What Are You Listening To?

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Who is an artist or band that everyone else seems to like that you either straight up dislike or don't understand what all the hype is about?

[oblong]

2 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Who is an artist or band that everyone else seems to like that you either straight up dislike or don't understand what all the hype is about?

Springsteen.

I guess I get it because he's talented and puts on great shows I've heard but I just can't get into it.  Maybe that's a different question from what you are asking.  I don't like to say someone is good or bad because it's all subjective and there's no right or wrong in my opinion.  Just personal taste.  I gave his catalog an honest try during the pandemic and it didn't do anything for me.

That said I thoroughly enjoyed his interview with Stern that you can watch on HBO Max.

 

 

[pfife]

Born to Run is so good!!!

 

For me it's Radiohead.  I'm really over them.  

[pfife]

On 12/19/2022 at 8:34 AM, oblong said:

I went to Hamtramck on Saturday night to see some local music.  First time in a long time I've done that.  Have a friend very much into the scene.  Went to Planet Ant, in their ghost light room.  Maybe 50 people. It was fun.  I wish I could have stayed longer to hear Tony Muggs when his band got up there.

 

IDK if Tony is the guitarist, but whomever plays guitar for them is sick as hell. 

[Biff Mayhem]

52 minutes ago, pfife said:

For me it's Radiohead.  I'm really over them.  

I tried several times with Radiohead. I wanted to like them. I wanted to love them. I just didn't get it.

 

For me it's Waylon Jennings. Old school country people rave about him but it just escapes me.

[oblong]

1 hour ago, pfife said:

IDK if Tony is the guitarist, but whomever plays guitar for them is sick as hell. 

Yes. My friend follows the local scene and said he’s the best in the area. 

[pfife]

31 minutes ago, oblong said:

Yes. My friend follows the local scene and said he’s the best in the area. 

that dude blew my mind back in like 1998 at the Cadieux.   I can only imagine how much better he is now.

[Crazy Cat Gentleman]

18 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Who is an artist or band that everyone else seems to like that you either straight up dislike or don't understand what all the hype is about?

maybe it's not quite everyone who seems to like them, but anytime someone raves about KISS, it makes no sense to me. every song of theirs I've heard makes me feel like a band with crazy costumes/stage personas ought to have more exciting music to back it up. maybe I'd feel differently if I'd been to some of their shows as a young dude, but I never was, so here we are.

also Bob Seger. for me he's just all nope all the time.

[Biff Mayhem]

2 hours ago, Crazy Cat Gentleman said:

maybe it's not quite everyone who seems to like them, but anytime someone raves about KISS, it makes no sense to me. every song of theirs I've heard makes me feel like a band with crazy costumes/stage personas ought to have more exciting music to back it up. maybe I'd feel differently if I'd been to some of their shows as a young dude, but I never was, so here we are.

As the resident Kiss fan here, I have to say I completely understand your opinion. They did a lot of damage to the credibility of the music with their marketing of toys etc.

That said, the early early stuff is very progressive and riff driven. They were hungry and wrote some great rock songs. Then, when commercial success started to occur, we have the Kiss that you describe.

If you listen to these songs with earbuds on and without the preconceived notion of four adults in clown makeup, maybe you'll change your mind.

 

 

 

[oblong]

2 hours ago, Biff Mayhem said:

As the resident Kiss fan here, I have to say I completely understand your opinion. They did a lot of damage to the credibility of the music with their marketing of toys etc.

That said, the early early stuff is very progressive and riff driven. They were hungry and wrote some great rock songs. Then, when commercial success started to occur, we have the Kiss that you describe.

If you listen to these songs with earbuds on and without the preconceived notion of four adults in clown makeup, maybe you'll change your mind.

 

 

 

I’ve always viewed them as someone who knows their place. They don’t take themselves too seriously.  It’s all about fun. You do you. Contrast with someone like Whitesnake and David Coverdale who thinks he’s doing something important and credible. 
 

I never really cared for Pearl Jam. 

[smr-nj]

23 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Who is an artist or band that everyone else seems to like that you either straight up dislike or don't understand what all the hype is about?

I know this is going to make me sound like an idiot, but I was never a Rolling Stones fan,….. until about 10 years ago, when I suddenly would listen to their songs, and found them - brilliant. Go figure. Talk about being late to the game. lol 

[Biff Mayhem]

27 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

I know this is going to make me sound like an idiot, but I was never a Rolling Stones fan,….. until about 10 years ago, when I suddenly would listen to their songs, and found them - brilliant. Go figure. Talk about being late to the game. lol 

There was a time when I was absolutely burnt out on the Stones and didn't listen to them for years. It's amazing how talented they all are. Richards is such a lazy player but gets such a huge sound. It's a head scratcher how much space he fills with so little.

[oblong]

I’ve learned that the Stones to many are more important than the Beatles.  The Beatles were so tight and proficient that to young kids it felt unattainable.  Then the stones come along with their sloppiness and showed the kids you don’t have to be as good as the Beatles.  That’s the sentiment I’ve heard Steven Van Zandt express.  

