, months after the immensely, huge success of "Sgt. Pepper." At the time the music was widely panned, but it was actually pretty good and is now held in fairly high regard. I think it was the Stones themselves who realized they had made a bit of a mistep, because they quickly went back to their blues-based raunch 'n roll and released in order over the next 5 years: "Beggars Banquet," "Let It Bleed," "Get Your Ya-Ya's Out (live)," "Sticky Fingers," and "Exile On Main St." The four studio albums are probably the greatest of all the Stones albums, a truly incredible run of great material. Needless to say they never returned to anything remotely suggesting psychedelia.

I thought of this from looking at the "records to test your stereo" thread. A few mentioned Rush "2112". My wife bought this thing 26 years ago and I can not learn to like it. The music is a complete undisciplined mish mash and the vocals are worse than fingernails on a blackboard. I can't listen to more than two songs before I jump up and take it off.

Oh wow, you're totally judging 2112 without really listening to it then man! :D

When I was 14 and just really getting into music, several of my friends were big Rush fans. I kept thinking that the music was weird and the vocals were definitely different. But they kept telling me that if I like Led Zep and Yes a lot (which I did, well at least Led Zep) then I should like Rush!

So then I did this strange thing: I sat down to some recommended Rush albums (2112, Roll The Bones, Moving Pictures, and Exit Stage Left) that they loaned me with an open mind, put them into my portable cd player (the only thing I had at the time), put on headphones, and listened, really listened, to them over and over. Some parts of the songs I liked right away (and had from the casual listening to them I had done over at friends houses), then some of the more accessible songs I started to like after a few listens, then I started to REALLY like some songs, and then after awhile I thought all the songs were at least good or better than my favorites from the other bands I liked at the time (The Doors, Led Zep, The Beatles, Black Sabbath, Pink Floyd, Hendrix, Metallica...etc.).

After about 2 months and after getting about 6 Rush albums, they overtook Led Zep as my favorite band (and I had all of Led Zep's albums), and they have been there since, for 15 odd years (I'm 30 now). In fact, ever since I completed my Rush cd collection by age 16, if there was no other band that ever existed I could listen to just Rush and be happy. I listen to them almost daily and have for about 15 years, and I've never gotten bored or tired of them (sometimes of an album yes, but then I just switch to another). I don't remember the last time I have even listened to Led Zep (or any of my other favorite bands at that time back then) was: months ago.

The point is that Rush is not a band that can be on in the background and after about two half listens you can like: they're much better than that, any one hit wonder can make a catchy tune that everyone will like. Rush's music is challenging and sophisticated and takes several listens to even get a feel for, much less pin down. Their latest album (one of their best imo and simply amazing for a band with 30+ years of the same lineup) came out in May and I've been listening to it almost daily since and have just now really felt that I actually have a good grasp on all its subtleties and nuances, complexity and variances. In fact, when I first heard it, even being strongly predisposed to wanting to like/love it, I didn't know what to think. On about the 3rd listen I started to get into it and around the 10th I loved it. It's been like that on every Rush album I've ever heard for the first time from any period of their output: a kind of "wow, this is different...hmmm..." to "ok, i see what they're doing" to "wow...they've done it AGAIN!". There is not a single Rush album I don't like, and no more than a couple of songs I'm not really into (this with their 100+ songs).

Anyway, this, as is all things in music, is just an opinion, and maybe you just don't like Rush. But I would say that dismissing a whole band based off of some half listens to one album (they have 18 studio albums that all vary greatly in style from one another) is not wise. If I had done that I would have missed out on one of the most enjoyable things in my life: the music and artistry of Rush. :music:

PS: 2112 is no mishmash once known, all the parts flow together seamlessly lyrically and musically: Rush is no disjointed Dream Theater or Yes lol.

It doesn't bother me much when someone disses Madonna, Queen, Rush, or Britanny Spears since in general they deserve it. But when someone cannot stand the Beatles, or Bruce Springsteen, or Van Morrison, or opera, or jazz, or some other truly creative artist or genre of music, I think it only shows their shallowness, lack of ability to discern good music from bad, or is merely an attempt to rile people.


