Rock bands that I will never get
Ivan "Maximus" Lendl
all on Greatest artist of rock list.
http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html
These are the bands I have issues with: I don't hate them, but I don't
why they are considered so good. I like few of their songs, but
majority of their songs are unmemorable.
1) The Beach Boys - some of their melodic songs are the best made in
rock music. But then there is so much of simplistic trash which is
instantly forgettable. And in spite of releasing one gazillion albums,
only one of them is considered a stone cold classic (Pet Sound). Even
from that album, I only like few songs. I do not find Pet Sounds
flawless by any means
2) U2 - Okay half of Joshua Tree is pretty good. Achtung Baby is
beyond boring (though it has a couple of good songs). And they had
some other great hits in the 80s. But beyond that most of their albums
are complete junk. And they have been making the same sounding music
for so fucking long.
3) The Grateful Dead - Deadly boring. Yawn inflicted jams that go
endless. I never understood what people found in this band.
4) Van Halen - simply the most overrated hard rock band out there. How
many great songs did they make? 5? 10 max... can't be more than that.
Apart from an average debut, every other album of their sucked.
5) The Allman Brothers Band - not as boring as The Grateful Dead, but
their wanking was endless. I am not sure even their best of
compilation will have more than 5 memorable songs.
6) Crosby Stills Nash and Young - Yawn with a capital Y.
7) The Eagles - How did this clowns sell this much? Totally
manufactured boring soft rock shit.
8) R.E.M - Never got this alternative rock nonsense. Amazingly dull.
9) Aerosmith - Average with a capital A. They should call themselves
Averageshit.
10) The Police - A few hummable songs. The band was skilled but what
junk they made... Do do do, da da, da... fuck you! None of their
albums are consistent. Even their best album is only 50% good.
11) Pearl Jam - Nirvana, Soundgarden and Alice in Chains were all more
genuine. These are grunge posers with a lead singer who sings as if
someone kicked him in the balls.
12) The Band - a highly skilled band but boring music
13) Jefferson Airplane - Average, mildly interesting songs.
14) Talking Heads - never got this songs. Lead singer is awful and
gives you a headache when you listen to him. I dig the bassist, she
was kinda cute and could play some good bass. But again the songs are
not at all memorable. Except may be Psycho Killer and Once In a
Lifetime. I was hearing Remain in Light the other day and couldnt get
what the fuss is all about. A total geek band for geeks.
15) Radiohead - DULLARDs with a capital D. Yeah they experimental, but
I dont give a fuck about their pseudo intellectual nonsense. Can't
stand their constant whiny mope rock shit.
16) Chicago - except few songs on debut, these guys were horrible.
Superdave
beach boys r great. the eagles are the best.
voxverus
wrote:
> Never get the fact why they are highly rated...For example they are
> all on Greatest artist of rock list.
Cut, no paste....
Pretty broad swath.
It's like the Montreal Jazz Fest that has opened its doors so wide it
is only a Jazz fest in segments.
Rock has over the years has embraced everything from easy listening
pop to hip crap hop.
So, how do you even define rock these days?
Thus ends the epistle....
Ivan "Maximus" Lendl
> beach boys r great. the eagles are the best.
This you say after hearing Eagles greatest hits. Thats what 15 songs?
Have you heard their 100 other stinky songs?
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'd like too hear ONE of your songs.
Please post.
Superdave
we judge Fed by the 15 slams he has won. not the basel or parises he
has lost.
Manco
mope-heads from Oxford.
Ivan "Maximus" Lendl
I am not a musician. That doesn't mean I cannot appreciate bands which
have consistently made great music and criticize bands which hardly
made great music.
Ivan "Maximus" Lendl
> we judge Fed by the 15 slams he has won. not the basel or parises he
> has lost.
completely wrong analogy. songs aren't prestige assigned events where
you have to perform.
Superdave
Have you seen Mel Brooks "Young Frankenstein" ?
Fun movie.
Ivan "Maximus" Lendl
> Have you seen Mel Brooks "Young Frankenstein" ?
>
> Fun movie.
great movie!
Superdave
yeah cracked me up
Jeff
wrote:
> Never get the fact why they are highly rated...For example they are
> all on Greatest artist of rock list.
Because they sold A LOT of recordings.
> http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html
>
> These are the bands I have issues with:
I couldn't care less. I have my own problems..but go ahead.
I don't hate them, but I don't
> why they are considered so good. I like few of their songs, but
> majority of their songs are unmemorable.
>
> 1) The Beach Boys - some of their melodic songs are the best made in
> rock music. But then there is so much of simplistic trash which is
> instantly forgettable.
Help me Rhonda is forgettable? Hey, I'm not much into the
Beach Boys either....but this tune plays on in my head,
whether I like it or not.
And in spite of releasing one gazillion albums,
> only one of them is considered a stone cold classic (Pet Sound). Even
> from that album, I only like few songs. I do not find Pet Sounds
> flawless by any means
I don't care for it..Blah.
> 2) U2 - Okay half of Joshua Tree is pretty good. Achtung Baby is
> beyond boring (though it has a couple of good songs). And they had
> some other great hits in the 80s. But beyond that most of their albums
> are complete junk. And they have been making the same sounding music
> for so fucking long.
Never heard them. Heard of them.
> 3) The Grateful Dead - Deadly boring. Yawn inflicted jams that go
> endless. I never understood what people found in this band.
Same here.
> 4) Van Halen - simply the most overrated hard rock band out there. How
> many great songs did they make? 5? 10 max... can't be more than that.
> Apart from an average debut, every other album of their sucked.
I like one of their songs.
> 5) The Allman Brothers Band - not as boring as The Grateful Dead, but
> their wanking was endless. I am not sure even their best of
> compilation will have more than 5 memorable songs.
Rambling man is the one I remember.
> 6) Crosby Stills Nash and Young - Yawn with a capital Y.
Ohio is good.
> 7) The Eagles - How did this clowns sell this much? Totally
> manufactured boring soft rock shit.
I like 3 of their songs. I would rather listen to Bread any day.
> 8) R.E.M - Never got this alternative rock nonsense. Amazingly dull.
Yep.
> 9) Aerosmith - Average with a capital A. They should call themselves
> Averageshit.
Toys in the Attic was just okay.
>
> 10) The Police - A few hummable songs. The band was skilled but what
> junk they made... Do do do, da da, da... fuck you! None of their
> albums are consistent. Even their best album is only 50% good.
I like one song.
> 11) Pearl Jam - Nirvana, Soundgarden and Alice in Chains were all more
> genuine. These are grunge posers with a lead singer who sings as if
> someone kicked him in the balls.
Their new album is better.
> 12) The Band - a highly skilled band but boring music
Okay if you're in the right mood.
> 13) Jefferson Airplane - Average, mildly interesting songs.
Yep.
> 14) Talking Heads - never got this songs. Lead singer is awful and
> gives you a headache when you listen to him. I dig the bassist, she
> was kinda cute and could play some good bass. But again the songs are
> not at all memorable. Except may be Psycho Killer and Once In a
> Lifetime. I was hearing Remain in Light the other day and couldnt get
> what the fuss is all about. A total geek band for geeks.
I don't remember one song.
> 15) Radiohead - DULLARDs with a capital D. Yeah they experimental, but
> I dont give a fuck about their pseudo intellectual nonsense. Can't
> stand their constant whiny mope rock shit.
I don't remember one song.
> 16) Chicago - except few songs on debut, these guys were horrible.
I like some of their songs. Thing is though, it's best to just
listen to what you like instead of compiling these lists.
Kind of a waste of time.
Ivan "Maximus" Lendl
life is a waste of time ;-) good to see you agree with me. I thought
not many would ;-)
Superdave
from my experience having sex is the best way to waste it though.
ermitano
wrote:
good for you! you don't have to spend money buying their albums.
progea
Gavin Christie
has one."
