Your unpopular music opinions

[Šñøü†ê®]

It is almost amusing to read retards discussing Zeppelin, Hendrix and ... Dylan.

My appreciation of Rush would be greater if they had gotten rid of Geddy Lee at some point.

Geddy Lee is probably the most talented "Jewish" musician in history. Why the hate?

[Freedom&Liberty]

Dylan still blows.

[Šñøü†ê®]

Dylan is probably the most overrated "performer" in history. The average folks at the local open mics can sing and play better than Dylan. And with the exception of Tangled Up In Blues and maybe a few others, Dylan's lyrics never made any sense anyway. And he is definitely not a composer.

[BooRadley]

I like Bo Diddly better than either Elvis or Chuck Berry.
I think John Lee Hooker was way better than Muddy Waters.
I can't stand the extreme majority of Dylan.
I love the Ramones.
Elvis was a whore.
Black Sabbath's first decade was one of the best things that ever happened.
The Stones were better than the Beatles. (Maybe not on technicals, but who cares how technical you are if you're playing yellow submarine?)
Bonnie Raitt could really jam if she weren't so focused on selling albums instead of making music.
Miles Davis' Bitches Brew was the best thing that ever happened in the United States.
David Bowie is a genius.
The Clash was better before Combat Rock.
Goth dress was okay on Siouxsie Sioux, but it should have stopped there. Seriously, focus on the music, not on how freaky you look.

[GanjaFreebird]

Geddy Lee is probably the most talented "Jewish" musician in history.

He's talented, but really....

[GanjaFreebird]

Dylan is probably the most overrated "performer" in history.

No, that's Duran Duran and Kings of Leon.

The average folks at the local open mics can sing and play better than Dylan.

1. BS
2. Then why haven't you formed a band with some of "those people" then?

And with the exception of Tangled Up In Blues and maybe a few others, Dylan's lyrics never made any sense anyway.

That's because you aren't very intelligent so they seem too complicated to you.

And he is definitely not a composer.

He's more of a composer than anybody in Black Sabbath (no offense to them, I still love them), and the musical compositions to "Lay Lady Lay", "Forever Young", "It Ain't Me Babe", "You Go Your Way and I Go Mine" or "Just Like a Woman" are absolutely BRILLIANT, and of course so are catchy songs like "Blowin' in the Wind" and "Like a Rolling Stone". There's a reason why people cover his songs ALL THE TIME.

[Alberto_Balsalm]

Geddy Lee is probably the most talented "Jewish" musician in history. Why the hate?

Allow me to amend my original statement to:

My appreciation of Rush would be greater if Geddy Lee were stripped of singing duties at some point.

That about sums up my issues with him. Not sure what his religion has to do with anything.

[Archaix]

I once heard that "The Times They Are a Changin" was made too late to be authentically part of the Civil Rights movement, but both that and A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall are political masterpieces. They're like the death-knells of conservatism turned into song from my point of view.

Dylan's awesome.

[GanjaFreebird]

I like Bo Diddly better than either Elvis or Chuck Berry.

I love all three of them of course and they all are too important to Rock'n'Roll in too many different ways to be really compared, in my opinion. Of course nobody rocks as hard as Bo Diddley, but there wouldn't be Rock'n'Roll as we know it without Chuck's guitar playing or Elvis' singing either.

I think John Lee Hooker was way better than Muddy Waters.

Very interesting. I love them both, but I'm a bigger fan of Muddy and especially Howlin' Wolf. What do you personally like about John Lee better? I mean, obviously he was one of the best in Blues and he's every bit as influential as Muddy or anybody else...his son John Lee Hooker Jr. is also a great Blues artist.

I can't stand the extreme majority of Dylan.

Obviously I have to disagree on that one.

I love the Ramones.

So do I.

Elvis was a whore.

Sure, but so is everybody else pretty much in the music business, who cares as long as they do the job, and Elvis SURE does!

Black Sabbath's first decade was one of the best things that ever happened.

Their first 3-4 years were great indeed (first two albums especially).

The Stones were better than the Beatles. (Maybe not on technicals, but who cares how technical you are if you're playing yellow submarine?)

I disagree obviously (and yes, I even like "Yellow Submarine"), but at least you're honest about the technicals.

Bonnie Raitt could really jam if she weren't so focused on selling albums instead of making music

Just like with Elvis, yes, but who cares, we all need to make our money, and as a professional musician obviously she cares about selling albums, so I can't blame her, but even her popular stuff is pretty good, although I agree with you about her Blues recordings.

