First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Favorite Singer or Rapper?
1233 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 8/19/16

Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


Akane1984 wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:

Jon Anderson - Yes
Geddy Lee - Rush
Robert Plant - Led Zeppelin
Jim Morrison - The Doors
Steve Walsh - Kansas
Jeff Lynne - Electric Light Orchestra
Peter Gabriel - Solo/Genesis
Phil Collins - Solo/Genesis
Paul McCartney - Solo/The Beatles
Dennis DeYoung - Styx
Freddie Mercury - Queen
Adrian Belew - King Crimson

These are just several of my personal favorites. Phenomenal singers, all of them.


You've got great taste in music. Never got into Rush at all, but these are some of my favorites as well.


AYYY!!!! Unfortunate you never got into Rush. Definitely in my top 5 favorites of all time.


Why don't you list your top 5 favorites?



In no particular order

Rush
Pink Floyd
Yes (my all time number one)
King Crimson
Led Zeppelin

Honorable mentions:

David Bowie
Genesis
Queen
The Band
Styx
Kansas
Electric Light Orchestra
Simon & Garfunkel
Radiohead


Just as an observation, I've noticed that a majority of your musical taste lies within the progressive/hard rock bands of the 70s with the exception of a band like simon and Garfunkel from the 60s and radiohead from the 90s. Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with these bands (FAR FROM IT). However, would it be apt to say that you have a particular favorability toward a certain musical decade over another in this case? Nothing wrong with progressive and classic rock, but I'd wonder if the concentration of artists from this particular decade in particular reveals the lack of exposure you might have with other acts. You may be aware of this, and it may just be that it just happens to be that way because all your favorite bands are from that decade (it isn't like you can control that). But I was wondering if you could think of any musical acts that you may enjoy from other musical decades if you can think of any. What other musical genres do you like and such as well?



To answer the question in regards to the taste found in the list, I'll just leave this meme here for your enjoyment (at least I hope, not trying to be condescending, but I can be from time to time again).



So now, before you unfriend after reading that (LOL), yeah, it IS my favorite genre of music (and especially rock music in particular), and the 1970s, imho, was indeed the greatest decade for music. However, the 1960s follow close to behind, with The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys, Jimi Hendrix, and an unknown group known as "The Beatles" leading the pact. Yes, there are bands from the 60s onward I do tend to listen to from time to time, although it's mainly for a single (or two) for some of them. The biggest exceptions I can think of are Nirvana (OF COURSE), U2 (Yes, I like that band. #IDon'tGiveAFuck), Metallica, and recently "Weird Al" Yankovic & Iron Maiden (really interested in a lot of their material), etc. There is some pop I do like (ABBA comes to mind), and mainly other forms of rock, like psychedelic, alternative, blues, and hard rock, etc. It's just that I don't have much of an interest in some of the 80s and especially 00s and 10s artists as I do with the ones I mentioned (probably). I just tend to follow where my big interests lead me, you know?




Now, that I have established that your meme has displeased me (Ha ha). I will say that I understand your point. Honestly, I don't care if all your favorite bands happen to be from the 70s. Of course there were some great bands then. I think I just wanted to know if you listened to anything beside classic/prog rock. It is okay if you don't, but I will say that you would be missing out or a variety of other good bands that also pushed the boundary of music in many different ways. Perhaps it is a matter of exposure and familiarity with these decades in particular. There was a time when i would say that the late 60s was the greatest musical moment in history. Now, i just glance at acts like the beatles and rolling stones as products of a past age, except for the rolling stones masterpiece albums sticy fingers and exile on main street. I would say that the 80s was the worst musical decade and there weren't any good bands making music. Then, i discover REM, sonic youth, pixies, etc. same with the 2000s with groups such as the strokes, Interpol, arcade fire, arctic monkeys etc. For me, there is no greatest musical decade in history because they are all great in some way for the most part (it is getting hard with the 2010s though).

I guess it is a matter of just always exploring and looking through musical history and Finding a group that goes against the grain and does something new and unique. Find the gem among some lesser bands from the decade that doesn't interest you too much. Taking the groups that you have mentioned already, that is just the surface. Every decade has some unsung heroes that were really doing something incredible but they went unnoticed. Those are the kind of groups that i typically look out for. I'm open to any music for the most part as long as it is a band or artist daring to do something different and not going along with decade clichés. If you ever want some of my personal recommendations, then I'd be happy to do so. Also, you feel free to do likewise.

However, just continue to do what you are doing. Sorry for the odd question.




Don't mention it bud!! And OF COURSE I listen to other stuff besides classic/prog rock!! Hell, I mainly get into the more "commercial" (not really a big fan of that term) bands nowadays (especially The Band and their early stuff in particular), except for Kansas, who I'm really digging at the moment, mainly their "golden age" (1974-77). And also, I don't think the 80s was the worst decade for music. Pop music, maybe, but even then there was some classic material in that regard too (I mean, Michael Jackson was in many ways ON FIRE during this decade). There was also a big renaissance, if you will, in the heavy metal scene, with the Big Four, the New Wave of British Heavy Metal, and births of many sub-genres like death and prog metal. I also don't think the 2010s are particular good in the sense of what's popular now (although there are exceptions to the rule, see "Uptown Funk" and "Pumped Up Kicks" for example), but there definitely being a bigger fanbase and probably a larger variety of artists that are unknownst to the masses. I won't say that's unfortunate because I feel that's debatable, but I digress. Of course, for the "unsung heroes" comment, I'm on both sides on this. I agree that there's a lot of underrated and/or unrecognized artists throughout the past several decades. However, there ARE artists from back then and now that probably don't fall in this particular category, many of them of course were forgotten throughout the years (not to mention the whole "I was born in le wrong generazion!!!" and "I'm *insert age here* and I like *bands considered better to them than today's music in his/her eyes in order to impress the masses* bullshit and all that). So yeah, there you go.

And in response to your own meme:





For some unsung heroes, there are some groups or bands that seem to be too "odd" for commercial success. think about someone like Frank zappa, one who Rolling Stone was not very positive too in many respects, and look at his extreme experimentalism and unorthodox lyricism. Imagine going to a CAN show during the 1960s or hearing the first velvet underground record. I remember watching a documentary on Hardcore punk where i believe ian mckaye, singer of minor threat, said that no band at the time was under the impression that they were going to be rich from making the kind of music that they were making. So, i don't think the fact that many bands might be underrated is simply because of the public as a whole because some groups are really hard to get into. Imagine trying to get someone to listen to Primus. Now that would be a challenge for most.

i used to be that kind of kid that acted like he was so cool because he listened to the rolling stone, led zeppelin, queen etc, but now i realize how stupid that is. Music hasn't really gotten better or worse, except in pop music, it has just changed. Almost like how the parents hate the music of their kids generation for the most part. What i think has happened to music is that bands and artists now have to find a way to promote themselves without waiting for a label to pick them up. Also, i don't think people are encouraging uniqueness in music enough anymore. it is like how every dubstep song has to have a bass drop or every country song has to have some redneck sing about pickup trucks or something or rap has to have some crappy trap beat instead of unique personalized beats. I've noticed that there seems to be more casual music fans than serious music fans in many respects. People are just taking the effort to get the hot singles off billboard and less willing to find out what they really like and form a diverse opinion. People's tastes just seem to be so straightforward and nonexclusive.

imagine how few people could say that they could like both metallica and taylor swift or led zeppelin and daft punk. that is a good question to ask in a sense, "What is a true music fan supposed to be like?"


And the answer to that question, imho, is questioning the notion of a "true music fan." It's just some stupid term coined from the more hipster/elitist-minded people in the business and mainly fanbase. If you like these artists, then good for you, man! I'm proud of you! I certainly disagree with your taste, but that in a sense is subjective, if you ask me. "Guilty pleasure" is a term that exists for a reason, you know.


However, I do agree with there being a lot of people's taste being straightforward and all that. The cynicism of the music industry has arguably increased over the past few decades (I mean it was always there, but not to this extent, imo). And yeah, a lot of stuff coming out lately from the "hottest" genres right now do sound very similar to reach the masses (sounds a lot like the harem and moeblob shows we get every season. I mean, at least try to do something different with them, you know?) It's a shame, really, in all honesty.