"Ivan "Maximus" Lendl" <zepf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eff56519-db62-4fca...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
Eric Ramon
wrote:
make one of your "favorite" lists and it's pretty much my list of
bands *I* don't get. Led Zep, Pink Floyd, ELP...who else do you like?
I probably hate 'em.
Eric Ramon
and add King Crimson and Black Sabbath. Two more bands I'll happily
avoid.
Wendell T. Stamps
Ivan "Maximus" Lendl
ELP, I dont care for much. But they had loads of talent. And they
could compose songs if they wanted to... for example Lucky Man. They
are highly infamous these days.
Pelle Svanslös
> Muse has never released a bad album, and they ROCK unlike those whiney
> mope-heads from Oxford.
Fuck the Muse.
JohnB
> 1) The Beach Boys -
Their Greatest Hits is all you need. Some fabulous stuff there (Good
Vibrations, Heroes And Villains, God Only Knows, etc.) but Pet Sounds
is way over-rated in my opinion. There does seem to be a critics love-
in for Brian Wilson, don't you think?
>
> 2) U2
Moments of brilliance, moments of pompous posturing. Rarely boring and
they put on a good show, but they're often just that far away from
irritating the hell out of me.
> 3) The Grateful Dead
Most of their stuff has dated badly, I think. You need to sit in a
field with a load of stoned hippies to get what they're about. I have
heard one or two of their songs done well by others though.
>
> 4) Van Halen
Passes me by completely. I couldn't name a thing.
>
> 5) The Allman Brothers Band
Most people in the UK (including me) only know Jessica and that only
because it's the theme to Top Gear on the BBC.
>
> 6) Crosby Stills Nash and Young
Being a lover of good harmonies, I find plenty to enjoy in CSN(&Y). I
probably prefer them without Young.
>
> 7) The Eagles
They found a formula that appealed to certain grown-ups and milked it.
I can take it in small doses but that's all. They're one of those
bands that I can't imagine ever had a "young" audience.
>
> 8) R.E.M
Dull? Maybe you've listenend to the wrong stuff. The End Of The World
and The One I Love are great songs and there's some other listenable
stuff, but they were a critics favourite and it seemed they could do
no wrong at one point.
>
> 9) Aerosmith
I really could never be bothered with this macho-posturing stuff. At
least that's how I remember it.
>
> 10) The Police
The Police (and Sting solo) tend to polarise opinion like few others.
You love 'em or you hate 'em. I actually quite enjoy a lot of their
stuff and Sting, although he can come over as a bit too fond of
himself, is intelligent and worth listening to.
>
> 11) Pearl Jam
If I have heard them, I didn't notice.
>
> 12) The Band
The Band reached deep into the roots of American music, Americana-rock
if you like, and maybe that's why you don't get them. They always
struck me as a band you should listen to in black and white (or maybe
sepia tint).
>
> 13) Jefferson Airplane
See what I said about the Dead above.
>
> 14) Talking Heads
To understand Talking Heads I think you have to get the character
DAvid Byrne plays. I try to imagine him as an escapee from a
psychiatric ward and then it starts to make sense! I think there are
plenty of memorable songs and they seemed to me to be punk-but-the
opposite-to-punk if that makes any sense.
>
> 15) Radiohead
Too clever for their own good. I get depressed listening to OK
Computer so I don't.
>
> 16) Chicago
I know only a couple of hits and they were a bit too "easy listening"
for me.
Other artists I don't get:
Prince
Guns'n'Roses
Lynyrd Skynyrd
Whitesnake
AC/DC
Lenny Kravitz
Iggy Pop
Hawkwind
Oasis
Cheap Trick
viper
"Ivan "Maximus" Lendl" <zepf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eff56519-db62-4fca...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
> all on Greatest artist of rock list.
>
> http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html
>
> These are the bands I have issues with: I don't hate them, but I don't
> why they are considered so good. I like few of their songs, but
> majority of their songs are unmemorable.
>
> 1) The Beach Boys - some of their melodic songs are the best made in
> rock music. But then there is so much of simplistic trash which is
> instantly forgettable. And in spite of releasing one gazillion albums,
> only one of them is considered a stone cold classic (Pet Sound). Even
> from that album, I only like few songs. I do not find Pet Sounds
> flawless by any means
>
breaking music like the Beatles. Pet Sounds ? You have to be joking...
> 2) U2 - Okay half of Joshua Tree is pretty good. Achtung Baby is
> beyond boring (though it has a couple of good songs). And they had
> some other great hits in the 80s. But beyond that most of their albums
> are complete junk. And they have been making the same sounding music
> for so fucking long.
Have to agree, as boring as batshit. The band seems to be a vehicle for
Bono's
numerous 'causes'. And WTF is the 'Edge'. Just goes to prove that the Irish
are
loopy alcoholics
.>
> 3) The Grateful Dead - Deadly boring. Yawn inflicted jams that go
> endless. I never understood what people found in this band.
The drugs never made the music any more appealing. 60's durge
>
> 4) Van Halen - simply the most overrated hard rock band out there. How
> many great songs did they make? 5? 10 max... can't be more than that.
> Apart from an average debut, every other album of their sucked.
Love this genre, could be called the poor man's Black Sabbath, Deep Purple
or Led Zep. A reminder that the 80's was possibly more fucked than the 70's.
Include Bon Jovi and that impossibly fucking nasally challenged Axl Rose
with
this lot
> 5) The Allman Brothers Band - not as boring as The Grateful Dead, but
> their wanking was endless. I am not sure even their best of
> compilation will have more than 5 memorable songs.
Rolling Stone had the temerity to nominate Duane Allman as the 2nd best
guitarist of all time. Enough said..
>
> 6) Crosby Stills Nash and Young - Yawn with a capital Y.
Good harmonies and a couple of good albums
>
> 7) The Eagles - How did this clowns sell this much? Totally
> manufactured boring soft rock shit.
Yep, country rock, what a crock of shit. You heard one song, you heard em
all.
Jethro
>
> 8) R.E.M - Never got this alternative rock nonsense. Amazingly dull.
Agreed
>
> 9) Aerosmith - Average with a capital A. They should call themselves
> Averageshit.
Invented rap didn't they ?
>
snip the rest, one could go to sleep
Viper
globular
> Never get the fact why they are highly rated...For example they are
> all on Greatest artist of rock list.
>
> http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html
>
> These are the bands I have issues with: I don't hate them, but I don't
> why they are considered so good. I like few of their songs, but
> majority of their songs are unmemorable.
>
> 1) The Beach Boys - some of their melodic songs are the best made in
> rock music. But then there is so much of simplistic trash which is
> instantly forgettable. And in spite of releasing one gazillion albums,
> only one of them is considered a stone cold classic (Pet Sound). Even
> from that album, I only like few songs. I do not find Pet Sounds
> flawless by any means
Because of when they were largely and Brian Wilson.
>
> 2) U2 - Okay half of Joshua Tree is pretty good. Achtung Baby is
> beyond boring (though it has a couple of good songs). And they had
> some other great hits in the 80s. But beyond that most of their albums
> are complete junk. And they have been making the same sounding music
> for so fucking long.
Never liked them.
>
> 3) The Grateful Dead - Deadly boring. Yawn inflicted jams that go
> endless. I never understood what people found in this band.
Don't mind some early stuff, but haven't heard a lot.
>
> 4) Van Halen - simply the most overrated hard rock band out there. How
> many great songs did they make? 5? 10 max... can't be more than that.
> Apart from an average debut, every other album of their sucked.
enough said
>
> 5) The Allman Brothers Band - not as boring as The Grateful Dead, but
> their wanking was endless. I am not sure even their best of
> compilation will have more than 5 memorable songs.