[Mr.TaterSalad]

A total fraud that I cannot stand that everyone else seems to like is Stefani Germanotta aka Lady Gaga. I think Germanotta's an above average singer with average pop music. She is not as revolutionary or life changing force as her fans make it out to be. Nor is she some big time activist or wave making artist for change ala a Woody Guthrie, Marvin Gaye, or Loretta Lynn. More than that though, I am turned off by her phony behavior, phony activism, and outlandish behavior that copycats others around her and before her. 

Germanotta is just a 2000s Madonna wannabe if you ask me with equal or worse music. She tried to say she was some different girl in high school who just didn't fit in and was too weird for her classmates, but that's all manufactured, PR bullshit by her and her marketing team. By all accounts Germanotta was a normal, choir girl in high school. She only became weird and eccentric when she wanted to become a big popstar. Recording artists do weird and eccentric things all the time. KISS, from the conversation above, is one of those artists/bands. But Gene Simmons doesn't try to get you to believe that he really spits blood and fire everywhere he goes. Stefani wants her fans to believe that she really does hatch out of an egg or enjoys wearing a dress made of meat (which she stole from someone else I've ready). I think Lady Gaga, her marketing team, and record label execs have been counting the dollar bills and laughing at all the suckers they've conned into believing she's truly a different person and a revolutionary activist in the music industry. She is neither and is laughing at you with all the money she's made getting you to believe she is truly different.

Edited December 21, 2022 by Mr.TaterSalad

[Biff Mayhem]

2 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

A total fraud that I cannot stand that everyone else seems to like is Stefani Germanotta aka Lady gaga. I think Germanotta's an average singer with average music. She is not as revolutionary or life changing force as her fans make it out to be. Nor is she some big time activist or wave makign artist for change ala a Woody Guthrie or Loretta Lynn. More than that though, I am turned off by her phony behavior, phony activism, and outlandish behavior that copycats others around her and before her. 

Germanotta is just a 2000s Madonna wannabe if you ask me with equal or worse music. She tried to say she was some different girl in high school who just didn't fit in and was too weird for her classmates, but that's all manufactured, PR bullshit by her and her marketing team. By all accounts Germanotta was a normal, choir girl in high school. She only became weird and eccentric when she wanted to become a big popstar. Recording artists do weird and eccentric things all the time. KISS, from the conversation above, is one of those artists/bands. But no Gene Simmons doesn't try to get you to believe that he really spits blood and fire everywhere he goes. Stefani wants her fans to believe that she really does hatch out of an egg or wear a dress made of meat (which she stole from someone else I've ready). I think Lady Gaga, her marketing team, and record label execs have been counting the dollar bills and laughing at all the suckers they've conned into believing she's truly a different person and a revolutionary activist in the music industry. She is neither and is laughing at you with all the money she's made getting you to believe she is truly different.

I agree with all of the above with the exception of her singing. I think she possesses a wonderful voice. Marketing or not, all the things she does to obtain success require a great deal of work and dedication. She didn't obtain her fame from laziness and that is for sure.

[oblong]

I thought the Star is Born reboot with her and Cooper was great. I didn’t expect to like it but it sucked me in. 

[mtutiger]

6 hours ago, oblong said:

I’ve learned that the Stones to many are more important than the Beatles.  The Beatles were so tight and proficient that to young kids it felt unattainable.  Then the stones come along with their sloppiness and showed the kids you don’t have to be as good as the Beatles.  That’s the sentiment I’ve heard Steven Van Zandt express.  

The thing about The Beatles, and it's often misconstrued as criticism and it really isn't, is that they were really good at doing a lot of different things. Being the first to try them even. But they really weren't the best in any of them, at least in terms of genre. 

The Stones may have been technically sloppy in a lot of ways, but if I want a bluesy sounding rock tune, I'm choosing them over "Yer Blues" or whatever The Beatles put out. 

The Beatles were greatest on breadth, but they never mastered anything that they did the way those came after them did.

[Hongbit]

24 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

The thing about The Beatles, and it's often misconstrued as criticism and it really isn't, is that they were really good at doing a lot of different things. Being the first to try them even. But they really weren't the best in any of them, at least in terms of genre. 

The Stones may have been technically sloppy in a lot of ways, but if I want a bluesy sounding rock tune, I'm choosing them over "Yer Blues" or whatever The Beatles put out. 

The Beatles were greatest on breadth, but they never mastered anything that they did the way those came after them did.

The Beatles had so much technical innovation in recording due to the genius of George Martin.   Both bands started with the similar influences in blues and skiffle.  Those can still be heard as the Stones main influence throughout their career.  I’m not sure they evolved that much musically.  That’s just fine since they were so good at it and became an influential live band.  The Beatles were just the opposite and had their music evolve as much as almost any band that you can think of and they were only together for less than a decade.   The combination of the public insanity and the love of playing around with new recording technologies kept them as mainly a studio band.  