I decided to start a forum topic on this exact subject and I look forward to seeing what people say about this because it interests me. Like, is it okay for someone to say something that, although it may suck, isn't "music" per say. Dubstep sounds like a cat in a blender, but can I say that isn't music? I do think some people should have some guilty pleasures, especially for liking something that most find trash, but that is just subjective in nature. The same music does get churned out every year, but sometimes interesting stuff happens. You might find a band like foster the people or FUN getting major attention and they go against the grain. Also, many people can love an act that changes their sound requently or innovates. it is for that reason that I love beck for instance. It is interesting to think about this idea.


It does seem interesting. Also it's spelled frequently* not requently, lol.


you don't say. listen, cut me some slack. you can misspell a word once in a while. Is this not America? Do we not have the freedom to make mistakes anymore? Didn't know it was 1984, mr George orwell.
1233 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 8/19/16

tntcls wrote:





GET A (MUSIC) ROOM, GUYS. GAH.


Can you give me the dimensions of this room? What does the floor model look like?

1233 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 8/19/16

Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:

Jon Anderson - Yes
Geddy Lee - Rush
Robert Plant - Led Zeppelin
Jim Morrison - The Doors
Steve Walsh - Kansas
Jeff Lynne - Electric Light Orchestra
Peter Gabriel - Solo/Genesis
Phil Collins - Solo/Genesis
Paul McCartney - Solo/The Beatles
Dennis DeYoung - Styx
Freddie Mercury - Queen
Adrian Belew - King Crimson

These are just several of my personal favorites. Phenomenal singers, all of them.


chris cornell-soundgarden
Freddie mercury- queen (man will always be a legend and will never be matched)
steven malkmus- pavement (the ironic thing is that I think that he never really learned to sing)
jon Anderson- Yes (his voice provides for so many epic moments, really takes you away and matches the music to a tee)
frank black- the pixies
H.R- bad brains (although that might be described more as frantic yelling)
fred Schneider- the b52s (guy just sounds like an overly-excited gay man and I love it. Dude just sounds like he has so much fun)
Michael Stipe- REM

when it comes to vocals, I suppose I go for the unique and unconventional singers. I want to go for the singers that nobody can truly imitate.



I can definitely see where you're coming from. It all just comes down to execution, and a majority of these singers (can't judge all of them because I haven't a lot of some of these bands) do it just masterfully.

On another note, I regret forgetting to put in Thom Yorke. *facepalms into the abyss*


i probably dislike Thom yorke singing for the same reason that i don't like the singing of J. Mascis from Dinosaur Jr. When i listen to both of them, i just get the feeling of them portraying exaggerated senses of melancholy. J mascis sounds like an old guy dying of cancer and Thom Yorke sounds like he is literally crying himself to sleep. Really makes for a boring experience in my opinion.



Can't comment on Mascis, but of course I disagree with you on Yorke (which is fine, of course, DUH!!) I do feel like his singing is natural and really works with the music, forming a part of the classic Radiohead sound we know of today (and for me, personally, we're better off with it than without it).


while I can agree that tom yorke does have his moments on certain songs for me where his voice really does fit and I would even say that his voice sounds beautiful say on high and dry or fake plastic trees. I was never a fan for dramatic vocal stylings. If it is dramatic, then I would say it should have some bombast say with Freddie Mercury as a prime example. Without it, the dramatic vocal stylings seem forced and not as genuine. To provide another example, I would say it is the same situation with Morrissey from the smiths. His vocals just convey as sense of falsehood to me. If one is singing a sad or melancholic song, then the vocals, in my opinion should be frank and reserved sounding, like Ian Curtis from joy division. Perhaps it is just the way they sing, but the flamboyant and dramatic style of singing at least from Morrissey make it seem fake to me. If you look at someone like Ian Curtis or Kurt cobain, you can look at history and see that their songs were personal to them and had true significance especially in regard to their untimely deaths. And the thing with that was that they weren't ever showy or dramatic with their songs, the songs themselves matched the lyrics and struggles of the person writing them. With someone like Morrissey or Thom Yorke, they seem more like suburban white kids singing about how much they hate their parents in an emo band or something.

Maybe it is just me, but when I listen to radiohead and Thom yorke's lyrics, it all just seems a little forced and melodramatic. It doesn't make me feel that there is actually any particular reason for him to be so depressed or melancholic. Like Morrissey, it just appears played out to me. However, I think I have talked enough about Radiohead already.



I understand if Yorke's vocals don't really get to you like they do to me a lot of the time. On another note, the Morrissey comment is very interesting, if you ask me. I heard through the grapevine (if that's a real phase, in which apparently that is the case) that The Smiths revolve around irony, whether it be the singing that kind of doesn't fit with the music, not to mention the lyrics themselves. Apparently it's done to humorous effect (supposedly, I haven't heard really much from the band).


maybe, it is an interesting comment about the smiths. However, i don't think that they are really about irony. I think you can tell when a band or musician is trying to be humorous or satirical for the most part. Good examples of that are frank zappa and ween. I know that one of the issues with Morrissey is his pretentious nature and his particular stances (look at Meat is Murder as an example). So, if it is supposed to be an act, then Morrissey has been putting it on for quite a while. However, it isn't just the smiths in some ways with this particular vocal or musical style. Another example is Robert Smith from the cure or the psychedelic furs. I think that the lyrics in Smith's songs are supposed to be taken seriously in some aspect. Honestly, it seems to be a Manchester thing. You notice how a lot of bands that come from major cities seem to have a certain sound or aspect to them.

Like, you can guess if a band might be from California or New York because they tend to have certain aspects to them that relates to that particular city. Like how grunge bands share some similar musical styling because of the climate of Seattle. One of those tend to be Manchester with groups like Oasis and the smiths earning the U.K city some major acclaim. I suppose it wasn't because of Manchester, but i notice how the climate of a city like Birmingham or Seattle seem to be the perfect stage for a group like Black Sabbath or nirvana to form. I'd say it was more like the entire post-punk movement where a lot of bands like the smiths essentially took tons from Joy Division who essentially popularized the whole movement. I love studying the whole concept of music scenes where all these bands start forming and getting signed from one particular area. In the UK for instance, it is cool to see even now what comes out of London or out of Glasgow now.



Yeah, that does seem to be case. And oh yeah, I'm aware of his stances on certain things, especially on animal rights. It's cool that he's for animal rights and all that shtick, but boy does he get all frenzied and triggered in some cases (including canceling a sold-out show because they were selling meat and calling the Chinese a "sub-human species" due to their treatment of animals in the country). Not to mention he's a part of PETA, an organization we ALL love to make fun of, and for good fucking reason (they and their pathetically hilarious views can go fuck themselves for all I care).

As for guessing where that band comes from, I don't really have a knack for that sort of thing, personally (except for Chicago, Boston and Kansas, because, uh, you know). I mainly notice this stuff until I know where the band came from, exactly, LOL.


Well, sometimes you can't tell. If you know some general musical history of some of these places, then you can tell how these types of groups might sound due to acts that came before them, but that isn't always a given. I watched an REM documentary it was said that people would think that the group was from Chicago or something and they wondered why it was so inconceivable for a group like themselves to come from the south (Athens Georgia specifically). More than likely, it was because the most popular southern band throughout most of the 70s was Lynard Skynard. However, I have discovered a multitude of southern acts like big star, the b-52s, collective soul, drivin n cryin etc that really pushed the boundary of rock in general and showed there was more to that area of the country than some "redneck rock". I used to think that the singer from Thin Lizzy was American, because he sounded American when he sang, but he actually has a thick irish accent in interviews. It really is hard to tell sometimes.

I'm willing to bet also that any super hipster band probably comes from Portland Oregon or something because that is like the hipster capital of the country for the most part. However, many areas have a broad number of groups that come out of there over the years (London, New York, LA etc) so you can't fit every band into a box. But it is interesting to think about when regarding musical trends or scenes. Here is how I guesstimate where a band is from based off what I know of acts that have come out of these places

New York bands tend to be artsy and experimental. California has a history of psychedelic, metal (thrash metal especially) acts, and pop-punk acts, Father up in Washington (the state not D.C) and Portland Oregon have some folky, indie rock, acts. Detroit was like the birthplace of punk rock (stooges and MC5) and significant area of the Motown music scene. Nashville is known for country acts. Memphis is bluesy and more on the southern rock side. D.C is hardcore nation with its history of hardcore punk bands. Seattle was the inception place of grunge. the boston area in hard to define but I'd say it is an area of some harder rock/arena rock (boston, Aerosmith, the pixies, the cars etc). I guess that is how I think about it in that regard.