>
> 6) Crosby Stills Nash and Young - Yawn with a capital Y.
>
> 7) The Eagles - How did this clowns sell this much? Totally
> manufactured boring soft rock shit.
Don't mind them really. I don't mind some 70s groups that don't sound
like 80s heavy metal.
>
> 8) R.E.M - Never got this alternative rock nonsense. Amazingly dull.
>
Here I have issues, 'alternative rock nonsense', they date from 1982!
earlier for some people. Like them a lot on and off over the years.
> 9) Aerosmith - Average with a capital A. They should call themselves
> Averageshit.
>
> 10) The Police - A few hummable songs. The band was skilled but what
> junk they made... Do do do, da da, da... fuck you! None of their
> albums are consistent. Even their best album is only 50% good.
Hate that rhythm style.
>
> 11) Pearl Jam - Nirvana, Soundgarden and Alice in Chains were all more
> genuine. These are grunge posers with a lead singer who sings as if
> someone kicked him in the balls.
90s crap.
>
> 12) The Band - a highly skilled band but boring music
>
> 13) Jefferson Airplane - Average, mildly interesting songs.
Really like their early stuff before Grace Slick!
>
> 14) Talking Heads - never got this songs. Lead singer is awful and
> gives you a headache when you listen to him. I dig the bassist, she
> was kinda cute and could play some good bass. But again the songs are
> not at all memorable. Except may be Psycho Killer and Once In a
> Lifetime. I was hearing Remain in Light the other day and couldnt get
> what the fuss is all about. A total geek band for geeks.
Not my kind of new wave.
>
> 15) Radiohead - DULLARDs with a capital D. Yeah they experimental, but
> I dont give a fuck about their pseudo intellectual nonsense. Can't
> stand their constant whiny mope rock shit.
>
Obscure to me.
> 16) Chicago - except few songs on debut, these guys were horrible.
From an era you seem to not get at all.
Wendell T. Stamps
You're a vag luber.
Char1ie
wrote:
>> 13) Jefferson Airplane - Average, mildly interesting songs.
>
>Really like their early stuff before Grace Slick!
>>
Yeah, right.
The world didn't even know who Jefferson Airplane was until Grace came
along. They had made one LP which was only popular based on the
explosion that Grace created. Who are you? Signe Anderson's brother?
globular
I prefer the earlier songs on the compilation I have. Something about
the sound of 1966.
Twenty years ago I really liked Somebody To Love, a bit used to it now.
Though I never heard The Great Society's version either.
Jeff
"Feeling Stronger Every Day" is my favorite Chicago song. I couldn't
think of the name of it last night.
Jeff
You took the words right out of my mouth Eric.
Jeff
6sicks...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't think you actually appreciate music at all. You like shiney
hair and tight pants and smoke bombs and bullshit. If you really
'don't get' all of those bands, the problem is you, not the millions
of other people who do.
But we all knew that already.
Jeff
I like to listen to "Freebird" once in a while...the new band version.
I like some songs off "Blank and White" (is that the name of it?)
by Cheap Trick, cause I love the sound they get. "Downed"
could almost be a Beatles song.
6sicks...@gmail.com
wrote:
I am not a big fan of Eddit Van Halen, but he pretty much nailed it in
the latest issue of guitar world. (that's a magazine for people who
actually make music instead of shitting all over someone else's
work.)
I can't remember his exact words, but it goes something like this:
Music is self expression, it's not the olympics. If you like something
that's great, if you don't like it, don't listen to it and shut the
fuck up about it.
Ivan "Maximus" Lendl
wrote:
He probably hates Van Halen's music ;-)
bubba
bubba
wrote:
> On Nov 23, 6:40 pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > beach boys r great. the eagles are the best.
>
> This you say after hearing Eagles greatest hits. Thats what 15 songs?
> Have you heard their 100 other stinky songs?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
PLEASE SHUT UP
bubba
wrote:
> On Nov 23, 6:51 pm, BLACKPOOLJIMMY <Blackpoolji...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 7:48 pm, "Ivan \"Maximus\" Lendl" <zepflo...@gmail.com>
>
> > Please post.
>
> I am not a musician. That doesn't mean I cannot appreciate bands which
> have consistently made great music and criticize bands which hardly
>
> - Show quoted text -
YOU MUST BE BRAIN DEAD
bubba
wrote:
> On Nov 23, 7:34 pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Have you seen Mel Brooks "Young Frankenstein" ?
>
> > Fun movie.
>
> great movie!
YOU ARE A RETARD
bubba
wrote:
> On Nov 23, 8:17 pm, Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 6:33 pm, "Ivan \"Maximus\" Lendl" <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Never get the fact why they are highly rated...For example they are
> > > all on Greatest artist of rock list.
>
>
>
> > > These are the bands I have issues with:
>
>
>
> > > why they are considered so good. I like few of their songs, but
> > > majority of their songs are unmemorable.
>
> > > 1) The Beach Boys - some of their melodic songs are the best made in
> > > rock music. But then there is so much of simplistic trash which is
> > > instantly forgettable.
>
> > Beach Boys either....but this tune plays on in my head,
> > whether I like it or not.
>
>
> > > only one of them is considered a stone cold classic (Pet Sound). Even
> > > from that album, I only like few songs. I do not find Pet Sounds
> > > flawless by any means
>
>
> > > beyond boring (though it has a couple of good songs). And they had
> > > some other great hits in the 80s. But beyond that most of their albums
> > > are complete junk. And they have been making the same sounding music
> > > for so fucking long.
>
>
> > > endless. I never understood what people found in this band.
>
>
> > > 4) Van Halen - simply the most overrated hard rock band out there. How
> > > many great songs did they make? 5? 10 max... can't be more than that.
> > > Apart from an average debut, every other album of their sucked.
>
>
> > > their wanking was endless. I am not sure even their best of
> > > compilation will have more than 5 memorable songs.
>
>
>
>
> > > 7) The Eagles - How did this clowns sell this much? Totally
> > > manufactured boring soft rock shit.
>
>
>
>
> > > 9) Aerosmith - Average with a capital A. They should call themselves
> > > Averageshit.
>
>
> > > junk they made... Do do do, da da, da... fuck you! None of their
> > > albums are consistent. Even their best album is only 50% good.
>
>
> > > 11) Pearl Jam - Nirvana, Soundgarden and Alice in Chains were all more
> > > genuine. These are grunge posers with a lead singer who sings as if
> > > someone kicked him in the balls.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > 14) Talking Heads - never got this songs. Lead singer is awful and
> > > gives you a headache when you listen to him. I dig the bassist, she
> > > was kinda cute and could play some good bass. But again the songs are
> > > not at all memorable. Except may be Psycho Killer and Once In a
> > > Lifetime. I was hearing Remain in Light the other day and couldnt get
> > > what the fuss is all about. A total geek band for geeks.
>
>
> > > I dont give a fuck about their pseudo intellectual nonsense. Can't
> > > stand their constant whiny mope rock shit.
>
>
>
> > I like some of their songs. Thing is though, it's best to just
> > listen to what you like instead of compiling these lists.
> > Kind of a waste of time.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
YOU ARE A TOTAL RETARD
bubba
>
> - Show quoted text -
WHAT A TOTAL MORON
Howldog
Raja, why do you have this incessant need to voice your opinions in places
that asked nicely, begged, and even threatened you, to please stop voicing
your opinion. Even worse, you periodically blame everybody else for the
non-stop bickering and insulting, leave, promise to never return... and now
here you are, doing it all over again, just like the dozens of times
before.
If there was anyone who ever needed newsgroup removal therapy, its you.
Howldog
> I am not a musician.
gosh, I never would have guessed.