Didn't you just do the same? :D

I don't understand how Queen or Rush "deserve it". Especially Rush, they are about the most (or the most) humble huge band I know of, and out of the hundreds of interviews I've heard and read from them, I have yet to once hear them say something arrogant or pompous about their abilities, which, like their music or not, are formidable. I don't see how, with such little radio play and popular support, they could have managed to be as successful as they have been and still are after 30+ years without some musical ability. :scratch2:

Just shows you how incredibly subjective musical tastes are: most of the bands people are naming as disliking in this thread I at least like ok, and some are among my favorites. And among my friends I'm seen as picky musically! :D

Rush happens to be my favourite band and has been since Caress of Steel was a brand new album. Their music has always made me feel good and has inspired me. I don't feel they "deserve" to be dissed at all. On the contrary, receiving the Order of Canada says something completely opposite to me and to lump them into the same sentence as Britney and Madonna is ridiculous. It seems folks either love Rush or hate Rush with not much in between. You obviously don't care for them but there are millions of people worldwide that do. You want to diss? Turn on American Idol. What that stands for and the influence that has makes me want to be sick to my stomach.

You tell 'em Broons! :thmbsp: :D

If there is one band with integrity and who have refused to compromise or sell out for $$$ and actually donate (quietly) to charitable organizations and causes, it's freakin' Rush!

If you want to remain the shallow, self-centered, know-it-all individual you were at 22 when you're 52, go right ahead, this is America after all. But if you get tired of the musical equivalent of cheeseburger, fries, and a coke, expand your horizons.


Wow, aren't you assuming a bit much about everyone's tastes here and overinflating your own self importance? :rolleyes:

I'm glad you like a wide variety of music, guess what: I do too and I'm 30 and have since my early 20's. I listen to rock, pop, jazz, blues, folk/singer/songwriter, new age, vocal, big band, classical, world, reggae...etc.

But I still like rock the best and Rush in particular. I guess I just need to grow up and be more cultured, as if listening to music makes one so, not ones education (specifically philosophy, literature, history and science in my case) or life experiences. Nope, if you are a high school drop out who lives at home but listens to a wide variety of music, then you are a sophisticated person who is just better than all of us vulgar commoners.

Note: I'm not claiming you are any of the above, I would hardly dare assume anything about someone I know nothing about (unlike you), it's just a point to illuminate your narrow attitude. So what if someone is 70 and still listens to the top 40...does this make them a dim witted cretin, a mere sub human? Well I'd rather hang out with someone like that who treats people decently then with some self righteous, arrogant, pompous blowhard (and seemingly for no discernable reason...yes, here I am assuming) like you. :D

/out of this thread!

Not into:

Grateful Dead
U2
Rolling Stones
The Who
Pearljam
Dave Matthews
Kiss
Van Morrison
Prince
Nirvana
Nevil Bros

I did like a few songs from some of them, but I have none of their albums.
My 3 brothers are gigantic U2 fans. It's fun to drink beer and stay up late trying to get them to pursuade me to like them.

Aaron Nevil! Man, talk about a lame excuse for talent!

The Rolling Stones? They're for people who stopped thinking at 17 years old.

Grateful Dead: okay band, but too low key for my tastes. Jerry is a good musician and I cannot say they are a 'bad band'.

Dave Matthews? nothing there to hook you. A formula band at best.

Van Morrison? A couple of songs he did were good. About as good as the Grateful Dead overall without the diversity.

Kiss: My signature: "Americans hate music, but they love entertainment" -Frank Zappa.

Prince: Cannot name one song except Purple Rain. He may be great, but not for me.

Nirvana: yech!

I think your missing something. :scratch2:

Grateful Dead------------the intricacy
U2
Rolling Stones-------- the decadence
The Who--------------the energy
Pearljam
Dave Matthews---------the reflective, laid-back, carefreeness
Kiss----------------(this one I'll give you)
Van Morrison
Prince----------the artistry
Nirvana-------------the pain
Nevil Bros

The bands I don't like that everyone thinks I should like....

Doors
Aerosmith
Rolling Stones
Beatles
The Who
AC/DC
U2
Kiss
Motley Crue

I consider myself liking a very wide range of music, from Classical, Country/Western/Swing, New Age, Jazz, Rock and Roll. I don't like the bands above. I wouldn't buy their records etc. It doesn't mean I don't appreciate their place in music history, but I am an individual and I have my own tastes. Just because I don't like a group/performer doesn't mean they suck. It means I don't like their music, that is all. Why would people think everyone must like the groups they do and just because they are/were big names in music history? Is that why you should like music? Or is the reason you like music is because it touches you in some way?