The funny thing about veganism, animal rights activists and such is that I like to laugh at the notion of choosing not to eat meat on some moral ground. People have hunted animals for decades because humans need to eat to survive. Hundreds of years ago, one couldn't survive simply eating berries, corn, rice, or whatever. They needed protein and that is why there is meat. Without protein, one just isn't as healthy (at least in my opinion) I could imagine morissey in colonial times or something and talking about killing animals is murder and most people would be like "Okay, either starve or eat the meat because that is all we have. We don't have any health food stores around here."

Then, I would hit him with one of these zingers




FUCKING BRILLIANT!!! Yeah, this "moral ground" stuff is a pain in the ass in this regard. Yes, the way we treat animals in the factories is disgusting, in a way. But like you said, we need to eat meat to survive. And besides, we're just as much as animals as the other classes, and they fight and hunt down each other all the time. Natural selection doesn't exist for no reason, you know? It's another reason that moral relativism is bullshit. If you don't want to eat meat for any other reason, that is fine!! BUT, don't assume you're "morally superior" than the lot of us because of it. There shouldn't be a thing like "special snowflakes" in this world to begin with.


you known that when you got a line as good as jerk store then you have to use it.
20333 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Hellhole, USA
Offline
Posted 8/19/16

electricdoomfire wrote:

Can you give me the dimensions of this room? What does the floor model look like?


It's really just one of those trailers that schools use when they run out of space to teach kids. But you're more than welcome to use it as a music club of sorts.
1233 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 8/19/16

tntcls wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:

Can you give me the dimensions of this room? What does the floor model look like?


It's really just one of those trailers that schools use when they run out of space to teach kids. But you're more than welcome to use it as a music club of sorts.


I see what you mean when you say that we need to get a room. The quoting really has gotten out of control on this forum. There are some forums where most of the replies are from myself and another person. It feels like we might bright the internet with all this discourse going on. I'm responding to like 5 posts at once right now. This is insanity. This room needs to be in a mental asylum.
499 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 8/20/16

tntcls wrote:





GET A (MUSIC) ROOM, GUYS. GAH.


499 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 8/20/16

electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


Akane1984 wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:

Jon Anderson - Yes
Geddy Lee - Rush
Robert Plant - Led Zeppelin
Jim Morrison - The Doors
Steve Walsh - Kansas
Jeff Lynne - Electric Light Orchestra
Peter Gabriel - Solo/Genesis
Phil Collins - Solo/Genesis
Paul McCartney - Solo/The Beatles
Dennis DeYoung - Styx
Freddie Mercury - Queen
Adrian Belew - King Crimson

These are just several of my personal favorites. Phenomenal singers, all of them.


You've got great taste in music. Never got into Rush at all, but these are some of my favorites as well.


AYYY!!!! Unfortunate you never got into Rush. Definitely in my top 5 favorites of all time.


Why don't you list your top 5 favorites?



In no particular order

Rush
Pink Floyd
Yes (my all time number one)
King Crimson
Led Zeppelin

Honorable mentions:

David Bowie
Genesis
Queen
The Band
Styx
Kansas
Electric Light Orchestra
Simon & Garfunkel
Radiohead


Just as an observation, I've noticed that a majority of your musical taste lies within the progressive/hard rock bands of the 70s with the exception of a band like simon and Garfunkel from the 60s and radiohead from the 90s. Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with these bands (FAR FROM IT). However, would it be apt to say that you have a particular favorability toward a certain musical decade over another in this case? Nothing wrong with progressive and classic rock, but I'd wonder if the concentration of artists from this particular decade in particular reveals the lack of exposure you might have with other acts. You may be aware of this, and it may just be that it just happens to be that way because all your favorite bands are from that decade (it isn't like you can control that). But I was wondering if you could think of any musical acts that you may enjoy from other musical decades if you can think of any. What other musical genres do you like and such as well?



To answer the question in regards to the taste found in the list, I'll just leave this meme here for your enjoyment (at least I hope, not trying to be condescending, but I can be from time to time again).



So now, before you unfriend after reading that (LOL), yeah, it IS my favorite genre of music (and especially rock music in particular), and the 1970s, imho, was indeed the greatest decade for music. However, the 1960s follow close to behind, with The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys, Jimi Hendrix, and an unknown group known as "The Beatles" leading the pact. Yes, there are bands from the 60s onward I do tend to listen to from time to time, although it's mainly for a single (or two) for some of them. The biggest exceptions I can think of are Nirvana (OF COURSE), U2 (Yes, I like that band. #IDon'tGiveAFuck), Metallica, and recently "Weird Al" Yankovic & Iron Maiden (really interested in a lot of their material), etc. There is some pop I do like (ABBA comes to mind), and mainly other forms of rock, like psychedelic, alternative, blues, and hard rock, etc. It's just that I don't have much of an interest in some of the 80s and especially 00s and 10s artists as I do with the ones I mentioned (probably). I just tend to follow where my big interests lead me, you know?




Now, that I have established that your meme has displeased me (Ha ha). I will say that I understand your point. Honestly, I don't care if all your favorite bands happen to be from the 70s. Of course there were some great bands then. I think I just wanted to know if you listened to anything beside classic/prog rock. It is okay if you don't, but I will say that you would be missing out or a variety of other good bands that also pushed the boundary of music in many different ways. Perhaps it is a matter of exposure and familiarity with these decades in particular. There was a time when i would say that the late 60s was the greatest musical moment in history. Now, i just glance at acts like the beatles and rolling stones as products of a past age, except for the rolling stones masterpiece albums sticy fingers and exile on main street. I would say that the 80s was the worst musical decade and there weren't any good bands making music. Then, i discover REM, sonic youth, pixies, etc. same with the 2000s with groups such as the strokes, Interpol, arcade fire, arctic monkeys etc. For me, there is no greatest musical decade in history because they are all great in some way for the most part (it is getting hard with the 2010s though).

I guess it is a matter of just always exploring and looking through musical history and Finding a group that goes against the grain and does something new and unique. Find the gem among some lesser bands from the decade that doesn't interest you too much. Taking the groups that you have mentioned already, that is just the surface. Every decade has some unsung heroes that were really doing something incredible but they went unnoticed. Those are the kind of groups that i typically look out for. I'm open to any music for the most part as long as it is a band or artist daring to do something different and not going along with decade clichés. If you ever want some of my personal recommendations, then I'd be happy to do so. Also, you feel free to do likewise.

However, just continue to do what you are doing. Sorry for the odd question.




Don't mention it bud!! And OF COURSE I listen to other stuff besides classic/prog rock!! Hell, I mainly get into the more "commercial" (not really a big fan of that term) bands nowadays (especially The Band and their early stuff in particular), except for Kansas, who I'm really digging at the moment, mainly their "golden age" (1974-77). And also, I don't think the 80s was the worst decade for music. Pop music, maybe, but even then there was some classic material in that regard too (I mean, Michael Jackson was in many ways ON FIRE during this decade). There was also a big renaissance, if you will, in the heavy metal scene, with the Big Four, the New Wave of British Heavy Metal, and births of many sub-genres like death and prog metal. I also don't think the 2010s are particular good in the sense of what's popular now (although there are exceptions to the rule, see "Uptown Funk" and "Pumped Up Kicks" for example), but there definitely being a bigger fanbase and probably a larger variety of artists that are unknownst to the masses. I won't say that's unfortunate because I feel that's debatable, but I digress. Of course, for the "unsung heroes" comment, I'm on both sides on this. I agree that there's a lot of underrated and/or unrecognized artists throughout the past several decades. However, there ARE artists from back then and now that probably don't fall in this particular category, many of them of course were forgotten throughout the years (not to mention the whole "I was born in le wrong generazion!!!" and "I'm *insert age here* and I like *bands considered better to them than today's music in his/her eyes in order to impress the masses* bullshit and all that). So yeah, there you go.