> That doesn't mean I cannot appreciate bands
Of course you can appreciate them. That doesnt mean your opinions are
truth, or even formed from in any sort of practical experience in the given
subject at hand. Theres nothing wrong with that either, an opinion is just
that; but when you begin to assert your opinion about music as being
somehow credible, or even worse, truth, and all you have to back it up
with, is a stack of records and books..... nope.
Theres the knowledgable, learned, experienced opinion... and then theres
yours.
Peach
>
> - Show quoted text -
Agree with you about King Crimson..... or most "prog rock." Bleh.
Peach
Peach
>
> - Show quoted text -
Chicago was actually the first show I saw as a teen....I had my
doubts, as I wasn't a big fan, but they put on an amazing concert.
Fantastic musicians, all of them..... (and they didn't play all their
"Adult Contemporary" nonsense.)
Peach
Ivan Maximus Lendl
>
> > 1) The Beach Boys -
>
> Their Greatest Hits is all you need. Some fabulous stuff there (Good
> Vibrations, Heroes And Villains, God Only Knows, etc.) but Pet Sounds
> is way over-rated in my opinion. There does seem to be a critics love-
> in for Brian Wilson, don't you think?
Same thoughts...
>
> > 2) U2
>
> Moments of brilliance, moments of pompous posturing.
Agreed but those moments were 20 years ago.
> Rarely boring and
> they put on a good show, but they're often just that far away from
> irritating the hell out of me.
>
> > 3) The Grateful Dead
>
> Most of their stuff has dated badly, I think. You need to sit in a
> field with a load of stoned hippies to get what they're about. I have
> heard one or two of their songs done well by others though.
>
>
>
> > 4) Van Halen
>
> Passes me by completely. I couldn't name a thing.
>
> > 5) The Allman Brothers Band
>
> Most people in the UK (including me) only know Jessica and that only
> because it's the theme to Top Gear on the BBC.
>
> > 6) Crosby Stills Nash and Young
>
> Being a lover of good harmonies, I find plenty to enjoy in CSN(&Y). I
> probably prefer them without Young.
>
> > 7) The Eagles
>
> They found a formula that appealed to certain grown-ups and milked it.
> I can take it in small doses but that's all. They're one of those
> bands that I can't imagine ever had a "young" audience.
Actually posers who think they like rock music )and cant take the
volume of hard rock bands) find Eagles to be rawkwing.
Well, he gives me a headache.
>I think there are
> plenty of memorable songs and they seemed to me to be punk-but-the
> opposite-to-punk if that makes any sense.
>
> > 15) Radiohead
>
> Too clever for their own good. I get depressed listening to OK
> Computer so I don't.
Exactly
>
> > 16) Chicago
>
> I know only a couple of hits and they were a bit too "easy listening"
> for me.
>
> Other artists I don't get:
>
> Prince
Not my style at all...
> Guns'n'Roses
They have some good songs on their debut. Nighttrain, Paradise City,
Sweet Child Of Mine. Then later on November Rain, Estranged and
McCartney cover Live and Let Die which was done very well. They might
be too violent for your taste.
> Lynyrd Skynyrd
Agreed, a few good songs. Way too redneck for me. Hearing "Lord" in
every song annoys the hell out of me.
> Whitesnake
I have heard their ealier blues rock in the late 70s was good. But I
havent heard it yet.
> AC/DC
Easily one of the greatest bands ever! So many great anthems... Its A
Long Way to the Top, T.N.T., Highway to Hell, Back in Black, Dirty
Deeds Done Dirt Cheap, You Shook Me All Night Long. After Back in
Black they lost it. But until then they were the best hard rock band
of the late 70s.
> Lenny Kravitz
This guy is a joke
> Iggy Pop
Dont get The Stooges either.
> Hawkwind
Space Ritual will blow you away. Lemmy and Simon King are probably the
best rhythm section ever.
> Oasis
Very annoying.
> Cheap Trick
Dont know much and I am sure wouldnt care about them.
Ivan Maximus Lendl
> Raja, why do you have this incessant need to voice your opinions in places
> that asked nicely, begged, and even threatened you, to please stop voicing
> your opinion. Even worse, you periodically blame everybody else for the
> non-stop bickering and insulting, leave, promise to never return... and now
> here you are, doing it all over again, just like the dozens of times
> before.
Stop this psuedo pychanalytical crap. Only PR is good (and funny) when
he does this.
> > 16) Chicago - except few songs on debut, these guys were horrible.- Hide quoted text -
Ivan Maximus Lendl
For once, I want to get your knowledgable, learned, and experienced
opinion. Please let us know the bands you don't get. Make sure your
opinion is very knowledgable, learned, and experienced...lol
Rodjk #613
I saw Chicago along with Earth, Wind and Fire just a few months ago.
It was a great show...
Rodjk #613
6sicks...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Trying to explain the aesthetics of *any* sort of music to you would
be like trying to explain Kant's Critique of Pure Reason to a gumball
machine.
Jeff
> On Nov 23, 7:57 pm, Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Never get the fact why they are highly rated...For example they are
> > > all on Greatest artist of rock list.
>
>
> > > These are the bands I have issues with: I don't hate them, but I don't
> > > why they are considered so good. I like few of their songs, but
> > > majority of their songs are unmemorable.
>
> > > 1) The Beach Boys - some of their melodic songs are the best made in
> > > rock music. But then there is so much of simplistic trash which is
> > > only one of them is considered a stone cold classic (Pet Sound). Even
> > > from that album, I only like few songs. I do not find Pet Sounds
> > > flawless by any means
>
> > > beyond boring (though it has a couple of good songs). And they had
> > > some other great hits in the 80s. But beyond that most of their albums
> > > are complete junk. And they have been making the same sounding music
> > > for so fucking long.
>
> > > endless. I never understood what people found in this band.
>
> > > many great songs did they make? 5? 10 max... can't be more than that.
> > > Apart from an average debut, every other album of their sucked.
>
> > > their wanking was endless. I am not sure even their best of
> > > compilation will have more than 5 memorable songs.
>
>
> > > manufactured boring soft rock shit.
>
>
> > > Averageshit.
>
> > > junk they made... Do do do, da da, da... fuck you! None of their
> > > albums are consistent. Even their best album is only 50% good.
>
> > > genuine. These are grunge posers with a lead singer who sings as if
> > > someone kicked him in the balls.
>
>
>
> > > gives you a headache when you listen to him. I dig the bassist, she
> > > was kinda cute and could play some good bass. But again the songs are
> > > not at all memorable. Except may be Psycho Killer and Once In a
> > > Lifetime. I was hearing Remain in Light the other day and couldnt get
> > > what the fuss is all about. A total geek band for geeks.
>
> > > I dont give a fuck about their pseudo intellectual nonsense. Can't
> > > stand their constant whiny mope rock shit.
>
>
> > bands *I* don't get. Led Zep, Pink Floyd, ELP...who else do you like?
> > I probably hate 'em.
>
> and add King Crimson and Black Sabbath. Two more bands I'll happily
> avoid.
I like "Sweet Leaf" by Sabbath.
Jeff
They have a lot of good music if you just pick out a couple
of songs and listen, but my problem with them is like one of
the most recent McCartney albums: All the songs sound
so much the same.
Peach
>
> > Chicago was actually the first show I saw as a teen....I had my
> > doubts, as I wasn't a big fan, but they put on an amazing concert.
> > Fantastic musicians, all of them..... (and they didn't play all their
> > "Adult Contemporary" nonsense.)
>
> > Peach
>
> They have a lot of good music if you just pick out a couple
> of songs and listen, but my problem with them is like one of
> the most recent McCartney albums: All the songs sound
>
> -
It's that signature Chicago horn section... I do know what you're
saying. I like some of the lesser known songs like "Lowdown" and
"Dialogue (Part I & Part II)" etc.....
Peach
Ivan Maximus Lendl
King Crimson was the most weirdo of the prog bands. Totally pointless
for the most part. Apart from Red and the debut album, they really
were clueless what they were up to. Another problem is that they never
had a good songwriter in the band except Lake in the first album.