Miles Davis' Bitches Brew was the best thing that ever happened in the United States.

Great music and very innovative, but don't know about all that.

David Bowie is a genius.

Yes he is!

The Clash was better before Combat Rock.
Goth dress was okay on Siouxsie Sioux, but it should have stopped there. Seriously, focus on the music, not on how freaky you look.

Agreed.

[GanjaFreebird]

Allow me to amend my original statement to:

My appreciation of Rush would be greater if Geddy Lee were stripped of singing duties at some point.

That about sums up my issues with him. Not sure what his religion has to do with anything.

THANK YOU!!

[GanjaFreebird]

I once heard that "The Times They Are a Changin" was made too late to be authentically part of the Civil Rights movement, but both that and A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall are political masterpieces. They're like the death-knells of conservatism turned into song from my point of view.

Dylan's awesome.

[BooRadley]

Very interesting. I love them both, but I'm a bigger fan of Muddy and especially Howlin' Wolf. What do you personally like about John Lee better? I mean, obviously he was one of the best in Blues and he's every bit as influential as Muddy or anybody else...his son John Lee Hooker Jr. is also a great Blues artist.

Muddy was probably more influential. EVERYONE throws a muddy riff into their music from time to time. I just don't like his sound as much. I guess I would say it's too polished and polite, too much a showman and too little an artist -- while Hooker was raw and true. It's more about what speaks to me than anything on a technical level. I hear Hooker. That's not to say that Waters didn't have some great tunes, he certainly did -- I mean, you've got to be pretty good to get compared to Hooker at all, from my point of view, but everyone loves Muddy as if he were the beginning and end of electric blues. I like John Lee a hell of a lot more. His style is more appealing, it's something I can connect to. Less flash, more raw emotion. It's much, much more engaging music. More creative, less predictable, and generally more expressive.

Kind of the same thing with the Beatles and the Stones. Think Maxwell's Silver Hammer. Now thing Sympathy. Think Elanore Rigsby. Now think Jumpin' Jack Flash. Two totally different things, and I would quickly dismiss the former as trivial compared to the latter (not in terms of historical significance and influence, but in terms of meaningful expression). The Beatles later work was much better, but at that point they were following the lead of bands like the Rolling Stones.

Kind of the same goes for Elvis. His early work like Jailhouse and Blue Suede Shoes were awesome, but his later stuff left much to be desired. "Love me tender"? WTF?

And I think Bo Diddley was one of the most creative and innovative musicians in rock history. That doesn't mean Berry's guitar wasn't exceptionally influential, just that I don't care for his music as much, except from a historical perspective.

Any time you mention Miles Davis, someone quickly says, "Cole Porter was a better composer." I don't care, I'd still rather listen to Davis.

Edit: Through out this, I should have said, "I like x better than y," instead of "x is better than y." Take it that way and it could bridge the gap a bit.

[lily]

Mine would be too unpopular to even bring up here.

[GanjaFreebird]

Muddy was probably more influential. EVERYONE throws a muddy riff into their music from time to time. I just don't like his sound as much. I guess I would say it's too polished and polite, too much a showman and too little an artist -- while Hooker was raw and true. It's more about what speaks to me than anything on a technical level. I hear Hooker. That's not to say that Waters didn't have some great tunes, he certainly did -- I mean, you've got to be pretty good to get compared to Hooker at all, from my point of view, but everyone loves Muddy as if he were the beginning and end of electric blues. I like John Lee a hell of a lot more. His style is more appealing, it's something I can connect to. Less flash, more raw emotion. It's much, much more engaging music. More creative, less predictable, and generally more expressive.

Good points.

Kind of the same thing with the Beatles and the Stones. Think Maxwell's Silver Hammer. Now thing Sympathy. Think Elanore Rigsby. Now think Jumpin' Jack Flash. Two totally different things, and I would quickly dismiss the former as trivial compared to the latter (not in terms of historical significance and influence, but in terms of meaningful expression). The Beatles later work was much better, but at that point they were following the lead of bands like the Rolling Stones.

They weren't following the lead of the Rolling Stones and other bands, the Stones and other bands were ALWAYS following their lead from 1962 till 1970.

