|
|
Post by Sydxelia on Aug 21, 2014 23:59:49 GMT
We all have classic albums we've tried to get into, but, for some reason, they just don't "do it" for us.
I just can't get into The Who's Tommy. Aside from "Pinball Wizard" and "I'm Free," it just leaves me cold.
I've tried to "get" Captain Beefheart's Trout Mask Replica. I've read that it was rehearsed right down to the smallest detail, but it just sounds like chaotic noise to me. I doubt I'll ever make it all the way through.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Aug 22, 2014 0:49:56 GMT
Time to make this thread jump the shark. Ahem...
THE BEATLES
Okay, I like Revolver from start to finish. That's good stuff. But the rest of their albums strike me as a few great songs and a lot of filler. In fact, aside from Revolver, I think I prefer their pre-Rubber Soul material. The filler on those albums was more fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Aug 22, 2014 0:58:11 GMT
In other, slightly less blasphemous opinions...
I listened to The Who's Quadrophenia a couple times for an album exchange. Couldn't get into it.
Radiohead's OK Computer is boring. Other people mixed rock and electronic music before. Some of them even wrote actual songs, which Thom Yorke and co didn't bother doing. Oddly enough, I liked Kid A and Amnesiac just fine, even though they're allegedly harder to listen to than OK Computer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sydxelia on Aug 22, 2014 2:13:45 GMT
Okay, I like Revolver from start to finish. That's good stuff. But the rest of their albums strike me as a few great songs and a lot of filler. In fact, aside from Revolver, I think I prefer their pre- Rubber Soul material. The filler on those albums was more fun. I can almost smell the weed coming out of my speakers when I listen to Rubber Soul. I like the album, but I prefer A Hard Day's Night. I still haven't heard this one. |
|
|
|
Post by japaneseteeth on Aug 22, 2014 2:58:22 GMT
My favorite Beatles album is probably Abbey Road. Though even then there are one or two songs where I'm like "seriously?"
@meta: I agree that OK Computer is rather hard to get into. It has a few individual songs that I really like ("Paranoid Android" for one), but as a whole album it doesn't do much for me.
@syd: To be fair, Trout Mask Replica is supposed to bizarre and offputting. It's a very niche record. Granted I haven't really listened to it in depth.
Anyway, I'm sure there are plenty of things that I've had this reaction to, but here are the two that spring to mind:
1. Iron Maiden's Number of the Beast. Yeah, "Run to the Hills" and "Number of the Beast" are kickass songs, but other than that, none of the other songs are all that memorable. Powerslave, Piece of Mind, and Seventh Son of a Seventh Son are all way better.
2. Nas' Illmatic. Yes, I know it's supposed one of the single greatest rap albums ever, but it doesn't do much for me. I'd be tempted to attribute it to the fact that I don't listen to much rap, but I've listened to a few other albums and I enjoyed them all more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sydxelia on Aug 22, 2014 4:04:35 GMT
@syd: To be fair , Trout Mask Replica is supposed to bizarre and offputting. It's a very niche record. Granted I haven't really listened to it in depth. I thought I'd like Trout Mask Replica because I like a lot of Frank Zappa's music. Wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Aug 25, 2014 3:23:20 GMT
Oh yeah, Kind of Blue by Miles Davis. I can see why it's so influential, and I like a lot of Miles' other albums, but this one doesn't do anything for me. I think I just don't like modal jazz.
Wait, Wikipedia tells me Herbie Hancock was modal jazz. And I like his stuff. Huh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sydxelia on Aug 25, 2014 21:46:31 GMT
I have Steely Dan's Aja and Gaucho, but I've never listened to them all the way through. I find that Steely Dan is best listened to in small doses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Applelight Limited on Aug 25, 2014 22:06:40 GMT
I'd like to join in here by also saying that the Beatles have made a lot of questionable stuff. That's literally all I can think to say at the moment, since my grasp of musical tastes is woeful.  |
|
|
|
Post by Sydxelia on Aug 25, 2014 22:25:20 GMT
I'd like to join in here by also saying that the Beatles have made a lot of questionable stuff. That's literally all I can think to say at the moment, since my grasp of musical tastes is woeful. is an interesting listen for the most part (I wouldn't care if I never heard "Within You, Without You" again), but I think it's vastly overrated and certainly not the be-all and end-all of pop music that many make it out to be. |
|
|
|
Post by japaneseteeth on Aug 26, 2014 0:37:16 GMT
Yeah, it might be influential, but I think it's far from their best album. The White Album would be one of their best albums if they cut out about half of it. There's some brilliant stuff on there ("Back in the U.S.S.R.", "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Helter Skelter", "Dear Prudence",), but then you have crap like the "Honey Pie" songs, "Bungalow Bill", "Rocky Raccoon", and "Revolution 9".
|
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Aug 26, 2014 1:13:30 GMT
since my grasp of musical tastes is woeful. I used to wonder whether or not I had good taste. Then I took the time to actually define "good taste" and realized it's very simple. As I see it, good taste just means all of the following: 1. You don't indiscriminately like whatever's popular. You need to have standards. 2. But you don't indiscriminately hate whatever's popular, either, nor do you indiscriminately like whatever's obscure. Having standards is different from just being contrarian. 3. You like some "challenging" music. It can be stuff that takes great technical skill to play, or it can be a weird genre mash-up, or it can just be something that makes all your IRL acquaintances say "What the hell is this?" when you play it. 4. You like some simple, fun music. Writing a good pop song is harder than most people give credit for. 5. You're open-minded. You don't have to like every genre, but you're willing to give anything a fair try. Whether you like a particular album or artist has no bearing. Even the critics—people who are paid to have opinions—can't come to 100% agreement on what the best album is, so why worry if you disagree with them? |
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Aug 26, 2014 1:20:44 GMT
Yeah, it might be influential, but I think it's far from their best album. The White Album would be one of their best albums if they cut out about half of it. There's some brilliant stuff on there ("Back in the U.S.S.R.", "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Helter Skelter", "Dear Prudence",), but then you have crap like the "Honey Pie" songs, "Bungalow Bill", "Rocky Raccoon", and "Revolution 9". is the go-to example of a double album that should have been trimmed down to a single album. In contrast, London Calling is such a great double album that people regularly forget it's a double album in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by japaneseteeth on Aug 26, 2014 1:31:14 GMT
London Calling is indeed awesome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Aug 27, 2014 0:33:37 GMT
Speaking of The Beatles, anyone read Piero Scaruffi's utterly scathing essay about them? Some of his points, I can't agree with at all. (Harping on The Beatles for making "music for girls" is just a wee bit sexist. If it's meant for girls, it can't be good, isn't that right, bronies? ... And apparently there were no drugs in their music. Huh.) But he does raise a very interesting point that they never really earned their reputation as musical pioneers. All of their "experiments" and "innovations" were just safer, more-palatable-for-the-masses versions of the music that their contemporaries were already making. They were popularizers, not innovators. |
|