ELP had better songwriters and could actually right songs one can
remember. But the problem with them was they had no restraint
whatsover. Their primary focus was showcasing skills at the expense of
songwriting.
Genesis' main issue was Peter Gabriel was retarded, plain and simple.
No one knew what the F was he upto. Dressing up as a flower? Gimme a
break. Their songs wandered endlessly courtesy Gabriel's never-ending
retarded "stories". Also they were never a rocking band... which meant
people slept through their concerts.
Now Yes, they were different. Anderson, Squire, Howe, Bruford and
Wakeman knew how to write songs. They all had solo careers and were
quite successful at that. Bruford and Wakeman provided thoughtful
parts to the bands. They were never extremely flashy even though they
had the skills to. Anderson had an amazing voice which shined (I cant
think of any other word) under Squires sparkling bass and Howe's
classical guitar.
Its kind of unfortunate Yes are clubbed with second rate asshole bands
like ELP/Genesis/King Crimson. I honestly think Rush was better than
those three even if they came later. They took the hard rock of Led
Zeppelin/Who and combined with thoughtful art rock of Yes/Pink Floyd.
Sometimes it worked sometimes it didnt. But they make some top notch
material. Others so called prog bands like Jethro Tull/Moody Blues
were very inconsistent even if they could write songs. And also one
dimensional.
Yes is clearly a league above these clowns (Genesis/ELP/King Crimson).
And in the league of rock giants like Pink Floyd if not better. I
personally think Yes made more quality albums than Floyd did.
Howldog
I was playing in rock bands before you were born. If you're into southern
rock, I'm probably in your album collection somewhere.
That being said, I like all those bands you mentioned, at least in part.
My life differs in yours because I dont define myself via rock bands that I
like or dont like.
Howldog
>
>
> King Crimson was the most weirdo of the prog bands. Totally pointless
> for the most part.
This coming from the guy who worships Van Der Graaf Generator.
WHEN are you going to stop pontificating your artsy farsty opinions as
truth?
"Pointless", hell you can describe all bands, any music, as pointless,
Oblio.
>Apart from Red and the debut album, they really
> were clueless what they were up to. Another problem is that they never
> had a good songwriter in the band except Lake in the first album.
Did you never hear the band with Adrian Bellew doing Elephant Talk and all
that stuff? I thought that was brilliant. I also enjoyed starless and bible
black and larks tongues, even tho they were strange, theres nothing wrong
with strange.
> ELP had better songwriters and could actually right songs one can
> remember.
Thats funny. I bet on these newsgroups you can find about twenty people
that can hum the melodies to even three of their songs.
>But the problem with them was they had no restraint
> whatsover.
This, coming for a guy who spews at the mouth for weeks until the
newsgroups overflow with his verbal diahhrea, and then promises to leave
and never return....
wow, that is just priceless.
> Now Yes, they were different. Anderson, Squire, Howe, Bruford and
> Wakeman knew how to write songs.
No, they were quite similar to everything you like, and object to, in any
other prog band. Long songs that few can remember, altho brilliantly
performed, prone to excess and lack of restraint...
You're a strange little man, Raja.
Howldog
> Actually posers who think they like rock music )and cant take the
> volume of hard rock bands) find Eagles to be rawkwing.
Those of us who actually play this shit in bands, and have had the pleasure
of cranking thru maybe Witchy Woman or Life in the Fast Lane, in a nice
volume of a hard rock band that would probably make you crap your pants and
curl up into a fetal position crying for yo mama, some of us with that
experience do indeed find some of the Eagles to be rawking.
My problem with you Raja, is that you're so overly critical and judgemental
all of this stuff. Meanwhile, you have ZERO experience really playing it.
Its like listening to an obnoxious armchair quarterback who never played a
down of football, go on and on about how XYZ football team sucks.
Opinions about rock music from you, are tiresome and boring. On the other
hand, as much as you hate the Eagles, I could probably talk about rock
music all day long with Joe Walsh.
Howldog
>
> Stop thi<bitch slap>
make me, punk.
Ivan "Maximus" Lendl
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:43:17 -0800 (PST), Ivan Maximus Lendl wrote:
>
> > King Crimson was the most weirdo of the prog bands. Totally pointless
> > for the most part.
>
> This coming from the guy who worships Van Der Graaf Generator.
I dont worship them. They made their share of crap. But I definitely
like them more than Genesis, ELP and KC.
>
> WHEN are you going to stop pontificating your artsy farsty opinions as
> truth?
Did I say it was the truth? How can anyone's opinion be the truth?
>
> "Pointless", hell you can describe all bands, any music, as pointless,
> Oblio.
King Crimson didnt make songs, their lyrics were crap. They did a bit
of experimental indulgent noodling. Apart from the debut, they wrote
songs once in a while, like Starless/Fallen Angel.
VDGG were different. They had a great songwriter who had a terrific
voice and wrote some of the most thoughtful and emotional lyrics of
all time.
>
> >Apart from Red and the debut album, they really
> > were clueless what they were up to. Another problem is that they never
> > had a good songwriter in the band except Lake in the first album.
>
> Did you never hear the band with Adrian Bellew doing Elephant Talk and all
> that stuff? I thought that was brilliant. I also enjoyed starless and bible
> black and larks tongues, even tho they were strange, theres nothing wrong
> with strange.
They were making crazy sounds. Its fun to listen to once in a while...
once in a while. Elephant Talk is another one of the songs you can
listen to once in while.
>
> > ELP had better songwriters and could actually right songs one can
> > remember.
>
> Thats funny. I bet on these newsgroups you can find about twenty people
> that can hum the melodies to even three of their songs.
Lucky Man, Still You Turn Me On, Take A Pebble, Are You Ready Eddy,
From The Beginning... just about anything Lake wrote is memorable. He
was a good songwriter. The problem was that cunt showman Emerson. All
his songs were showoffs with no restraint at all. Sometimes they
worked sometimes they didn't. Even In the Court Of the Crimson King
was only good, because Lake wrote most of the songs.
>
> >But the problem with them was they had no restraint
> > whatsover.
>
> This, coming for a guy who spews at the mouth for weeks until the
> newsgroups overflow with his verbal diahhrea, and then promises to leave
> and never return....
>
> wow, that is just priceless.
>
Irrelevant...
> > Now Yes, they were different. Anderson, Squire, Howe, Bruford and
> > Wakeman knew how to write songs.
>
> No, they were quite similar to everything you like, and object to, in any
> other prog band. Long songs that few can remember, altho brilliantly
> performed, prone to excess and lack of restraint...
do you realize none of the prog bands sounded like each other?
Ivan "Maximus" Lendl
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:33:08 -0800 (PST), Ivan Maximus Lendl wrote:
> > Actually posers who think they like rock music )and cant take the
> > volume of hard rock bands) find Eagles to be rawkwing.
>
> Those of us who actually play this shit in bands, and have had the pleasure
> of cranking thru maybe Witchy Woman or Life in the Fast Lane, in a nice
> volume of a hard rock band that would probably make you crap your pants and
> curl up into a fetal position crying for yo mama, some of us with that
> experience do indeed find some of the Eagles to be rawking.
>
> My problem with you Raja, is that you're so overly critical and judgemental
> all of this stuff. Meanwhile, you have ZERO experience really playing it.
> Its like listening to an obnoxious armchair quarterback who never played a
> down of football, go on and on about how XYZ football team sucks.
lol, I do play keyboards. I am not an expert. But I am learning. Do
you realize I criticize bands based on their weak points only? And I
never say that everything these bands made was junk. Some some bands
did make 99% junk... for example Van Halen.
>
> Opinions about rock music from you, are tiresome and boring. On the other
> hand, as much as you hate the Eagles, I could probably talk about rock
> music all day long with Joe Walsh.