Why do people take it personal if someone doesn't like the bad they are crazy about? My favorite band is Kansas. Why would I be upset if someone absolutely hates them? I don't care what they say about them, it doesn't change how their music touches me.

Why would I think that because someone likes the bands I don't like, they don't have any taste?

Music is expression. Music is art. If we predetermine what should be good and bad, what would happen to the expression? Would it continue to be art?

That is the great thing about music, there is something there for all of us.

Some people may not like any kind of music. So what? How does it affect what you like?

You can't say who's the best or rate music. There is no bad or good music. There is only music you like.

You can't rate or say who the best guitarist is etc. It is all opinion and not factually based by some statistic. You can say who you like the best or who is the most liked, but you can't say any one type of music or band is the best.

Music reviews are not fact, they are opinion. Opinions are not fact. People confuse opinion and fact all the time and I don't understand why they do that.

Lets just be happy we all have different tastes. Otherwise it would be boring. I surely wouldn't want to hear just my favorite band all the time. I really hate repetition, no matter how well I like the music being played. I couldn't bear to hear the same act, same type, same formula of music all the time. Could any of you???

It is just silly to badmouth other types of music or other music fans just because YOU don't like their music or them.

Hey, Ivorytooth, I agree with you. Well said.

Rick

Steely Dan.

My loss, no doubt, but there are.

The other bands I don't like, NOBODY (who knows me) ever expected me to like them in the first place.

Hi Ivorytooth, nice to have somebody else express some of their feelings about music, beyond "so&so suck." As to your opening list, I agree about 70%, but that's what musically tastes are all about. And you're right, some people just don't like music (I personally can't imagine a life without music, but ...). U.S. Grant claimed to only be able to distinguish between two songs, one was "Yankee Doodle, the other wasn't." I disagree about there being no good or bad music and about the part opinion plays. It's a recognizable fact that some musicians are geniuses or at least craftspeople of the highest caliber (just as some painters, sculpters, writers, architects are). Sure not everything they do is great, but even their worst stuff tends to be better than others best. Opinion can become, particularly over time, factual (not in a scientific sense, but in a life experience one). Otherwise how would great music (or art, or writing, etc) be recognizable. It is the consensus opinion of a great many people, over many years that Mozart, Beethoven, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Muddy Waters, The Beatles, among others, are seminal figures in music, far beyond the ordinary. What they have done is almost always good, not bad or even ordinary. There is no way to prove this conclusively, like some sort of science experiment, but it becomes accepted as a truism by most (whether they like the music or not). It's only an opinion that democracy is the best political system, but I doubt few of us here (at least in the U.S. and Europe) would accept this as less than a fact (perhaps a benign dictatorship might be more efficient and effective, but who wants to chance it to find out).

The point I have been trying to make (and perhaps not succeeding very well) is to give different kinds of music a chance (or more precisely, a listen). And where better to start than music that has consensually been recognized as great. If you don't like it, move on, there's lots of other music out there. But to simply say "that sucks" or is "wimpy and wuss-like," doesn't add much to the discussion, it's usually little more than a kneejerk opinion based upon what your peer-group have concluded. If you want to follow the herd, okay, that's a popular life-style choice, but isn't individualism and making up one's own mind supposed to be what what America is all about.

Tolerance is my credo. Diversity is the most important aspect of life (both literally and figuratively). In regards music too. Expand your horizons, it just might be good for you. (Disclamer: YOUR and YOU used in a completely generic sense, does not refer specifically to anybody in this thread, forum, AK, or universe in general).

I've got to learn to be more tolerant.

Rick

Bruce ScreamStrain, Enya, Hagar-era VH, post 1982 Aerosmith, later REM and especially Pearl Jam.