For example, The Beatles were using a sitar and 12-string guitars before the Rolling Stones or The Byrds, in fact, those bands got it from The Beatles, and the same goes to pioneering psychedelic Rock. Don't get me wrong, the Stones are my favorite band that still exists by far and you can definitely say that they are better than The Beatles as live entertainters, had a more raw bluesy sound and have released more music (obviously), but in no way, they were more innovative than The Beatles, in fact they've been copying them since the beginning and they didn't start getting creative until a few months after The Beatles started getting creative. And the Stones were not the virtuoso musicians that The Beatles were, maybe except Brian Jones, especially not then.

Kind of the same goes for Elvis. His early work like Jailhouse and Blue Suede Shoes were awesome, but his later stuff left much to be desired. "Love me tender"? WTF?

"Love Me Tender" was recorded exactly at the same time as the other two songs you've mentioned, around 1957. And it's a great recording too.

And I think Bo Diddley was one of the most creative and innovative musicians in rock history.

I agree 100%.

That doesn't mean Berry's guitar wasn't exceptionally influential, just that I don't care for his music as much, except from a historical perspective.

As far as I'm concerned, Chuck Berry is the REAL King of Rock'n'Roll (Bo Diddley, Bill Haley, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis and Fats Domino come very close though), while Elvis is the King of Music all-around, as Rock'n'Roll was far from all he ever did!

Any time you mention Miles Davis, someone quickly says, "Cole Porter was a better composer." I don't care, I'd still rather listen to Davis.

Me too.

[optimus]

Led Zeppelin was better than The Beatles.
Jaco Pastorius was good, but boring.
Actually most jazz in general sucks bawlz.
Guitar solos are mostly unimpressive. Bass solos are more impressive.
Jimmy Chamberlain is one of the best drummers in history. (Smashing Pumpkins)
It takes more talent and skill to make quality electronic music than it does rock music. (I speak from experience from both)

[BooRadley]

They weren't following the lead of the Rolling Stones and other bands, the Stones and other bands were ALWAYS following their lead from 1962 till 1970.

they didn't start getting creative until a few months after The Beatles started getting creative.

Really? I don't mean about what the stage setup was, what instruments they played, etc, I mean moving away from the Suit & Tie & shiny shoes smile sing silly happy songs thing like Hard Days Night to edgier, more awesome stuff like Helter Skelter. I thought the Stones kind of led that move into weightier music. (Well, weightier by my personal standards). Do you know what I'm talking about? Their early stuff was like highly polished early rock -- all silly meaningless crap. The Stones were doing more socially applicable and confrontational music. I thought the Beatles followed. That's not the case?

"Love Me Tender" was recorded exactly at the same time as the other two songs you've mentioned, around 1957. And it's a great recording too.

I'll be damned, you're right. I thought he recorded those two early (in 54?) with Sun records and switched to the ghey ballads later in his career. Guess not. Well, anyway, his more upbeat rockabilly stuff I liked. The ballads were abominable, though.

[GanjaFreebird]

Really? I don't mean about what the stage setup was, what instruments they played, etc, I mean moving away from the Suit & Tie & shiny shoes smile sing silly happy songs thing like Hard Days Night to edgier, more awesome stuff like Helter Skelter. I thought the Stones kind of led that move into weightier music. (Well, weightier by my personal standards). Do you know what I'm talking about? Their early stuff was like highly polished early rock -- all silly meaningless crap. The Stones were doing more socially applicable and confrontational music. I thought the Beatles followed. That's not the case?

No, that's not the case. The Beatles were doing all of that "confrontational stuff" and more even in the early 1960s in clubs in Germany and England, read about their early history. They did clean their act in order to get famous, but then again, the Stones were fairly innocent themselves, unlike The Animals or The Who, until the late 1960s (after The Beatles started doing drugs and recording psychedelic and heavy music). "Helter Skelter" was heavier than ANYTHING The Rolling Stones or anybody else ever recorded before then. In fact, the Stones don't usually play anything that heavy anyways.

I mean, if you pay attention to concert videos and dates, you will not see Mick Jagger even move too much on stage until like 1968 or the 1970s...it was after The Beatles broke up that the Stones really started being "bad", with Mick Jagger becoming the best frontman in Rock'n'Roll, and Keith Richards and Ron Wood smoking cigarettes on stage and being all "wild". And of course The Beatles were doing drugs way before the Stones.

[BooRadley]

I just don't like his sound as much. I guess I would say it's too polished and polite, too much a showman and too little an artist -- while Hooker was raw and true. It's more about what speaks to me than anything on a technical level. I hear Hooker.

Hell yeah!

[Jim Colyer]

I think ABBA is the greatest music group. Worldwide they were a phenomenon.