Joe Walsh is a good guitarist. Too bad he made boring music with a
boring band. Mark Knopfler did the same. Well Dire Straits were more
enjoyable than The Eagles.
Frank from Deeeetroit
wrote:
> Never get the fact why they are highly rated...For example they are
> all on Greatest artist of rock list.
>
> http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html
>
> These are the bands I have issues with: I don't hate them, but I don't
> why they are considered so good. I like few of their songs, but
> majority of their songs are unmemorable.
>
> 1) The Beach Boys - some of their melodic songs are the best made in
> rock music. But then there is so much of simplistic trash which is
> instantly forgettable. And in spite of releasing one gazillion albums,
> only one of them is considered a stone cold classic (Pet Sound). Even
> from that album, I only like few songs. I do not find Pet Sounds
> flawless by any means
Beach Boys began being good with "Don't Worry Baby" and ended with
"Good Vibrations" in my opinion Isn't Pet Sounds about 29 minutes
long?
>
> 2) U2 - Okay half of Joshua Tree is pretty good. Achtung Baby is
> beyond boring (though it has a couple of good songs). And they had
> some other great hits in the 80s. But beyond that most of their albums
> are complete junk. And they have been making the same sounding music
> for so fucking long.
Their album they recorded with BB King and inside Sun Studios rocked.
>
> 3) The Grateful Dead - Deadly boring. Yawn inflicted jams that go
> endless. I never understood what people found in this band.
Saw them at the Palace of Auburn Hills about 15 years ago. The Dead
walked on stage, began jamming, played for about 2 1/2 - 3 hours, then
walked off of the stage as if the audience was never ni the room.
>
> 4) Van Halen - simply the most overrated hard rock band out there. How
> many great songs did they make? 5? 10 max... can't be more than that.
> Apart from an average debut, every other album of their sucked.
Eddie was a new influence on guitar players.
>
> 5) The Allman Brothers Band - not as boring as The Grateful Dead, but
> their wanking was endless. I am not sure even their best of
> compilation will have more than 5 memorable songs.
Listen to the Alman Brothers Live at Fillmore East. Not many live
albums can top this one. Duane was one of the best rock guitarists.
>
> 6) Crosby Stills Nash and Young - Yawn with a capital Y.
>
> 7) The Eagles - How did this clowns sell this much? Totally
> manufactured boring soft rock shit.
Maybe they took country rock worldwide?
>
> 8) R.E.M - Never got this alternative rock nonsense. Amazingly dull.
>
> 9) Aerosmith - Average with a capital A. They should call themselves
> Averageshit.
>
> 10) The Police - A few hummable songs. The band was skilled but what
> junk they made... Do do do, da da, da... fuck you! None of their
> albums are consistent. Even their best album is only 50% good.
>
> 11) Pearl Jam - Nirvana, Soundgarden and Alice in Chains were all more
> genuine. These are grunge posers with a lead singer who sings as if
> someone kicked him in the balls.
>
> 12) The Band - a highly skilled band but boring music
>
> 13) Jefferson Airplane - Average, mildly interesting songs.
>
> 14) Talking Heads - never got this songs. Lead singer is awful and
> gives you a headache when you listen to him. I dig the bassist, she
> was kinda cute and could play some good bass. But again the songs are
> not at all memorable. Except may be Psycho Killer and Once In a
> Lifetime. I was hearing Remain in Light the other day and couldnt get
> what the fuss is all about. A total geek band for geeks.
>
> 15) Radiohead - DULLARDs with a capital D. Yeah they experimental, but
> I dont give a fuck about their pseudo intellectual nonsense. Can't
> stand their constant whiny mope rock shit.
>
> 16) Chicago - except few songs on debut, these guys were horrible.
They took the jazz/horn section influence of Blood Sweat and Tears to
the nth degree.
RichL
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:19:20 -0800 (PST), Ivan "Maximus" Lendl wrote:
>
>
>> I am not a musician.
>
> gosh, I never would have guessed.
At one point he claimed to be a keyboard player. I guess this
constitutees a retraction of that.
RichL
> Raja, why do you have this incessant need to voice your opinions in
> places that asked nicely, begged, and even threatened you, to please
> stop voicing your opinion. Even worse, you periodically blame
> everybody else for the non-stop bickering and insulting, leave,
> promise to never return... and now here you are, doing it all over
> again, just like the dozens of times before.
>
> If there was anyone who ever needed newsgroup removal therapy, its
> you.
Raja's posting of those 16 bands shows his ignorance. Nothing else.
Some of those aren't my favorites, but I'd change the radio station if
only one's songs came on. Chicago. And that's just my personal tastes.
I can find something to like in all the rest, and the only ones I don't
have albums of are Aerosmith, The Band, and Chicago. But that's just
me.
The Arranger
>
> Raja's posting of those 16 bands shows his ignorance. Nothing else.
>
> Some of those aren't my favorites, but I'd change the radio station if
> only one's songs came on. Chicago. And that's just my personal tastes.
> I can find something to like in all the rest, and the only ones I don't
> have albums of are Aerosmith, The Band, and Chicago. But that's just
> me.
I like Terry Kath's playing...I thought most guiitar players found him
the redeeming feature in Chicago.
The Arranger
bubba
>
> - Show quoted text -
YOU ARE IN A LEAGUE ABOVE ALL THE OTHER RETARDS ON USENET
bubba
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
STILL SUCKING DICK?
The Nice Mean Man
You left out Ted Nugent. One can only bang their head against the
floor for so long, you know....
Ivan "Maximus" Lendl
Does anyone consider Ted Nugent great? redneck, yes, great no.
RichL
Actually from the point of technical proficiency on their instruments, I
can't fault Chicago. I just don't really like their style of music that
much.
who?
I would much rather hear the Carpenters and Bread. I didn't like
either
band that much back then...but it sounds good now.
bubba
>
> - Show quoted text -
YOU SWALLOW CUM
who?
I'm not familiar with those songs to comment. How many albums
have they made? About 50? I like that song: "Come hold me
close never release me" lyrics. I like some of their songs.
Reminds me of my childhood.
Jeff
who?
Maybe, but they also copied the Beatles somewhat. I just could never
really get into them. Is there any songs I might like that aren't too
long? I admit I don't know that much about them, and maybe my
tastes have changed.
JohnB
> On Nov 24, 10:29 am, Peach <strawbe...@lpbroadband.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Agree with you about King Crimson..... or most "prog rock." Bleh.
>
> King Crimson was the most weirdo of the prog bands. Totally pointless
> for the most part. Apart from Red and the debut album, they really
> were clueless what they were up to. Another problem is that they never
> had a good songwriter in the band except Lake in the first album.
>
> ELP had better songwriters and could actually right songs one can
> remember. But the problem with them was they had no restraint
> whatsover. Their primary focus was showcasing skills at the expense of
> songwriting.
Both these bands were at their peak (in terms of popular acclaim)
during the early 70s and I was aware of both but could hardly remember
anything by them until I invested in "best of" compilations over the
last year or two. On the strength of these, I'd say King Crimson were
the better in terms of ideas and song-writing (though I would say
they're more of an "ideas" band than a "songs" band). I find that the
ELP tracks I remember best were reworkings of classical tracks
(Fanfare For The Common Man, Hoedown).
>
> Genesis' main issue was Peter Gabriel was retarded, plain and simple.
> No one knew what the F was he upto. Dressing up as a flower? Gimme a
> break. Their songs wandered endlessly courtesy Gabriel's never-ending
> retarded "stories". Also they were never a rocking band... which meant
> people slept through their concerts.
>
I take it you've never seen Genesis live? No, of course you haven't.