And in response to your own meme:





For some unsung heroes, there are some groups or bands that seem to be too "odd" for commercial success. think about someone like Frank zappa, one who Rolling Stone was not very positive too in many respects, and look at his extreme experimentalism and unorthodox lyricism. Imagine going to a CAN show during the 1960s or hearing the first velvet underground record. I remember watching a documentary on Hardcore punk where i believe ian mckaye, singer of minor threat, said that no band at the time was under the impression that they were going to be rich from making the kind of music that they were making. So, i don't think the fact that many bands might be underrated is simply because of the public as a whole because some groups are really hard to get into. Imagine trying to get someone to listen to Primus. Now that would be a challenge for most.

i used to be that kind of kid that acted like he was so cool because he listened to the rolling stone, led zeppelin, queen etc, but now i realize how stupid that is. Music hasn't really gotten better or worse, except in pop music, it has just changed. Almost like how the parents hate the music of their kids generation for the most part. What i think has happened to music is that bands and artists now have to find a way to promote themselves without waiting for a label to pick them up. Also, i don't think people are encouraging uniqueness in music enough anymore. it is like how every dubstep song has to have a bass drop or every country song has to have some redneck sing about pickup trucks or something or rap has to have some crappy trap beat instead of unique personalized beats. I've noticed that there seems to be more casual music fans than serious music fans in many respects. People are just taking the effort to get the hot singles off billboard and less willing to find out what they really like and form a diverse opinion. People's tastes just seem to be so straightforward and nonexclusive.

imagine how few people could say that they could like both metallica and taylor swift or led zeppelin and daft punk. that is a good question to ask in a sense, "What is a true music fan supposed to be like?"


And the answer to that question, imho, is questioning the notion of a "true music fan." It's just some stupid term coined from the more hipster/elitist-minded people in the business and mainly fanbase. If you like these artists, then good for you, man! I'm proud of you! I certainly disagree with your taste, but that in a sense is subjective, if you ask me. "Guilty pleasure" is a term that exists for a reason, you know.


However, I do agree with there being a lot of people's taste being straightforward and all that. The cynicism of the music industry has arguably increased over the past few decades (I mean it was always there, but not to this extent, imo). And yeah, a lot of stuff coming out lately from the "hottest" genres right now do sound very similar to reach the masses (sounds a lot like the harem and moeblob shows we get every season. I mean, at least try to do something different with them, you know?) It's a shame, really, in all honesty.


I decided to start a forum topic on this exact subject and I look forward to seeing what people say about this because it interests me. Like, is it okay for someone to say something that, although it may suck, isn't "music" per say. Dubstep sounds like a cat in a blender, but can I say that isn't music? I do think some people should have some guilty pleasures, especially for liking something that most find trash, but that is just subjective in nature. The same music does get churned out every year, but sometimes interesting stuff happens. You might find a band like foster the people or FUN getting major attention and they go against the grain. Also, many people can love an act that changes their sound requently or innovates. it is for that reason that I love beck for instance. It is interesting to think about this idea.


It does seem interesting. Also it's spelled frequently* not requently, lol.


you don't say. listen, cut me some slack. you can misspell a word once in a while. Is this not America? Do we not have the freedom to make mistakes anymore? Didn't know it was 1984, mr George orwell.


sorry, we just don't want people to have this kind of absurdity.

499 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 8/20/16

electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:

Jon Anderson - Yes
Geddy Lee - Rush
Robert Plant - Led Zeppelin
Jim Morrison - The Doors
Steve Walsh - Kansas
Jeff Lynne - Electric Light Orchestra
Peter Gabriel - Solo/Genesis
Phil Collins - Solo/Genesis
Paul McCartney - Solo/The Beatles
Dennis DeYoung - Styx
Freddie Mercury - Queen
Adrian Belew - King Crimson

These are just several of my personal favorites. Phenomenal singers, all of them.


chris cornell-soundgarden
Freddie mercury- queen (man will always be a legend and will never be matched)
steven malkmus- pavement (the ironic thing is that I think that he never really learned to sing)
jon Anderson- Yes (his voice provides for so many epic moments, really takes you away and matches the music to a tee)
frank black- the pixies
H.R- bad brains (although that might be described more as frantic yelling)
fred Schneider- the b52s (guy just sounds like an overly-excited gay man and I love it. Dude just sounds like he has so much fun)
Michael Stipe- REM

when it comes to vocals, I suppose I go for the unique and unconventional singers. I want to go for the singers that nobody can truly imitate.



I can definitely see where you're coming from. It all just comes down to execution, and a majority of these singers (can't judge all of them because I haven't a lot of some of these bands) do it just masterfully.

On another note, I regret forgetting to put in Thom Yorke. *facepalms into the abyss*


i probably dislike Thom yorke singing for the same reason that i don't like the singing of J. Mascis from Dinosaur Jr. When i listen to both of them, i just get the feeling of them portraying exaggerated senses of melancholy. J mascis sounds like an old guy dying of cancer and Thom Yorke sounds like he is literally crying himself to sleep. Really makes for a boring experience in my opinion.



Can't comment on Mascis, but of course I disagree with you on Yorke (which is fine, of course, DUH!!) I do feel like his singing is natural and really works with the music, forming a part of the classic Radiohead sound we know of today (and for me, personally, we're better off with it than without it).


while I can agree that tom yorke does have his moments on certain songs for me where his voice really does fit and I would even say that his voice sounds beautiful say on high and dry or fake plastic trees. I was never a fan for dramatic vocal stylings. If it is dramatic, then I would say it should have some bombast say with Freddie Mercury as a prime example. Without it, the dramatic vocal stylings seem forced and not as genuine. To provide another example, I would say it is the same situation with Morrissey from the smiths. His vocals just convey as sense of falsehood to me. If one is singing a sad or melancholic song, then the vocals, in my opinion should be frank and reserved sounding, like Ian Curtis from joy division. Perhaps it is just the way they sing, but the flamboyant and dramatic style of singing at least from Morrissey make it seem fake to me. If you look at someone like Ian Curtis or Kurt cobain, you can look at history and see that their songs were personal to them and had true significance especially in regard to their untimely deaths. And the thing with that was that they weren't ever showy or dramatic with their songs, the songs themselves matched the lyrics and struggles of the person writing them. With someone like Morrissey or Thom Yorke, they seem more like suburban white kids singing about how much they hate their parents in an emo band or something.

Maybe it is just me, but when I listen to radiohead and Thom yorke's lyrics, it all just seems a little forced and melodramatic. It doesn't make me feel that there is actually any particular reason for him to be so depressed or melancholic. Like Morrissey, it just appears played out to me. However, I think I have talked enough about Radiohead already.



I understand if Yorke's vocals don't really get to you like they do to me a lot of the time. On another note, the Morrissey comment is very interesting, if you ask me. I heard through the grapevine (if that's a real phase, in which apparently that is the case) that The Smiths revolve around irony, whether it be the singing that kind of doesn't fit with the music, not to mention the lyrics themselves. Apparently it's done to humorous effect (supposedly, I haven't heard really much from the band).


maybe, it is an interesting comment about the smiths. However, i don't think that they are really about irony. I think you can tell when a band or musician is trying to be humorous or satirical for the most part. Good examples of that are frank zappa and ween. I know that one of the issues with Morrissey is his pretentious nature and his particular stances (look at Meat is Murder as an example). So, if it is supposed to be an act, then Morrissey has been putting it on for quite a while. However, it isn't just the smiths in some ways with this particular vocal or musical style. Another example is Robert Smith from the cure or the psychedelic furs. I think that the lyrics in Smith's songs are supposed to be taken seriously in some aspect. Honestly, it seems to be a Manchester thing. You notice how a lot of bands that come from major cities seem to have a certain sound or aspect to them.