[gehringer_2]

17 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

The combination of the public insanity and the love of playing around with new recording technologies kept them as mainly a studio band.  

Not completely by choice. The beatles got to where they despaired over not being able to acutally play as a live band because everyone screamed the whole time they played and the stadium shows were pretty useless for actual music anyway given the state of outdoor PA systems in the 60's.

Edited December 22, 2022 by gehringer_2

[CMRivdogs]

6 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

A total fraud that I cannot stand that everyone else seems to like is Stefani Germanotta aka Lady Gaga. I think Germanotta's an above average singer with average pop music. She is not as revolutionary or life changing force as her fans make it out to be. Nor is she some big time activist or wave making artist for change ala a Woody Guthrie, Marvin Gaye, or Loretta Lynn. More than that though, I am turned off by her phony behavior, phony activism, and outlandish behavior that copycats others around her and before her. 

Germanotta is just a 2000s Madonna wannabe if you ask me with equal or worse music. She tried to say she was some different girl in high school who just didn't fit in and was too weird for her classmates, but that's all manufactured, PR bullshit by her and her marketing team. By all accounts Germanotta was a normal, choir girl in high school. She only became weird and eccentric when she wanted to become a big popstar. Recording artists do weird and eccentric things all the time. KISS, from the conversation above, is one of those artists/bands. But Gene Simmons doesn't try to get you to believe that he really spits blood and fire everywhere he goes. Stefani wants her fans to believe that she really does hatch out of an egg or enjoys wearing a dress made of meat (which she stole from someone else I've ready). I think Lady Gaga, her marketing team, and record label execs have been counting the dollar bills and laughing at all the suckers they've conned into believing she's truly a different person and a revolutionary activist in the music industry. She is neither and is laughing at you with all the money she's made getting you to believe she is truly different.

I’m a fan of her work with Tony Bennett. The duet albums are great, not to mention the friendship the two seemed to develop 

[pfife]

You Hold me Up by The Bones of JR Jones.

This is the tune in the Amazon snow globe ad... and it's really great 

[1984Echoes]

4 hours ago, mtutiger said:

The thing about The Beatles, and it's often misconstrued as criticism and it really isn't, is that they were really good at doing a lot of different things. Being the first to try them even. But they really weren't the best in any of them, at least in terms of genre. 

The Stones may have been technically sloppy in a lot of ways, but if I want a bluesy sounding rock tune, I'm choosing them over "Yer Blues" or whatever The Beatles put out. 

The Beatles were greatest on breadth, but they never mastered anything that they did the way those came after them did.

I think the Beatles were the greatest:

Pop band. Or top 40 or whatever you wanna call it. If they tried blues or psychedelia... it was still a pop song because of... The Beatles... and I'm OK with that. They had a much broader range than just "pop"... but I think all of their music gets pulled back into that genre simply because their popularity overrode whatever genre they were actually attempting to play. I can listen to "Something", "Yesterday", "Why Don't We Do it in the Road?", "Drive My Car", "We Can Work it Out", "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away", "Eleanor Rigby", "Rocky Raccoon", "Two of Us", "Get Back", "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", "Ob-Li-Di, Ob-Li-Da", "A Day in the Life", "Tomorrow Never Knows"....

And think what great Pop songs. And I've barely scratched the surface of the Beatles. I could quadruple that list without breaking a sweat. And it doesn't matter what genre they were supposed to be trying with any of those... they all end up as just great pop songs by the Beatles.

And there's no one even close to them.

The Beatles, IMO, are the greatest "Pop band", ever.

[Hongbit]

RIP Terry Hall

[chasfh]

On 12/21/2022 at 10:16 AM, smr-nj said:

I know this is going to make me sound like an idiot, but I was never a Rolling Stones fan,….. until about 10 years ago, when I suddenly would listen to their songs, and found them - brilliant. Go figure. Talk about being late to the game. lol 

I’m late to the game to White Stripes right now. I’m listening through their catalog of albums for really the first time.

[chasfh]

21 hours ago, mtutiger said:

The thing about The Beatles, and it's often misconstrued as criticism and it really isn't, is that they were really good at doing a lot of different things. Being the first to try them even. But they really weren't the best in any of them, at least in terms of genre. 

The Stones may have been technically sloppy in a lot of ways, but if I want a bluesy sounding rock tune, I'm choosing them over "Yer Blues" or whatever The Beatles put out. 

The Beatles were greatest on breadth, but they never mastered anything that they did the way those came after them did.

What the Beatles were by far the best at was writing a huge volume of songs reflecting elite musicality with irresistible hooks. Regardless of which era you point to, they knew the exact zeitgeist to tap into with the songs they were creating. Especially Lennon and McCartney, who were great from practically day one. They were so good that a motivated George Harrison, who was at best a meh songwriter in 1964, elevated himself to become their equal by 1969 specifically because he spent those five years learning at their feet. They have several dozen songs that even 50+ years later hold up as among the greatest pop songs in history, and I’m not even including their solo work, of which there are perhaps a couple dozen more you could add to their group canon. No other individual or act comes close.