Gabriel is a very intelligent man and has written many memorable
songs. The weird stage outfits were meant to add theatrical effect to
the stage show and were, I suppose, misguided, but at least he was
trying something. The story songs were, to many, Genesis' strength,
but I confess (as someone who pays attention to lyrics) they didn't
always hold the attention. However, musically from Selling England
through to Abacab, they were a tremendous band with plenty of
imagination and very strong song-writing. Selling England and Trick Of
The Tail are two of my favourite prog albums. - And they could rock:
Dancing Out With The Moonlit Knight, Turn It On Again, Mama. Sorry,
Raja, your bias is showing again.
> Now Yes, they were different. Anderson, Squire, Howe, Bruford and
> Wakeman knew how to write songs. They all had solo careers and were
> quite successful at that. Bruford and Wakeman provided thoughtful
> parts to the bands. They were never extremely flashy even though they
> had the skills to. Anderson had an amazing voice which shined (I cant
> think of any other word) under Squires sparkling bass and Howe's
> classical guitar.
>
I don't think of Yes as a "songs" band apart from a few exceptions.
Mostly they constructed rambling pieces full of "clever" instrumental
work with Jon Anderson's frequently inane lyrics just a small part of
the whole - and as for Anderson's voice, well, I've always found him
strained and lacking any real depth. Still, there's much to like, just
(as I've said before) I could pick a dozen (maybe less) Yes tracks and
they would contain all I'd ever want to hear.
> Its kind of unfortunate Yes are clubbed with second rate asshole bands
> like ELP/Genesis/King Crimson. I honestly think Rush was better than
> those three even if they came later. They took the hard rock of Led
> Zeppelin/Who and combined with thoughtful art rock of Yes/Pink Floyd.
> Sometimes it worked sometimes it didnt. But they make some top notch
> material. Others so called prog bands like Jethro Tull/Moody Blues
> were very inconsistent even if they could write songs. And also one
> dimensional.
Now I know you say it's only opinion but when you come out with
sentences like the one that starts that paragraph, you don't do
yourself any favours. Second rate? I hardly think so. I think all
three you mention would find more supporters than Rush (though it may
be a close call except for Genesis). Rush's vocals make the band
unlistenable for me.
Now I must take you to task for what you say about Jethro Tull.
Firstly, they started as a blues band and then developed to take in
musical influences from folk and world music as well as rock, and most
would say "prog" is not the right label for them, but to call them
"one dimensional"? Now that is silly. You compare the blues of Benefit
with the rock that appears on Aqualung, with the folk-influences of
Songs From The Wood, with the electronic sounds of Under Wraps, not to
mention the sprawling monsters of Thick As A Brick or Passion Play;
you really do need to be more careful with your sweeping
generalisations or you'll look even more of a fool than you already
do.
>
> Yes is clearly a league above these clowns (Genesis/ELP/King Crimson).
> And in the league of rock giants like Pink Floyd if not better. I
> personally think Yes made more quality albums than Floyd did.
In your opinion, yes...
I, of course, beg to differ...
6sicks...@gmail.com
Actually, if you stick to the first four albums there's quite a lot to
enjoy about their music. It was (initially) a lot more experimental
than the 'hits' would suggest.
The record company scumweasels pressured them into going 'pop' and
more or less ruined them, for me anyway.
Terry Kath was brilliant, but for the playing with guns thing.
Howldog
> King Crimson didnt make songs, their lyrics were crap.
WHY do you have to be so harshly critical? What gives you the authority to
pronounce such severe judgement on all this stuff? Is it egomania?
> VDGG were different. They had a great songwriter who had a terrific
> voice and wrote some of the most thoughtful and emotional lyrics of
> all time.
Thats your opinion, and I think you're a musically illiterate and
close-minded fool. Thats my opinion.
>
> They were making crazy sounds. Its fun to listen to once in a while...
> once in a while. Elephant Talk is another one of the songs you can
> listen to once in while.
I thought that record was amazing and listen to it a lot.
> The problem was that cunt showman Emerson. All
> his songs were showoffs with no restraint at all.
wow. so now you've descended past conceited pontificating and now you're
using sexist insults towards the guys you dont even know... the superstars
with the actual talent, you hate them for some reason.
You need help, Raja.
Howldog
> I find that the
> ELP tracks I remember best were reworkings of classical tracks
> (Fanfare For The Common Man, Hoedown).
Somewhere on the internet there is, or was, a page where a guy documented
what he said were almost 400 "obvious" rip offs of classic music themes and
arpeggios, by ELP.
Howldog
> Do
> you realize I criticize bands based on their weak points only?
I think their weakest point is beyond anything you'll ever comprehend. You
arent even worthy of licking the balls of any of this stuff.
Do you have any other interests bsides coming onto these newsgroups and
irritating the regulars with your continual spew of harsh subjective
judgements?
>And I
> never say that everything these bands made was junk. Some some bands
> did make 99% junk... for example Van Halen.
I'd have given my right arm to make "junk" that good. Ask just about any
working rock guitar player. Eddie Van Halen more or less single-handedly
changed the way a LOT of guitarists thought about guitar. His playing to
me, is worth the price of the album alone. Its incredible that you go on
and on about the musical abilities of Yes, and then slag VanHalen.
You're a hypocrite, Raja.
>
> Joe Walsh is a good guitarist. Too bad he made boring music with a
> boring band.
Its actually not too bad. In fact, its good that he, and they, made a lot
of music that a lot of people liked. The only bad thing, is that you have
some sort of insane standard of judgement that you arbitrarily assign to
music that you know nothing about.
Howldog
Is there a proper term for a netkook who continues the same pattern of
irritating behavior, over and over, promises to leave, and yet always
returns?
I'm surprised Raja has not won a Kook award, by now.
As far as these bands go, I can appreciate how difficult it is to do any of
this shit, theres so many differentways to screw it all up, and a good
effort by anybody, is a good effort. Even if its a song I dont like. If the
people can play, its worth a listen.
Howldog
>
> Does anyone consider Ted Nugent great? redneck, yes, great no.
I think Teds a great guitar player. Sure, he's a redneck. That doesnt mean
he cant play.
Nil
rec.music.beatles:
> Is there a proper term for a netkook who continues the same
> pattern of irritating behavior, over and over, promises to leave,
> and yet always returns?
"Masturbating Monkey".
6sicks...@gmail.com
> On 25 Nov 2009, Howldog <howl...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> rec.music.beatles:
>
> > Is there a proper term for a netkook who continues the same
> > pattern of irritating behavior, over and over, promises to leave,
> > and yet always returns?
>
> "Masturbating Monkey".
True, But I think it's much easier to see what the monkey gets out of
it.
Ivan Maximus Lendl
I consider Emerson top 10 keyboardist of all time. I don't hate him.
But he was still a cunt.
Ivan Maximus Lendl
But that doesn't mean he is not a redneck ;-)
Ivan Maximus Lendl
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:58:45 -0800 (PST), Ivan "Maximus" Lendl wrote:
> > Do
> > you realize I criticize bands based on their weak points only?
>
> I think their weakest point is beyond anything you'll ever comprehend. You
> arent even worthy of licking the balls of any of this stuff.
>
> Do you have any other interests bsides coming onto these newsgroups and
> irritating the regulars with your continual spew of harsh subjective
> judgements?
Lets put it this way. If you thought I am purely trolling here and my
judgement was not sincere, you wouldn't even bother respond to me. But
you don't. That pretty much shows that you respect my opinion but you
disagree with it. I am okay with that.
>
> >And I
> > never say that everything these bands made was junk. Some some bands
> > did make 99% junk... for example Van Halen.
>
> I'd have given my right arm to make "junk" that good. Ask just about any
> working rock guitar player. Eddie Van Halen more or less single-handedly
> changed the way a LOT of guitarists thought about guitar.