Like, you can guess if a band might be from California or New York because they tend to have certain aspects to them that relates to that particular city. Like how grunge bands share some similar musical styling because of the climate of Seattle. One of those tend to be Manchester with groups like Oasis and the smiths earning the U.K city some major acclaim. I suppose it wasn't because of Manchester, but i notice how the climate of a city like Birmingham or Seattle seem to be the perfect stage for a group like Black Sabbath or nirvana to form. I'd say it was more like the entire post-punk movement where a lot of bands like the smiths essentially took tons from Joy Division who essentially popularized the whole movement. I love studying the whole concept of music scenes where all these bands start forming and getting signed from one particular area. In the UK for instance, it is cool to see even now what comes out of London or out of Glasgow now.



Yeah, that does seem to be case. And oh yeah, I'm aware of his stances on certain things, especially on animal rights. It's cool that he's for animal rights and all that shtick, but boy does he get all frenzied and triggered in some cases (including canceling a sold-out show because they were selling meat and calling the Chinese a "sub-human species" due to their treatment of animals in the country). Not to mention he's a part of PETA, an organization we ALL love to make fun of, and for good fucking reason (they and their pathetically hilarious views can go fuck themselves for all I care).

As for guessing where that band comes from, I don't really have a knack for that sort of thing, personally (except for Chicago, Boston and Kansas, because, uh, you know). I mainly notice this stuff until I know where the band came from, exactly, LOL.


Well, sometimes you can't tell. If you know some general musical history of some of these places, then you can tell how these types of groups might sound due to acts that came before them, but that isn't always a given. I watched an REM documentary it was said that people would think that the group was from Chicago or something and they wondered why it was so inconceivable for a group like themselves to come from the south (Athens Georgia specifically). More than likely, it was because the most popular southern band throughout most of the 70s was Lynard Skynard. However, I have discovered a multitude of southern acts like big star, the b-52s, collective soul, drivin n cryin etc that really pushed the boundary of rock in general and showed there was more to that area of the country than some "redneck rock". I used to think that the singer from Thin Lizzy was American, because he sounded American when he sang, but he actually has a thick irish accent in interviews. It really is hard to tell sometimes.

I'm willing to bet also that any super hipster band probably comes from Portland Oregon or something because that is like the hipster capital of the country for the most part. However, many areas have a broad number of groups that come out of there over the years (London, New York, LA etc) so you can't fit every band into a box. But it is interesting to think about when regarding musical trends or scenes. Here is how I guesstimate where a band is from based off what I know of acts that have come out of these places

New York bands tend to be artsy and experimental. California has a history of psychedelic, metal (thrash metal especially) acts, and pop-punk acts, Father up in Washington (the state not D.C) and Portland Oregon have some folky, indie rock, acts. Detroit was like the birthplace of punk rock (stooges and MC5) and significant area of the Motown music scene. Nashville is known for country acts. Memphis is bluesy and more on the southern rock side. D.C is hardcore nation with its history of hardcore punk bands. Seattle was the inception place of grunge. the boston area in hard to define but I'd say it is an area of some harder rock/arena rock (boston, Aerosmith, the pixies, the cars etc). I guess that is how I think about it in that regard.

The funny thing about veganism, animal rights activists and such is that I like to laugh at the notion of choosing not to eat meat on some moral ground. People have hunted animals for decades because humans need to eat to survive. Hundreds of years ago, one couldn't survive simply eating berries, corn, rice, or whatever. They needed protein and that is why there is meat. Without protein, one just isn't as healthy (at least in my opinion) I could imagine morissey in colonial times or something and talking about killing animals is murder and most people would be like "Okay, either starve or eat the meat because that is all we have. We don't have any health food stores around here."

Then, I would hit him with one of these zingers




FUCKING BRILLIANT!!! Yeah, this "moral ground" stuff is a pain in the ass in this regard. Yes, the way we treat animals in the factories is disgusting, in a way. But like you said, we need to eat meat to survive. And besides, we're just as much as animals as the other classes, and they fight and hunt down each other all the time. Natural selection doesn't exist for no reason, you know? It's another reason that moral relativism is bullshit. If you don't want to eat meat for any other reason, that is fine!! BUT, don't assume you're "morally superior" than the lot of us because of it. There shouldn't be a thing like "special snowflakes" in this world to begin with.


you known that when you got a line as good as jerk store then you have to use it.


1233 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 8/20/16

Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


Akane1984 wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:

Jon Anderson - Yes
Geddy Lee - Rush
Robert Plant - Led Zeppelin
Jim Morrison - The Doors
Steve Walsh - Kansas
Jeff Lynne - Electric Light Orchestra
Peter Gabriel - Solo/Genesis
Phil Collins - Solo/Genesis
Paul McCartney - Solo/The Beatles
Dennis DeYoung - Styx
Freddie Mercury - Queen
Adrian Belew - King Crimson

These are just several of my personal favorites. Phenomenal singers, all of them.


You've got great taste in music. Never got into Rush at all, but these are some of my favorites as well.


AYYY!!!! Unfortunate you never got into Rush. Definitely in my top 5 favorites of all time.


Why don't you list your top 5 favorites?



In no particular order

Rush
Pink Floyd
Yes (my all time number one)
King Crimson
Led Zeppelin

Honorable mentions:

David Bowie
Genesis
Queen
The Band
Styx
Kansas
Electric Light Orchestra
Simon & Garfunkel
Radiohead


Just as an observation, I've noticed that a majority of your musical taste lies within the progressive/hard rock bands of the 70s with the exception of a band like simon and Garfunkel from the 60s and radiohead from the 90s. Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with these bands (FAR FROM IT). However, would it be apt to say that you have a particular favorability toward a certain musical decade over another in this case? Nothing wrong with progressive and classic rock, but I'd wonder if the concentration of artists from this particular decade in particular reveals the lack of exposure you might have with other acts. You may be aware of this, and it may just be that it just happens to be that way because all your favorite bands are from that decade (it isn't like you can control that). But I was wondering if you could think of any musical acts that you may enjoy from other musical decades if you can think of any. What other musical genres do you like and such as well?



To answer the question in regards to the taste found in the list, I'll just leave this meme here for your enjoyment (at least I hope, not trying to be condescending, but I can be from time to time again).



So now, before you unfriend after reading that (LOL), yeah, it IS my favorite genre of music (and especially rock music in particular), and the 1970s, imho, was indeed the greatest decade for music. However, the 1960s follow close to behind, with The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys, Jimi Hendrix, and an unknown group known as "The Beatles" leading the pact. Yes, there are bands from the 60s onward I do tend to listen to from time to time, although it's mainly for a single (or two) for some of them. The biggest exceptions I can think of are Nirvana (OF COURSE), U2 (Yes, I like that band. #IDon'tGiveAFuck), Metallica, and recently "Weird Al" Yankovic & Iron Maiden (really interested in a lot of their material), etc. There is some pop I do like (ABBA comes to mind), and mainly other forms of rock, like psychedelic, alternative, blues, and hard rock, etc. It's just that I don't have much of an interest in some of the 80s and especially 00s and 10s artists as I do with the ones I mentioned (probably). I just tend to follow where my big interests lead me, you know?




Now, that I have established that your meme has displeased me (Ha ha). I will say that I understand your point. Honestly, I don't care if all your favorite bands happen to be from the 70s. Of course there were some great bands then. I think I just wanted to know if you listened to anything beside classic/prog rock. It is okay if you don't, but I will say that you would be missing out or a variety of other good bands that also pushed the boundary of music in many different ways. Perhaps it is a matter of exposure and familiarity with these decades in particular. There was a time when i would say that the late 60s was the greatest musical moment in history. Now, i just glance at acts like the beatles and rolling stones as products of a past age, except for the rolling stones masterpiece albums sticy fingers and exile on main street. I would say that the 80s was the worst musical decade and there weren't any good bands making music. Then, i discover REM, sonic youth, pixies, etc. same with the 2000s with groups such as the strokes, Interpol, arcade fire, arctic monkeys etc. For me, there is no greatest musical decade in history because they are all great in some way for the most part (it is getting hard with the 2010s though).

I guess it is a matter of just always exploring and looking through musical history and Finding a group that goes against the grain and does something new and unique. Find the gem among some lesser bands from the decade that doesn't interest you too much. Taking the groups that you have mentioned already, that is just the surface. Every decade has some unsung heroes that were really doing something incredible but they went unnoticed. Those are the kind of groups that i typically look out for. I'm open to any music for the most part as long as it is a band or artist daring to do something different and not going along with decade clichés. If you ever want some of my personal recommendations, then I'd be happy to do so. Also, you feel free to do likewise.