Hi Ivorytooth, nice to have somebody else express some of their feelings about music, beyond "so&so suck." As to your opening list, I agree about 70%, but that's what musically tastes are all about. And you're right, some people just don't like music (I personally can't imagine a life without music, but ...). U.S. Grant claimed to only be able to distinguish between two songs, one was "Yankee Doodle, the other wasn't." I disagree about there being no good or bad music and about the part opinion plays. It's a recognizable fact that some musicians are geniuses or at least craftspeople of the highest caliber (just as some painters, sculpters, writers, architects are). Sure not everything they do is great, but even their worst stuff tends to be better than others best. Opinion can become, particularly over time, factual (not in a scientific sense, but in a life experience one). Otherwise how would great music (or art, or writing, etc) be recognizable. It is the consensus opinion of a great many people, over many years that Mozart, Beethoven, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Muddy Waters, The Beatles, among others, are seminal figures in music, far beyond the ordinary. What they have done is almost always good, not bad or even ordinary. There is no way to prove this conclusively, like some sort of science experiment, but it becomes accepted as a truism by most (whether they like the music or not). It's only an opinion that democracy is the best political system, but I doubt few of us here (at least in the U.S. and Europe) would accept this as less than a fact (perhaps a benign dictatorship might be more efficient and effective, but who wants to chance it to find out).

The point I have been trying to make (and perhaps not succeeding very well) is to give different kinds of music a chance (or more precisely, a listen). And where better to start than music that has consensually been recognized as great. If you don't like it, move on, there's lots of other music out there. But to simply say "that sucks" or is "wimpy and wuss-like," doesn't add much to the discussion, it's usually little more than a kneejerk opinion based upon what your peer-group have concluded. If you want to follow the herd, okay, that's a popular life-style choice, but isn't individualism and making up one's own mind supposed to be what what America is all about.

Tolerance is my credo. Diversity is the most important aspect of life (both literally and figuratively). In regards music too. Expand your horizons, it just might be good for you. (Disclamer: YOUR and YOU used in a completely generic sense, does not refer specifically to anybody in this thread, forum, AK, or universe in general).

First you write:
<<<<<<opinion of a great many people, over many years that Mozart, Beethoven, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Muddy Waters, The Beatles, among others, are seminal figures in music>>>>>>>>.

Then you write:
<<<<<<<<If you want to follow the herd, okay>>>>>>>>

After following your posts the past week it seems to me that through your own admission, (quotes above) that you follow the herd when you like something and if you don't then "they" follow the herd. And when it has been "they" you have not been very tolerant.

<<<<<Tolerance is my credo.>>>>>
In fact this has not been your credo in this thread.:no:
Another contradiction.:yes:

Anyway just my observations, I have to go now time to get a pizza.:thmbsp:

eljr: a pizza at 8am?

I'll stick with the original question.

1. KISS, I was a teenager when they hit the scene. I was supposed to LOVE them, all my friends did. I dident.
2.Rolling Stones, when you cant stand the self indulgent front man......
3. AC/DC, nope.
4. Bruce Bedsprings, still dont get it. Tinker toy music.
5. Beck
6. Moby
7. Any Boy-Band
8. Any Country, I'm in far Nothern Cali, again, I'm supposed to love it,, nope.
9. John Meyer (sp?)
10. Any of the Jessica Simpson-like singers. Please stop warbling (Beyonce)


I dont hate any of the above, but I dont own any of it either.

Hey eljr, yup that's me, intolerant, contradictory, (not to mention self righteous, arrogant, and pompous) and mooing along in the middle of that huge Louis Armstrong/Muddy Waters herd.

Thanks, wineslob, I gorgot about John Meyer. My wife thinks I should like him because he was in Eric Clapton's "Crossroads". To me he's a male version of Norah Jones.

Also: Beck. So lacksuster. Awhile back my brother said "let's listen to some Beck". I thought he meant Jeff Beck. Beck should be drawn and quartered for abusing a good name.

Rick

Mahler. I tell people I enjoy melodrama and bombast in my classical music, and they always tell me Wagner and Mahler. I tell them I'm not into opera, so they say, well, still, Mahler. And he's alright, but I don't find myself getting swept away the way I do with other stuff that I like.

Mahler. I tell people I enjoy melodrama and bombast in my classical music, and they always tell me Wagner and Mahler. I tell them I'm not into opera, so they say, well, still, Mahler. And he's alright, but I don't find myself getting swept away the way I do with other stuff that I like.

Do you tend tend to go for the deep cuts, or .............

Actually, I asked around, and was told to get the Bernstein cycle of symphonies. It was 'just magical'. Meh, magic like David Copperfield on stage, not getting Claudia Schiffer to sleep with you magical.

