Unpopular Music Opinions

TheCunningStunt · 06-23-2010, 03:15 PM

I like my garage rock type albums to be 29-35 minutes, fast paced, aggressive, straight to the point.

I wish I had more great garage rock albums. I love short length albums.

Violent & Funky · 06-23-2010, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

Agreed...I'm all for quality over quantity. In fact, there is a 25 minute album by the Eighties Matchbox B-Line Disaster called Horse of the Dog that I wouldn't want to be even a minute longer. It is completely perfect the way it is. I would rather be left wanting more than wondering when the hell the album will be finished.

Yeah, it's the same way I feel about a folk punk album; it's just made to be 30 minutes long and I'm fine with that. Any longer and I'd prolly lose interest, but those 30 minutes are an excellent collection of music...

scottsy · 06-23-2010, 09:59 PM

I'm all for the quality over quantity approach myself, too... there's nothing worse than 70 to 80 minutes of constantly droning, boring music with nothing to sustain your eagerly awaiting ears...

boo boo · 06-23-2010, 10:59 PM

Oh great you're not a Slint fan either.

RVCA · 06-23-2010, 11:07 PM

RHCP suck. The singer is annoying.

Neapolitan · 06-23-2010, 11:24 PM

70's Rock n Roll is the pinnacle of modern music and the recording industry in general. Don't get me wrong they was a lot of junk and crappy stuff recorded in the 70's (like there is today) but it all was forgotten by time - thank goodness. To get music as great as 70's music one has to travel back time to JS Bach.

RVCA · 06-23-2010, 11:27 PM

Bach? really? Not even Liszt? Mozart? Beethoven?

clutnuckle · 06-23-2010, 11:39 PM

If I remember my music history courses correctly, Bach still played in the time where music was forced into a certain structure (Baroque maybe?). Beethoven/Mozart times were much more unrestrained/etc. and allowed for much more artistic expression. Then again, you could pour 'musical subjectivity' all over this and still say that Bach played in greater times, but I'd still argue otherwise.

I still wouldn't claim the 70s were the pinnacle.

boo boo · 06-23-2010, 11:40 PM

Back in the 70s bands really experimented.

Today kids throw around the term to describe sh*tty screamo bands because they supplement a brief piano part in all the unbearably whiny bullsh*t.

If I'm coming off as a cranky elitist... that's because I am.

clutnuckle · 06-23-2010, 11:43 PM

Yes, but just because now isn't the pinnacle, and they 'experimented' per se in the seventies, why would that make it the pinnacle? It's a good argument as to why now isn't the pinnacle, but I don't think it justifies the 70s being it, considering how long music has been 'evolving'. Just trying to wrap my head around that.

06-23-2010, 03:15 PM	#2991 (permalink)
TheCunningStunt love will tear you apart Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Manchester, UK. Posts: 5,107	I like my garage rock type albums to be 29-35 minutes, fast paced, aggressive, straight to the point. I wish I had more great garage rock albums. I love short length albums. __________________ I don't feel and I feel great. Last FM

06-23-2010, 09:59 PM	#2993 (permalink)
scottsy Untalented Drummer Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sussex, Wisconsin Posts: 2,900	I'm all for the quality over quantity approach myself, too... there's nothing worse than 70 to 80 minutes of constantly droning, boring music with nothing to sustain your eagerly awaiting ears... __________________ "If you're like me, then it's possible you're a clone generated from my stolen DNA. I suggest you turn yourself in for destruction immediately" - Shaun Micallef.

06-23-2010, 11:07 PM	#2995 (permalink)
RVCA （￣ー￣） Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,270	RHCP suck. The singer is annoying.

06-23-2010, 11:27 PM	#2997 (permalink)
RVCA （￣ー￣） Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,270	Bach? really? Not even Liszt? Mozart? Beethoven?

06-23-2010, 11:39 PM	#2998 (permalink)
clutnuckle Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: -_-_-_-_~__~-~_-`_`-~_-`-~-~ Posts: 1,276	If I remember my music history courses correctly, Bach still played in the time where music was forced into a certain structure (Baroque maybe?). Beethoven/Mozart times were much more unrestrained/etc. and allowed for much more artistic expression. Then again, you could pour 'musical subjectivity' all over this and still say that Bach played in greater times, but I'd still argue otherwise. I still wouldn't claim the 70s were the pinnacle.

06-23-2010, 11:43 PM	#3000 (permalink)
clutnuckle Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: -_-_-_-_~__~-~_-`_`-~_-`-~-~ Posts: 1,276	Yes, but just because now isn't the pinnacle, and they 'experimented' per se in the seventies, why would that make it the pinnacle? It's a good argument as to why now isn't the pinnacle, but I don't think it justifies the 70s being it, considering how long music has been 'evolving'. Just trying to wrap my head around that.