However, just continue to do what you are doing. Sorry for the odd question.




Don't mention it bud!! And OF COURSE I listen to other stuff besides classic/prog rock!! Hell, I mainly get into the more "commercial" (not really a big fan of that term) bands nowadays (especially The Band and their early stuff in particular), except for Kansas, who I'm really digging at the moment, mainly their "golden age" (1974-77). And also, I don't think the 80s was the worst decade for music. Pop music, maybe, but even then there was some classic material in that regard too (I mean, Michael Jackson was in many ways ON FIRE during this decade). There was also a big renaissance, if you will, in the heavy metal scene, with the Big Four, the New Wave of British Heavy Metal, and births of many sub-genres like death and prog metal. I also don't think the 2010s are particular good in the sense of what's popular now (although there are exceptions to the rule, see "Uptown Funk" and "Pumped Up Kicks" for example), but there definitely being a bigger fanbase and probably a larger variety of artists that are unknownst to the masses. I won't say that's unfortunate because I feel that's debatable, but I digress. Of course, for the "unsung heroes" comment, I'm on both sides on this. I agree that there's a lot of underrated and/or unrecognized artists throughout the past several decades. However, there ARE artists from back then and now that probably don't fall in this particular category, many of them of course were forgotten throughout the years (not to mention the whole "I was born in le wrong generazion!!!" and "I'm *insert age here* and I like *bands considered better to them than today's music in his/her eyes in order to impress the masses* bullshit and all that). So yeah, there you go.

And in response to your own meme:





For some unsung heroes, there are some groups or bands that seem to be too "odd" for commercial success. think about someone like Frank zappa, one who Rolling Stone was not very positive too in many respects, and look at his extreme experimentalism and unorthodox lyricism. Imagine going to a CAN show during the 1960s or hearing the first velvet underground record. I remember watching a documentary on Hardcore punk where i believe ian mckaye, singer of minor threat, said that no band at the time was under the impression that they were going to be rich from making the kind of music that they were making. So, i don't think the fact that many bands might be underrated is simply because of the public as a whole because some groups are really hard to get into. Imagine trying to get someone to listen to Primus. Now that would be a challenge for most.

i used to be that kind of kid that acted like he was so cool because he listened to the rolling stone, led zeppelin, queen etc, but now i realize how stupid that is. Music hasn't really gotten better or worse, except in pop music, it has just changed. Almost like how the parents hate the music of their kids generation for the most part. What i think has happened to music is that bands and artists now have to find a way to promote themselves without waiting for a label to pick them up. Also, i don't think people are encouraging uniqueness in music enough anymore. it is like how every dubstep song has to have a bass drop or every country song has to have some redneck sing about pickup trucks or something or rap has to have some crappy trap beat instead of unique personalized beats. I've noticed that there seems to be more casual music fans than serious music fans in many respects. People are just taking the effort to get the hot singles off billboard and less willing to find out what they really like and form a diverse opinion. People's tastes just seem to be so straightforward and nonexclusive.

imagine how few people could say that they could like both metallica and taylor swift or led zeppelin and daft punk. that is a good question to ask in a sense, "What is a true music fan supposed to be like?"


And the answer to that question, imho, is questioning the notion of a "true music fan." It's just some stupid term coined from the more hipster/elitist-minded people in the business and mainly fanbase. If you like these artists, then good for you, man! I'm proud of you! I certainly disagree with your taste, but that in a sense is subjective, if you ask me. "Guilty pleasure" is a term that exists for a reason, you know.


However, I do agree with there being a lot of people's taste being straightforward and all that. The cynicism of the music industry has arguably increased over the past few decades (I mean it was always there, but not to this extent, imo). And yeah, a lot of stuff coming out lately from the "hottest" genres right now do sound very similar to reach the masses (sounds a lot like the harem and moeblob shows we get every season. I mean, at least try to do something different with them, you know?) It's a shame, really, in all honesty.


I decided to start a forum topic on this exact subject and I look forward to seeing what people say about this because it interests me. Like, is it okay for someone to say something that, although it may suck, isn't "music" per say. Dubstep sounds like a cat in a blender, but can I say that isn't music? I do think some people should have some guilty pleasures, especially for liking something that most find trash, but that is just subjective in nature. The same music does get churned out every year, but sometimes interesting stuff happens. You might find a band like foster the people or FUN getting major attention and they go against the grain. Also, many people can love an act that changes their sound requently or innovates. it is for that reason that I love beck for instance. It is interesting to think about this idea.


It does seem interesting. Also it's spelled frequently* not requently, lol.


you don't say. listen, cut me some slack. you can misspell a word once in a while. Is this not America? Do we not have the freedom to make mistakes anymore? Didn't know it was 1984, mr George orwell.


sorry, we just don't want people to have this kind of absurdity.



you didn't even need to look for a message like that. Just go and look at every youtube comment and post by a rapper (look at dose of buckley for examples) and you will see even worse

499 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 8/21/16

Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


Akane1984 wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:

Jon Anderson - Yes
Geddy Lee - Rush
Robert Plant - Led Zeppelin
Jim Morrison - The Doors
Steve Walsh - Kansas
Jeff Lynne - Electric Light Orchestra
Peter Gabriel - Solo/Genesis
Phil Collins - Solo/Genesis
Paul McCartney - Solo/The Beatles
Dennis DeYoung - Styx
Freddie Mercury - Queen
Adrian Belew - King Crimson

These are just several of my personal favorites. Phenomenal singers, all of them.


You've got great taste in music. Never got into Rush at all, but these are some of my favorites as well.


AYYY!!!! Unfortunate you never got into Rush. Definitely in my top 5 favorites of all time.


Why don't you list your top 5 favorites?



In no particular order

Rush
Pink Floyd
Yes (my all time number one)
King Crimson
Led Zeppelin

Honorable mentions:

David Bowie
Genesis
Queen
The Band
Styx
Kansas
Electric Light Orchestra
Simon & Garfunkel
Radiohead


Just as an observation, I've noticed that a majority of your musical taste lies within the progressive/hard rock bands of the 70s with the exception of a band like simon and Garfunkel from the 60s and radiohead from the 90s. Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with these bands (FAR FROM IT). However, would it be apt to say that you have a particular favorability toward a certain musical decade over another in this case? Nothing wrong with progressive and classic rock, but I'd wonder if the concentration of artists from this particular decade in particular reveals the lack of exposure you might have with other acts. You may be aware of this, and it may just be that it just happens to be that way because all your favorite bands are from that decade (it isn't like you can control that). But I was wondering if you could think of any musical acts that you may enjoy from other musical decades if you can think of any. What other musical genres do you like and such as well?



To answer the question in regards to the taste found in the list, I'll just leave this meme here for your enjoyment (at least I hope, not trying to be condescending, but I can be from time to time again).



So now, before you unfriend after reading that (LOL), yeah, it IS my favorite genre of music (and especially rock music in particular), and the 1970s, imho, was indeed the greatest decade for music. However, the 1960s follow close to behind, with The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys, Jimi Hendrix, and an unknown group known as "The Beatles" leading the pact. Yes, there are bands from the 60s onward I do tend to listen to from time to time, although it's mainly for a single (or two) for some of them. The biggest exceptions I can think of are Nirvana (OF COURSE), U2 (Yes, I like that band. #IDon'tGiveAFuck), Metallica, and recently "Weird Al" Yankovic & Iron Maiden (really interested in a lot of their material), etc. There is some pop I do like (ABBA comes to mind), and mainly other forms of rock, like psychedelic, alternative, blues, and hard rock, etc. It's just that I don't have much of an interest in some of the 80s and especially 00s and 10s artists as I do with the ones I mentioned (probably). I just tend to follow where my big interests lead me, you know?