The Eagles :puke: No matter how many times over the years I,ve tried to like something of theirs , it never works . Maybe because I was 13 when Mom and Dad divorced , Mom was only 33 at the time and turned into a real party animal :D Anyway the Eagles were Her favorite Band . To make a short story
long , maybe its because it was Mom music :yes:

I thought of this from looking at the "records to test your stereo" thread. A few mentioned Rush "2112". My wife bought this thing 26 years ago and I can not learn to like it. The music is a complete undisciplined mish mash and the vocals are worse than fingernails on a blackboard. I can't listen to more than two songs before I jump up and take it off.

p.s I am not talking about bad records that are thought of as bad. I mean ones that are nearly universally acclaimed that you just don't "get".

Add to my list any and all of Miles Davis' rock/fusion attempts. Blech!!

Guess you have to be a Canuck to appreciate RUSH:music:

One is gentle giant, people say they are great but I don't think so.
Another one is Depeche Mode. They sound like an average 80's group to me.
Guided By Voices a newer group doesn't appeal to me much.
Miles Davis is suppose to be a super star but I quess I haven't got into jazz that much because I don't like him too much.
The Doors sounds like a bunch of yelling with a organ beat. (however I'll have to admit the beat is catchy sometimes)

Arcade Fire (I don't get it!)

I never got Bruce Springsteen. To me he is 200 pounds away from being Meatloaf.

I love Pink Floyd, I have everyting from Piper to DSOTM (yes I know a limited selection), and I just cant get into the latter, I dont hate it, just think its the worst Floyd album I own.

Also, I dont get Bob Dylan, I have tried many times, and listened to heaps of his stuff over the last 15 years, but I dont get it. It pisses me off cos I feel like I'm missing out on something

Here's one that was probably mentioned earlier:
The Rolling Stones. Sympathy for the Devil is ok, but I think that the rest are annoying. Nirvana's Nevermind. Also, most anything top 40 for the past 20 years or so...
Notable Exceptions:
Red Hot Chili Peppers: Stadium Arcadium
Inside out-Eve 6 (holds some good memories)
Creed-Human Clay
In the End and Numb-Linkin' Park
That's not to say that all new music sucks, but most of what can be loosely defined as music, to me (IE, not Rap, HipHop, etc) has sucked! Being in high school, I am expected to like all new "music". My responce: walk around with a cassette walkman and mix tapes!
I can also never get really into the Allman Brothers, but I like southern rock in general.

U2....the world's most self-important band....zzzzzzzzz!!

Steve

U2- agree Saw a list that said Top 10 worst songs of 2006- it was all the songs on their album that year

Styx, Journey, Def Leppard, REO S$%#wagon, Foreigner. How can you be that old and write teenage lyrics.

ELP, Moody Blues(prog light).

White Zombie(a bad Ministry rip-off)

Bruuuuuuuuuuce (Stringbean). Played absolutely to death in the greater Philly area, and I just don't get whats so great about him.

Nirvana for the most part. I was in school at the time they were really popular, and I dismissed it at the time as utter crap. Now I'l listen to a few songs, and actually the Unplugged album is pretty much OK, but their other stuff is a pass.

Pink Floyd, post The Wall. Just not the same without Waters.

Roger Waters solo, just not the same without the rest of the band

The Beatles, post breakup. Together I like their stuff, solo, not so much.

Rush, just can't get into it. 2112 I've tried to listen to, but it doesn't work for me.

Bruuuuuuuuuuce (Stringbean). Played absolutely to death in the greater Philly area, and I just don't get whats so great about him.

Nirvana for the most part. I was in school at the time they were really popular, and I dismissed it at the time as utter crap. Now I'l listen to a few songs, and actually the Unplugged album is pretty much OK, but their other stuff is a pass.

Pink Floyd, post The Wall. Just not the same without Waters.

Roger Waters solo, just not the same without the rest of the band

The Beatles, post breakup. Together I like their stuff, solo, not so much.

Rush, just can't get into it. 2112 I've tried to listen to, but it doesn't work for me.

The first line about Springsteen. Madonna also. With a few exceptions, just about anything from the 80's on I can't stand. Just about everything I listen to is from the 50's, 60's or 70's.