Unpopular Music Opinions

Howard the Duck · 07-03-2011, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Ron

ur joking about the beach boys right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jedey

He better be joking about Herbie Hancock as well.

no and no

Urban Hat€monger ? · 07-03-2011, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necromancer

Isn't Dad-Rock and Classic Rock basically the same thing/genre?

I think of classic rock as stuff from the 70s.

I tend to think of Dad rock as dreary 90s music like Cast, Paul Weller, The La's & Ocean Colour Scene.

BigSwede · 07-03-2011, 02:37 PM

Rolling Stones were better than the Beatles.
Walkin' is a better album than Kind of blue.

Necromancer · 07-03-2011, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigSwede

Rolling Stones were better than the Beatles.

That's not really an unpopular opinion.

BigSwede · 07-03-2011, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necromancer

That's not really an unpopular opinion.

It has been on every music related site I have been to.

BastardofYoung · 07-03-2011, 03:13 PM

I have to diagree with that. Beatles are more consistent. Stones had 8 great years to about 40 bad ones. The Stones are better if you like image over art I think.

But to each their own.

Neapolitan · 07-03-2011, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

I think of classic rock as stuff from the 70s.

I tend to think of Dad rock as dreary 90s music like Cast, Paul Weller, The La's & Ocean Colour Scene.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

Classic rock has got to be the most broadest of all terms and the decade designation does seem to be a great way to break it down. Even then its going to encompass a huge range of bands and albums, making the whole thing largely subjective anyway.

I`d say its needs to be both albums and bands that were hugely successful, influential and critically acclaimed to help narrow down what should be classified as classic rock.

Also should genres such as metal and punk be included in classic rock as well, two genres that despite being huge, largely have their own fanbase and are genres the average music listener may not really be into.

And another good comparison to Classic Rock which is very similar both in name and conundrum is Classical Music. The Classical period fell between Baroque and Romantic period, but there is constant use of the term "Classical Music" for what should be properly called Art Music, for the average listen considers all forms of Art Music as "Classical Music" - lol what would the lower classes do next, pray tell?

I would only include certain Metal bands that were back in the 70's like Led Zeppelin, Sabbath, and Deep Purple as "Classic Rock." And it wouldn't make sense to subsume Punk into Classic Rock when the whole point of Punk Rock was to rebel against the direction Prog Rock and Classical Rock was taking. What happens when a name for a genre start encompassing everything else it looses its (original) meaning. Folk e.g. lost it's original meaning and what use to be called Folk is now call Traditional.

Necromancer · 07-03-2011, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BastardofYoung

I have to diagree with that. Beatles are more consistent. Stones had 8 great years to about 40 bad ones. The Stones are better if you like image over art I think.

But to each their own.

There's really no comparison of the two. I like the blues/rock aspect of listening to the Stones music more so than listening to the Beatles. (Image over art)?.. Never! I don't hold image into account when personally rating a bands music. Race, genre, popularity, etc. Strictly the music only. I like the Beatles..I just prefer the basic, Blues/Rock rhythm section approach of the Stones music over the Beatles.

Captain Ron · 07-03-2011, 06:44 PM

led zeppelin 1 is better than 2

BastardofYoung · 07-03-2011, 06:45 PM

To me The Stones were just always riding the coat tails of The Beatles. Beatles released "Sgt. Pepper", Stones put out the "Their Satanic Majesties Request" album, which was more less their attempt to emulate what The Beatles were doing with their experimentation at the time... hell Paul and John are even on the album...

I like The Stones, but I find The Beatles to be the better of the 2 personally. While yes, both bands had an image, I always felt like The Stones were more focused on the image, while The Beatles were focused more on the art. Both have their place, but I think years from now when new generations look back on what was happening at the time, and a lot of the stuff we know now will be largely forgotten by anybody not a music historian... The Beatles will go down as more important.

But I won't be alive to find out first hand, so I won't know..

07-03-2011, 03:13 PM	#6446 (permalink)
BastardofYoung Buzz Killjoy Join Date: May 2011 Location: Canada Posts: 2,692	I have to diagree with that. Beatles are more consistent. Stones had 8 great years to about 40 bad ones. The Stones are better if you like image over art I think. But to each their own. __________________ last.fm ‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.

07-03-2011, 06:45 PM	#6450 (permalink)
BastardofYoung Buzz Killjoy Join Date: May 2011 Location: Canada Posts: 2,692	To me The Stones were just always riding the coat tails of The Beatles. Beatles released "Sgt. Pepper", Stones put out the "Their Satanic Majesties Request" album, which was more less their attempt to emulate what The Beatles were doing with their experimentation at the time... hell Paul and John are even on the album... I like The Stones, but I find The Beatles to be the better of the 2 personally. While yes, both bands had an image, I always felt like The Stones were more focused on the image, while The Beatles were focused more on the art. Both have their place, but I think years from now when new generations look back on what was happening at the time, and a lot of the stuff we know now will be largely forgotten by anybody not a music historian... The Beatles will go down as more important. But I won't be alive to find out first hand, so I won't know.. __________________ last.fm ‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.

07-03-2011, 02:37 PM	#6443 (permalink)
BigSwede Music Addict Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Sweden Posts: 73	Rolling Stones were better than the Beatles. Walkin' is a better album than Kind of blue.

07-03-2011, 06:44 PM	#6449 (permalink)
Captain Ron Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: in a boat with your girlfriend Posts: 274	led zeppelin 1 is better than 2