Now, that I have established that your meme has displeased me (Ha ha). I will say that I understand your point. Honestly, I don't care if all your favorite bands happen to be from the 70s. Of course there were some great bands then. I think I just wanted to know if you listened to anything beside classic/prog rock. It is okay if you don't, but I will say that you would be missing out or a variety of other good bands that also pushed the boundary of music in many different ways. Perhaps it is a matter of exposure and familiarity with these decades in particular. There was a time when i would say that the late 60s was the greatest musical moment in history. Now, i just glance at acts like the beatles and rolling stones as products of a past age, except for the rolling stones masterpiece albums sticy fingers and exile on main street. I would say that the 80s was the worst musical decade and there weren't any good bands making music. Then, i discover REM, sonic youth, pixies, etc. same with the 2000s with groups such as the strokes, Interpol, arcade fire, arctic monkeys etc. For me, there is no greatest musical decade in history because they are all great in some way for the most part (it is getting hard with the 2010s though).

I guess it is a matter of just always exploring and looking through musical history and Finding a group that goes against the grain and does something new and unique. Find the gem among some lesser bands from the decade that doesn't interest you too much. Taking the groups that you have mentioned already, that is just the surface. Every decade has some unsung heroes that were really doing something incredible but they went unnoticed. Those are the kind of groups that i typically look out for. I'm open to any music for the most part as long as it is a band or artist daring to do something different and not going along with decade clichés. If you ever want some of my personal recommendations, then I'd be happy to do so. Also, you feel free to do likewise.

However, just continue to do what you are doing. Sorry for the odd question.




Don't mention it bud!! And OF COURSE I listen to other stuff besides classic/prog rock!! Hell, I mainly get into the more "commercial" (not really a big fan of that term) bands nowadays (especially The Band and their early stuff in particular), except for Kansas, who I'm really digging at the moment, mainly their "golden age" (1974-77). And also, I don't think the 80s was the worst decade for music. Pop music, maybe, but even then there was some classic material in that regard too (I mean, Michael Jackson was in many ways ON FIRE during this decade). There was also a big renaissance, if you will, in the heavy metal scene, with the Big Four, the New Wave of British Heavy Metal, and births of many sub-genres like death and prog metal. I also don't think the 2010s are particular good in the sense of what's popular now (although there are exceptions to the rule, see "Uptown Funk" and "Pumped Up Kicks" for example), but there definitely being a bigger fanbase and probably a larger variety of artists that are unknownst to the masses. I won't say that's unfortunate because I feel that's debatable, but I digress. Of course, for the "unsung heroes" comment, I'm on both sides on this. I agree that there's a lot of underrated and/or unrecognized artists throughout the past several decades. However, there ARE artists from back then and now that probably don't fall in this particular category, many of them of course were forgotten throughout the years (not to mention the whole "I was born in le wrong generazion!!!" and "I'm *insert age here* and I like *bands considered better to them than today's music in his/her eyes in order to impress the masses* bullshit and all that). So yeah, there you go.

And in response to your own meme:





For some unsung heroes, there are some groups or bands that seem to be too "odd" for commercial success. think about someone like Frank zappa, one who Rolling Stone was not very positive too in many respects, and look at his extreme experimentalism and unorthodox lyricism. Imagine going to a CAN show during the 1960s or hearing the first velvet underground record. I remember watching a documentary on Hardcore punk where i believe ian mckaye, singer of minor threat, said that no band at the time was under the impression that they were going to be rich from making the kind of music that they were making. So, i don't think the fact that many bands might be underrated is simply because of the public as a whole because some groups are really hard to get into. Imagine trying to get someone to listen to Primus. Now that would be a challenge for most.

i used to be that kind of kid that acted like he was so cool because he listened to the rolling stone, led zeppelin, queen etc, but now i realize how stupid that is. Music hasn't really gotten better or worse, except in pop music, it has just changed. Almost like how the parents hate the music of their kids generation for the most part. What i think has happened to music is that bands and artists now have to find a way to promote themselves without waiting for a label to pick them up. Also, i don't think people are encouraging uniqueness in music enough anymore. it is like how every dubstep song has to have a bass drop or every country song has to have some redneck sing about pickup trucks or something or rap has to have some crappy trap beat instead of unique personalized beats. I've noticed that there seems to be more casual music fans than serious music fans in many respects. People are just taking the effort to get the hot singles off billboard and less willing to find out what they really like and form a diverse opinion. People's tastes just seem to be so straightforward and nonexclusive.

imagine how few people could say that they could like both metallica and taylor swift or led zeppelin and daft punk. that is a good question to ask in a sense, "What is a true music fan supposed to be like?"


And the answer to that question, imho, is questioning the notion of a "true music fan." It's just some stupid term coined from the more hipster/elitist-minded people in the business and mainly fanbase. If you like these artists, then good for you, man! I'm proud of you! I certainly disagree with your taste, but that in a sense is subjective, if you ask me. "Guilty pleasure" is a term that exists for a reason, you know.


However, I do agree with there being a lot of people's taste being straightforward and all that. The cynicism of the music industry has arguably increased over the past few decades (I mean it was always there, but not to this extent, imo). And yeah, a lot of stuff coming out lately from the "hottest" genres right now do sound very similar to reach the masses (sounds a lot like the harem and moeblob shows we get every season. I mean, at least try to do something different with them, you know?) It's a shame, really, in all honesty.


I decided to start a forum topic on this exact subject and I look forward to seeing what people say about this because it interests me. Like, is it okay for someone to say something that, although it may suck, isn't "music" per say. Dubstep sounds like a cat in a blender, but can I say that isn't music? I do think some people should have some guilty pleasures, especially for liking something that most find trash, but that is just subjective in nature. The same music does get churned out every year, but sometimes interesting stuff happens. You might find a band like foster the people or FUN getting major attention and they go against the grain. Also, many people can love an act that changes their sound requently or innovates. it is for that reason that I love beck for instance. It is interesting to think about this idea.


It does seem interesting. Also it's spelled frequently* not requently, lol.


you don't say. listen, cut me some slack. you can misspell a word once in a while. Is this not America? Do we not have the freedom to make mistakes anymore? Didn't know it was 1984, mr George orwell.


sorry, we just don't want people to have this kind of absurdity.



Oh no, I've seen worse. Look up the series Your Grammar Sucks by a Youtuber named Jacksfilms. There's seriously over 100 videos filled with some of the dumbest comments ever known to man.
499 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 8/21/16 , edited 8/21/16

electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


Akane1984 wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:

Jon Anderson - Yes
Geddy Lee - Rush
Robert Plant - Led Zeppelin
Jim Morrison - The Doors
Steve Walsh - Kansas
Jeff Lynne - Electric Light Orchestra
Peter Gabriel - Solo/Genesis
Phil Collins - Solo/Genesis
Paul McCartney - Solo/The Beatles
Dennis DeYoung - Styx
Freddie Mercury - Queen
Adrian Belew - King Crimson

These are just several of my personal favorites. Phenomenal singers, all of them.


You've got great taste in music. Never got into Rush at all, but these are some of my favorites as well.


AYYY!!!! Unfortunate you never got into Rush. Definitely in my top 5 favorites of all time.


Why don't you list your top 5 favorites?



In no particular order

Rush
Pink Floyd
Yes (my all time number one)
King Crimson
Led Zeppelin

Honorable mentions:

David Bowie
Genesis
Queen
The Band
Styx
Kansas
Electric Light Orchestra
Simon & Garfunkel
Radiohead


Just as an observation, I've noticed that a majority of your musical taste lies within the progressive/hard rock bands of the 70s with the exception of a band like simon and Garfunkel from the 60s and radiohead from the 90s. Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with these bands (FAR FROM IT). However, would it be apt to say that you have a particular favorability toward a certain musical decade over another in this case? Nothing wrong with progressive and classic rock, but I'd wonder if the concentration of artists from this particular decade in particular reveals the lack of exposure you might have with other acts. You may be aware of this, and it may just be that it just happens to be that way because all your favorite bands are from that decade (it isn't like you can control that). But I was wondering if you could think of any musical acts that you may enjoy from other musical decades if you can think of any. What other musical genres do you like and such as well?



To answer the question in regards to the taste found in the list, I'll just leave this meme here for your enjoyment (at least I hope, not trying to be condescending, but I can be from time to time again).



