The Explain Why You Like This Album ('cause i don't understand) Thread

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

I'm not generalising you, I've genuinely never heard you have a good word to say about anything that could be considered radical or left field.

I've already said I like a lot of punk. That doesn't just include the arty post punk stuff. I like Fear goddammit, and if there's one band I probably shouldn't like, it's them.

Maybe they were considered radical , left field , abrasive or whatever in 1975 but it's 2009 now, things have moved on. Boundaries have been broken. That just looks like a list mostly made up of mainstream rock bands who got a bit loud once in a while. Not saying there's anything wrong with those bands I have albums by all of them. But like I said music has moved on.

And how have The Stooges not dated? I think they're one of the most generic sounding rock bands ever, at least if you put them in the context of modern music.

Well at least they were a charismatic train wreck with some great songs

Hell if you like them that's fine. I don't. And it's not because I can't appreciate loud and abrasive music.

I don't call prog bands making noise "pretentious wankery". I call endless solos & boring neo classical rubbish "pretentious wankery".

I don't think length = wankery.

Steve Hackett could solo for 6 minutes and it not be wankery. Yngwie could solo for 30 seconds and it be wankery.

And yes, I think Ron Asheton was a wanker.

If you do find any punk bands who use those two things feel free to point them out to me so I can dismiss them as "pretentious wankery" as well.

I'd generally rather listen to neo classical than some of the more dubious noise experiments of art punk and indie.

Case in point. Big Black.

Well talent stretches over lots of different aspects, the only one you seem to apply it to is musicianship.

My lastfm isn't exactly crawling with virtuosos.

4 The Residents 625
7 Minutemen 534
8 The Flaming Lips 367
10 Nirvana 303
12 The Replacements 289
14 Super Furry Animals 283
18 The Smashing Pumpkins 228
19 Buzzcocks 213
20 Pavement 206
24 AC/DC 166
25 The Clash 163
27 My Bloody Valentine 151
31 Black Flag 144
32 Big Star 142
36 Wire 118
37 Pixies 115
40 The White Stripes 111
40 Neil Young 111
42 Sonic Youth 110
51 X 94
52 Hawkwind 92
53 Dead Kennedys 90
56 Ramones 89
57 Hüsker Dü 87
66 Gang of Four 72
70 Beck 67
72 Dinosaur Jr. 64
77 Weezer 59
77 The New Pornographers 59
79 Primal Scream 58
82 John Lennon 57
84 Blur 55
88 Johnny Cash 53
90 Yo La Tengo 50

You won't find a lot of neo classical shred or jazz fusion.

What you mean is YOU wouldn't have cared, please don't speak on behalf of everybody. Personally i'm willing to look past someone's limitations if I find what they're doing compelling or interesting. It might interest me for 5 minutes or it might interest me for 5 decades, but as long as it says something while it has my attention that's fine with me. But then we already covered this the other day.

I'm not saying limited musicians are bad musicians, not at all. A lot of the music you listen to consists of at least competent musicians who have a good enough understanding of rhythm and song structure.

The Stooges of course, are not one of those bands, I can understand why you like them, you like a lot of "RAW" music.

I just like my music cooked medium well.

But really, a competent musician is a good musician. The Clash were primitive but competent musicians, so I consider them good musicians. The Stooges were primitive and incompetent musicians.

That's because you choose to ignore the post punk era save for a couple of successful bands that everybody likes. Although I dislike a lot of punk rock punk was the best thing that ever happened to music because it took music back out of the hands of the boring public school educated middle class musos that was like an epidemic in your own beloved prog movement and inspired people to get up & say something. Making for some really interesting & diverse music.

This is something I've heard time and time again. People make it about class wars. It really has nothing to do with the music at all.

Not all prog musicians were upper class, not all punk musicians were lower class.

Jon Anderson, that upper class snob you punks hate so much, was a school drop out and farm worker. Meanwhile working class hero Joe Strummer had to deal with some hard times during his days at City of London Freemen's School.

Give me a break.

Anyone who thinks prog was extremely limited neither has heard a lot of prog or really understands what the genre is about. Just because it had certain academic standards dosen't mean it limited people's freedom of expression.

If anything I'd say the original punk movement was a lot more limiting since playing anything more technical than a 2 minute verse/chorus/verse song with power chords puts you in risk of being called a "sell out".

The punk movement inspired a lot of great music, but a lot of it renders the "old" punk absolete for me. And of course, you can't even argue against punk inspiring more awful music than any other genre of rock music.

That's why I hear so many successful rock bands of the last 30 years covering ELP songs on a regular basis.

Oh wait.

Since when would you call that an indicator of a band's quality?

The Beatles are the most covered band in rock music and I know you're not a big fan of them.

For every one good song the MC5 wrote the Stooges wrote three.

Their so called masterpiece has 2 good songs on it.

[SATCHMO]

Lets move on shall we......

[asshat]

Originally Posted by boo boo

I don't think length = wankery.

Steve Hackett could solo for 6 minutes and it not be wankery. Yngwie could solo for 30 seconds and it be wankery.

And yes, I think Ron Asheton was a wanker.



I'd generally rather listen to neo classical than some of the more dubious noise experiments of art punk and indie.

Case in point. Big Black.

I'm sure steve is still jerkin off there.

big black----godamn, another great band.

[boo boo]

Sigh. I hate being right and everyone else being wrong.

We must agree to disagree I reckon.

[SATCHMO]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Sigh. I hate being right and everyone else being wrong.

We must agree to disagree I reckon.

I think you're right Boo

[[witty screenname]]

Okay, let's move on now.

I bought "Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols", and I really didn't see what was so great about it. There's been some ragging on the Stooges for being primitive and incompetent, but the Sex Pistols are a whole lot more primitive and 50 bazillion times more incompetent as far as I could tell. I really don't get it. Someone please explain it to me?

[Antonio]

Originally Posted by [witty screenname]

Okay, let's move on now.

I bought "Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols", and I really didn't see what was so great about it. There's been some ragging on the Stooges for being primitive and incompetent, but the Sex Pistols are a whole lot more primitive and 50 bazillion times more incompetent as far as I could tell. I really don't get it. Someone please explain it to me?

check a few pages back, we already had a full discusion on this.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by [witty screenname]

Okay, let's move on now.

I bought "Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols", and I really didn't see what was so great about it. There's been some ragging on the Stooges for being primitive and incompetent, but the Sex Pistols are a whole lot more primitive and 50 bazillion times more incompetent as far as I could tell. I really don't get it. Someone please explain it to me?

The Sex Pistols didn't jam for 8 to 10 minutes.

[jackhammer]

Originally Posted by boo boo

The Sex Pistols didn't jam for 8 to 10 minutes.

Thank christ they didn't.

[RonaldSays]

Originally Posted by jackhammer

Thank christ they didn't.

They probably had no idea what jamming was anyway. Or writing a song for that matter.