Too bad he couldnt write a song. Same with Steve Vai, Joe Satriani,
Dream Theater etc. Very talented but can't write a song, if their
lives depended on it.
> His playing to
> me, is worth the price of the album alone.
Not for me. I am not into the whole virtuoso thing, if the artist can
write a song.
>Its incredible that you go on
> and on about the musical abilities of Yes, and then slag VanHalen.
Yes had talented songwriters along with the instrumental skills. Van
Halen had a flashy guitarist and an ass shaking spandex wearing lead
singer who couldn't write songs.
RichL
No need to come up with a new term. A "Raja" pretty much covers it all.
Ivan Maximus Lendl
> Nil <redno...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> > On 25 Nov 2009, Howldog <howl...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > rec.music.beatles:
>
> >> Is there a proper term for a netkook who continues the same
> >> pattern of irritating behavior, over and over, promises to leave,
> >> and yet always returns?
>
> > "Masturbating Monkey".
>
> No need to come up with a new term. A "Raja" pretty much covers it all.
Raja The Great is a good pick.
bubba
RAJA THE FAG PERIOD
bubba
>
> - Show quoted text -
BULLSHIT LIAR
bubba
a fag calling names?
bubba
>
> - Show quoted text -
liar
number_six
And very successfully so! One of the very best is the blending of
Janacek and Bach in Knife Edge.
Stravinsky, supposedly, once remarked that a good composer borrows,
but a great composer steals.
The Nice Mean Man
>
> - Show quoted text -
True. I didn't read your entire post. I only read your first sentance.
So fucking bugger me. Or die trying....
So WHY don't you dig the Dead and the ABB's long extended jams? You
put up with Jimmy Page's mind-grating bow playing for 25 minutes
during most any live performance of Whole Lotta Love? And then there's
Yes. They take 20 minutes to express what The Brothers could express
in two. I love Yes. Don't get me wrong. But they're just as long-
winded as these others, especially in concert.
The Nice Mean Man
keifspoon
voice for so long.
Ivan "Maximus" Lendl
Just shows how much you know about Zep. He did violin bow on guitar on
Dazed and Confused and How Many More times. Whole Lotta Love had
theremin riffs.
> And then there's
> Yes. They take 20 minutes to express what The Brothers could express
> in two. I love Yes. Don't get me wrong. But they're just as long-
> winded as these others, especially in concert.
Dead were a one note band. Yes and Zep were talented and could compose
and improvise in their jams. ADD sufferers won't get them.
>
> The Nice Mean Man
who?
> I never got Yes or Pink Floyd. And I only can take Robert Plant's
> voice for so long.
I feel the same way you do. You're not alone. What
about Sgt Pepper? I never got that.
Jeff
bubba
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
SHUT UP GAY LITTLE INDIAN MONKEY BOY
Manitou
> Ok, I'll play the game (I must be bored).
>
> > 1) The Beach Boys -
>
> Vibrations, Heroes And Villains, God Only Knows, etc.) but Pet Sounds
> is way over-rated in my opinion. There does seem to be a critics love-
> in for Brian Wilson, don't you think?
>
> > 2) U2
>
> Moments of brilliance, moments of pompous posturing. Rarely boring and
> they put on a good show, but they're often just that far away from
> irritating the hell out of me.
>
> > 3) The Grateful Dead
>
> Most of their stuff has dated badly, I think. You need to sit in a
> field with a load of stoned hippies to get what they're about. I have
> heard one or two of their songs done well by others though.
>
>
>
> > 4) Van Halen
>
> Passes me by completely. I couldn't name a thing.
>
> > 5) The Allman Brothers Band
>
> because it's the theme to Top Gear on the BBC.
>
> > 6) Crosby Stills Nash and Young
>
> probably prefer them without Young.
>
> > 7) The Eagles
>
> They found a formula that appealed to certain grown-ups and milked it.
> I can take it in small doses but that's all. They're one of those
> bands that I can't imagine ever had a "young" audience.
>
>
>
> > 8) R.E.M
>
> Dull? Maybe you've listenend to the wrong stuff. The End Of The World
> and The One I Love are great songs and there's some other listenable
> stuff, but they were a critics favourite and it seemed they could do
> no wrong at one point.
>
> > 9) Aerosmith
>
> I really could never be bothered with this macho-posturing stuff. At
> least that's how I remember it.
>
> > 10) The Police
>
> The Police (and Sting solo) tend to polarise opinion like few others.
> You love 'em or you hate 'em. I actually quite enjoy a lot of their
> stuff and Sting, although he can come over as a bit too fond of
> himself, is intelligent and worth listening to.
>
> > 11) Pearl Jam
>
> If I have heard them, I didn't notice.
>
> > 12) The Band
>
> The Band reached deep into the roots of American music, Americana-rock
> if you like, and maybe that's why you don't get them. They always
> struck me as a band you should listen to in black and white (or maybe
> sepia tint).
>
> > 13) Jefferson Airplane
>
> See what I said about the Dead above.
>
> > 14) Talking Heads
>
> To understand Talking Heads I think you have to get the character
> DAvid Byrne plays. I try to imagine him as an escapee from a
> psychiatric ward and then it starts to make sense! I think there are
> plenty of memorable songs and they seemed to me to be punk-but-the
> opposite-to-punk if that makes any sense.
>
> > 15) Radiohead
>
> Too clever for their own good. I get depressed listening to OK
> Computer so I don't.
>
> > 16) Chicago
>
> I know only a couple of hits and they were a bit too "easy listening"
> for me.
>
> Other artists I don't get:
>
> Prince
> Guns'n'Roses
> Lynyrd Skynyrd
> Whitesnake
> AC/DC
> Lenny Kravitz
> Iggy Pop
> Hawkwind
> Oasis
> Cheap Trick
I don't agree with the Original Ivan/Raja list. most of the acts in
the original post have been around for years if not decades and have a
body of work that has genetrated a great deal of really good music
over the years. Some misses along the way? - you bet. So has Yes,
Floyd, The Who etc. You can't put out that much music and expect
everything to be brilliant.
This second list however I tend to agree with. these were all bands of
very questionable talent from the start and never did anything to rise
above the below mediocre stage. Prince has some chops on the guitar
but I would never buy a disk of his.
RichL
It's a matter of perspective, I think.
I'd find it hard to agree about your comment of "very questionable
talent" in these acts. In fact, I can't agree that any of them are
untalented. Some of them aren't my thing, but that's different from an
objective assessment. In fact, I find something to like about seven of
the ten. But that's just me.
richforman
> On Nov 24, 10:15 am, Howldog <howl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:19:20 -0800 (PST), Ivan "Maximus" Lendl wrote:
> > > I am not a musician.
>
> > gosh, I never would have guessed.
>
> > > That doesn't mean I cannot appreciate bands
>
> > Of course you can appreciate them. That doesnt mean your opinions are
> > truth, or even formed from in any sort of practical experience in the given
> > subject at hand. Theres nothing wrong with that either, an opinion is just
> > that; but when you begin to assert your opinion about music as being
> > somehow credible, or even worse, truth, and all you have to back it up
> > with, is a stack of records and books..... nope.
>
> > Theres the knowledgable, learned, experienced opinion... and then theres
> > yours.
>
> For once, I want to get your knowledgable, learned, and experienced
> opinion. Please let us know the bands you don't get. Make sure your
> opinion is very knowledgable, learned, and experienced...lol-
There are plenty of bands and artists that lots of people love but I
don't. Unlike you though I am smart and self-aware enough to know
that nobody particularly cares or wants to see a list of them. It is
not their job to convince me that the bands in question are better
than I think they are, nor mine to tell them they're wrong to like
them. Personally I find it unfathomable how some people can't
appreciate the musical magic of the Beach Boys, but lots of people
don't love them, I and lots of others do. Who cares Raja? No one,
especially when it comes to you.
richforman