So now, before you unfriend after reading that (LOL), yeah, it IS my favorite genre of music (and especially rock music in particular), and the 1970s, imho, was indeed the greatest decade for music. However, the 1960s follow close to behind, with The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys, Jimi Hendrix, and an unknown group known as "The Beatles" leading the pact. Yes, there are bands from the 60s onward I do tend to listen to from time to time, although it's mainly for a single (or two) for some of them. The biggest exceptions I can think of are Nirvana (OF COURSE), U2 (Yes, I like that band. #IDon'tGiveAFuck), Metallica, and recently "Weird Al" Yankovic & Iron Maiden (really interested in a lot of their material), etc. There is some pop I do like (ABBA comes to mind), and mainly other forms of rock, like psychedelic, alternative, blues, and hard rock, etc. It's just that I don't have much of an interest in some of the 80s and especially 00s and 10s artists as I do with the ones I mentioned (probably). I just tend to follow where my big interests lead me, you know?




Now, that I have established that your meme has displeased me (Ha ha). I will say that I understand your point. Honestly, I don't care if all your favorite bands happen to be from the 70s. Of course there were some great bands then. I think I just wanted to know if you listened to anything beside classic/prog rock. It is okay if you don't, but I will say that you would be missing out or a variety of other good bands that also pushed the boundary of music in many different ways. Perhaps it is a matter of exposure and familiarity with these decades in particular. There was a time when i would say that the late 60s was the greatest musical moment in history. Now, i just glance at acts like the beatles and rolling stones as products of a past age, except for the rolling stones masterpiece albums sticy fingers and exile on main street. I would say that the 80s was the worst musical decade and there weren't any good bands making music. Then, i discover REM, sonic youth, pixies, etc. same with the 2000s with groups such as the strokes, Interpol, arcade fire, arctic monkeys etc. For me, there is no greatest musical decade in history because they are all great in some way for the most part (it is getting hard with the 2010s though).

I guess it is a matter of just always exploring and looking through musical history and Finding a group that goes against the grain and does something new and unique. Find the gem among some lesser bands from the decade that doesn't interest you too much. Taking the groups that you have mentioned already, that is just the surface. Every decade has some unsung heroes that were really doing something incredible but they went unnoticed. Those are the kind of groups that i typically look out for. I'm open to any music for the most part as long as it is a band or artist daring to do something different and not going along with decade clichés. If you ever want some of my personal recommendations, then I'd be happy to do so. Also, you feel free to do likewise.

However, just continue to do what you are doing. Sorry for the odd question.




Don't mention it bud!! And OF COURSE I listen to other stuff besides classic/prog rock!! Hell, I mainly get into the more "commercial" (not really a big fan of that term) bands nowadays (especially The Band and their early stuff in particular), except for Kansas, who I'm really digging at the moment, mainly their "golden age" (1974-77). And also, I don't think the 80s was the worst decade for music. Pop music, maybe, but even then there was some classic material in that regard too (I mean, Michael Jackson was in many ways ON FIRE during this decade). There was also a big renaissance, if you will, in the heavy metal scene, with the Big Four, the New Wave of British Heavy Metal, and births of many sub-genres like death and prog metal. I also don't think the 2010s are particular good in the sense of what's popular now (although there are exceptions to the rule, see "Uptown Funk" and "Pumped Up Kicks" for example), but there definitely being a bigger fanbase and probably a larger variety of artists that are unknownst to the masses. I won't say that's unfortunate because I feel that's debatable, but I digress. Of course, for the "unsung heroes" comment, I'm on both sides on this. I agree that there's a lot of underrated and/or unrecognized artists throughout the past several decades. However, there ARE artists from back then and now that probably don't fall in this particular category, many of them of course were forgotten throughout the years (not to mention the whole "I was born in le wrong generazion!!!" and "I'm *insert age here* and I like *bands considered better to them than today's music in his/her eyes in order to impress the masses* bullshit and all that). So yeah, there you go.

And in response to your own meme:





For some unsung heroes, there are some groups or bands that seem to be too "odd" for commercial success. think about someone like Frank zappa, one who Rolling Stone was not very positive too in many respects, and look at his extreme experimentalism and unorthodox lyricism. Imagine going to a CAN show during the 1960s or hearing the first velvet underground record. I remember watching a documentary on Hardcore punk where i believe ian mckaye, singer of minor threat, said that no band at the time was under the impression that they were going to be rich from making the kind of music that they were making. So, i don't think the fact that many bands might be underrated is simply because of the public as a whole because some groups are really hard to get into. Imagine trying to get someone to listen to Primus. Now that would be a challenge for most.

i used to be that kind of kid that acted like he was so cool because he listened to the rolling stone, led zeppelin, queen etc, but now i realize how stupid that is. Music hasn't really gotten better or worse, except in pop music, it has just changed. Almost like how the parents hate the music of their kids generation for the most part. What i think has happened to music is that bands and artists now have to find a way to promote themselves without waiting for a label to pick them up. Also, i don't think people are encouraging uniqueness in music enough anymore. it is like how every dubstep song has to have a bass drop or every country song has to have some redneck sing about pickup trucks or something or rap has to have some crappy trap beat instead of unique personalized beats. I've noticed that there seems to be more casual music fans than serious music fans in many respects. People are just taking the effort to get the hot singles off billboard and less willing to find out what they really like and form a diverse opinion. People's tastes just seem to be so straightforward and nonexclusive.

imagine how few people could say that they could like both metallica and taylor swift or led zeppelin and daft punk. that is a good question to ask in a sense, "What is a true music fan supposed to be like?"


And the answer to that question, imho, is questioning the notion of a "true music fan." It's just some stupid term coined from the more hipster/elitist-minded people in the business and mainly fanbase. If you like these artists, then good for you, man! I'm proud of you! I certainly disagree with your taste, but that in a sense is subjective, if you ask me. "Guilty pleasure" is a term that exists for a reason, you know.


However, I do agree with there being a lot of people's taste being straightforward and all that. The cynicism of the music industry has arguably increased over the past few decades (I mean it was always there, but not to this extent, imo). And yeah, a lot of stuff coming out lately from the "hottest" genres right now do sound very similar to reach the masses (sounds a lot like the harem and moeblob shows we get every season. I mean, at least try to do something different with them, you know?) It's a shame, really, in all honesty.


I decided to start a forum topic on this exact subject and I look forward to seeing what people say about this because it interests me. Like, is it okay for someone to say something that, although it may suck, isn't "music" per say. Dubstep sounds like a cat in a blender, but can I say that isn't music? I do think some people should have some guilty pleasures, especially for liking something that most find trash, but that is just subjective in nature. The same music does get churned out every year, but sometimes interesting stuff happens. You might find a band like foster the people or FUN getting major attention and they go against the grain. Also, many people can love an act that changes their sound requently or innovates. it is for that reason that I love beck for instance. It is interesting to think about this idea.


It does seem interesting. Also it's spelled frequently* not requently, lol.


you don't say. listen, cut me some slack. you can misspell a word once in a while. Is this not America? Do we not have the freedom to make mistakes anymore? Didn't know it was 1984, mr George orwell.


sorry, we just don't want people to have this kind of absurdity.



you didn't even need to look for a message like that. Just go and look at every youtube comment and post by a rapper (look at dose of buckley for examples) and you will see even worse



Oh no, I've seen worse. Look up the series Your Grammar Sucks by a Youtuber named Jacksfilms. There's seriously over 100 videos filled with some of the dumbest comments ever known to man.
4316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
15 / M / The Shire, England
Offline
Posted 8/25/16 , edited 8/25/16

Citrus Lamar

105 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / IDK
Offline
Posted 8/25/16
YES lmao. It seems as if my tastes in music are vastly different from like everyone in this forum. I'm like the only hip hop head in here
Posted 8/25/16

PandaSamaBoi wrote:

YES lmao. It seems as if my tastes in music are vastly different from like everyone in this forum. I'm like the only hip hop head in here


Me too m9, I'm just avoiding the quote pyramids. That's why no one else has commented on this topic
105 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / IDK
Offline
Posted 8/25/16

Velvet_Crowe wrote:


PandaSamaBoi wrote:

YES lmao. It seems as if my tastes in music are vastly different from like everyone in this forum. I'm like the only hip hop head in here


Me too m9, I'm just avoiding the quote pyramids. That's why no one else has commented on this topic





true

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.