Unpopular Music Opinions

**Frownland** · 08-14-2016, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MicShazam

I guess that happens in any art form.

If I'm not mistaken; isn't it also a pretty recent phenomenon that Lou Reed's Metal Machine music is actually considered legit good music by many people? I thought it was assumed to be a joke by everyone a while further back.

I'm sure that there have always been people who saw the brilliance in it, it's just lost its bandwagon hate over the years and people are listening to it differently. Probably. That's all conjecture.

Terrapin_Station · 08-14-2016, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Basically anything past when the Beatles stopped being a boyband is forgotten. I'm assuming this was when Rolling Stone magazine started up and began telling people what to listen to. It's amazing the influence a magazine that nobody reads can have after all these years.

Good post. I agree re being amazed by the influence they continue to have.

~~MicShazam~~ · 08-14-2016, 07:44 PM

Rollingstone's 500 best albums list did turn me onto Kate Bush, PJ Harvey, Roxy Music and Bryan Ferry, so I appreciate that. The list was pretty one sided though. I seem to remember a ****load of Beatles, Dylan, Rolling Stones, Beach Boys and Springsteen dominating the top 50 with multiple entries each. Baby boomer white guy rock bias much.

OccultHawk · 08-14-2016, 07:52 PM

It doesn't matter the original context. He might have been trying to make a piece of **** record. His intentions don't change the final product. It's a masterpiece. End of story. Not in this case but artists often hate their best works. I've read interviews with Art Blakey and Nick Cave and they have ridiculous opinions about their own music. Band members also sometimes don't understand or appreciate what the other members contributed. The Ramones and Pink Floyd are like that.

Terrapin_Station · 08-14-2016, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

Re: Zeppelin

Rolling Stone Magazine HATED them. They slammed every one of their albums. The press in general hated them. They made their name off of underground FM stations and constant touring. They toured the US five times in their first year of existence. And each time they'd play bigger and bigger halls based solely on word of mouth.

Yeah, Rolling Stone wasn't kind to them in the early 70s, but they weren't at all "underground" either. They were constantly featured in Circus, Hit Parader, Rock, Groove, etc. magazines, and even in Creem. They were played regularly on all of the big FM album rock stations. And even Rolling Stone warmed up to them by the later 70s/early 80s.

~~MicShazam~~ · 08-14-2016, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

It doesn't matter the original context. He might have been trying to make a piece of **** record. His intentions don't change the final product. It's a masterpiece. End of story. Not in this case but artists often hate their best works. I've read interviews with Art Blakey and Nick Cave and they have ridiculous opinions about their own music. Band members also sometimes don't understand or appreciate what the other members contributed. The Ramones and Pink Floyd are like that.

Death of the author and all that jazz.

**Janszoon** · 08-14-2016, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

It doesn't matter the original context. He might have been trying to make a piece of **** record. His intentions don't change the final product. It's a masterpiece. End of story. Not in this case but artists often hate their best works. I've read interviews with Art Blakey and Nick Cave and they have ridiculous opinions about their own music. Band members also sometimes don't understand or appreciate what the other members contributed. The Ramones and Pink Floyd are like that.

Ridiculous opinions in what sense?

OccultHawk · 08-14-2016, 09:09 PM

They dismiss earlier work that everyone with any sense knows is brilliant.

**Frownland** · 08-14-2016, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

They dismiss earlier work that everyone with any sense knows is brilliant.

I think that this is a tool that some artists use to help themselves evolve as musicians, since distancing yourself from your earlier work helps keep you from falling into a rut. Or, they might simply be sick of it and it drives them to be overcritical of it.

**Janszoon** · 08-14-2016, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

They dismiss earlier work that everyone with any sense knows is brilliant.

Do you mean their own earlier work or do you mean artists that preceded them?

08-14-2016, 07:44 PM	#12313 (permalink)
~~MicShazam~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: Aalborg Posts: 7,636	Rollingstone's 500 best albums list did turn me onto Kate Bush, PJ Harvey, Roxy Music and Bryan Ferry, so I appreciate that. The list was pretty one sided though. I seem to remember a ****load of Beatles, Dylan, Rolling Stones, Beach Boys and Springsteen dominating the top 50 with multiple entries each. Baby boomer white guy rock bias much.

08-14-2016, 07:52 PM	#12314 (permalink)
OccultHawk one-balled nipple jockey Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dirty Souf Biatch Posts: 22,033	It doesn't matter the original context. He might have been trying to make a piece of **** record. His intentions don't change the final product. It's a masterpiece. End of story. Not in this case but artists often hate their best works. I've read interviews with Art Blakey and Nick Cave and they have ridiculous opinions about their own music. Band members also sometimes don't understand or appreciate what the other members contributed. The Ramones and Pink Floyd are like that.

08-14-2016, 09:09 PM	#12318 (permalink)
OccultHawk one-balled nipple jockey Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dirty Souf Biatch Posts: 22,033	They dismiss earlier work that everyone with any sense knows is brilliant.