^ Ditto -- beat me to it.
Also, I would add Dave Matthews Band... *yerch*
Cheers,
-CM-
Also, I would add Dave Matthews Band... *yerch*
Cheers,
-CM-
Bands you don't get.
- Thread starter Owain Taggart
- Start date
Oooooohhh! Good catch!
I will concede that Neil Peart is an awesome drummer. But I cannot even begin to describe how utterly annoying that lead singer is. I just really, REALLY cannot stand him. It's like nails on a chalkboard to me.
Which is a shame...because I would actually love to hear more of Neil's work on the kit.
My first concert I ever went to had the final band of a day long event being the Dave Matthews Band and it was completely awesome. I don't think they sound great on radio or just in album form, but live, they are absolutely incredible, especially the trumpet and the Violin guys.
In Rainbows is actually a pretty straightforward pop rock album.
Pink Floyd.
Yeah, but, to be fair, I viewed In Rainbows as a return to form, which says something about Amnesiac and Hail to the Thief. Although I think there are good qualities about each Radiohead album.
I liked Neon Bible more than The Suburbs. If you don't like Intervention, than they're just not the band for you.
Agreed on both counts. It was "Intervention" that got me in to them, actually.
I don't get the Rolling Stones. I've heard a lot of their music, some of it constantly (which happens when your brother is in a Stones cover band), but still cannot comprehend their popularity. They don't play well, and I don't find any of the songwriting to be any good.
There are other old bands I hate, but at least I can appreciate why people like them and respect their influence on music. But with The Rolling Stones, I'm just baffled.
There are other old bands I hate, but at least I can appreciate why people like them and respect their influence on music. But with The Rolling Stones, I'm just baffled.
Dave Matthews Band fans completely turned me off to the music. I know that's a horrible reason, but after dealing with a bunch of frat boys who used shows as an excuse to get drunk and girls who just wanted to see "Dave" because it was the thing to do or sleep with said frat boys and a lot of hardcore fans who are pretentiously mean to new fans, I realized I didn't want to be associated with that.
I do still like some of their music, but a combo of the fans and a burn out on their music over the course of summer '09, I'm not too hot on it. They are extremely talented and in my college band, we play some covers by them and I get a kick out of playing their songs.
Queen.
Same here (although I'd go with "dislike" rather than "hate", but that's just me). Try as I might, though, I simply do not get what's supposed to be the big deal about Queen ("Bohemian Rhapsody" aside). To each their own, I suppose.
Damn straight. Writing one line of music then repeating it over and over into a verse and then putting a lot of instruments and production and loud singing over it is fruit & veg hawking. Well spotted.
I'll tell you another disappointing one. Amy Macdonald. Much as I am into home-grown talent, upon repeated listening to her DVD I can only conclude that although she writes lots and lots of words, she only has 3 tunes which she recycles with different tempo and backing.
I'll tell you another disappointing one. Amy Macdonald. Much as I am into home-grown talent, upon repeated listening to her DVD I can only conclude that although she writes lots and lots of words, she only has 3 tunes which she recycles with different tempo and backing.
U2, The Police and The Rolling Stones. Although with The Rolling Stones I do quite like a few of their songs, but people always ask "Stones or Beatles?" as if they're just as good as The Beatles. They're good, but I don't find them as good as some other people do.
But in truth, what I really listen to most are the bootlegs. Because there is no better live band than this one. I've said it before on these boards, but I see Pearl Jam's studio albums as mere 'coming attractions' - to me, they are like movie trailers. Because the true untamed awesomeness of the songs will not be fully realized until we hear them live. For every single Pearl Jam song, I can find 5 live performances of it that are better than the version on the studio album. And not many bands can say that.
Seriously - I don't know how many of the bootlegs you have been fortunate enough to listen to...but if you haven't, just do a little experiment for me. Listen to, say.....Rearviewmirror on Vs...and then go and watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbeR-9-5a0g&feature=related
Now go listen to Do the Evolution on Yield...and then go and watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxewzqqeI_A
Finally, go listen to Black on Ten (a song you wouldn't think could GET any better, right?)...and now go and watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFVlJAi3Cso
(and keep in mind on this one that Ed was stoned out of his frakkin' MIND here. Watch how Stone comes over in the middle to see if he's actually okay!)
See what I mean? And I can do that with pretty much any PJ song you name.
I can't watch the links at work, but they are amazing live. When I saw them last year, the only weak point was 'Save You' because 1) they played it after "Brain of J" and the riff is a bit too similar and 2) Eddie was trying to get the audience to clap to a slightly complex rhythm and it was hilarious having the audience just not get it and just clap to Matt's hi-hat.
If I could recommend some live takes, let me throw out 'Even Flow' from Chicago in '06. Cameron has a wicked drum solo in the middle that makes it my favorite take of it that I've heard. At the D.C. show I went to last year, I will recommend 'Black' and 'Better Man' as they were amazing and the best versions of those songs I have in my limited bootleg collection.
Thank you. I was beginning to think I was alone in that opinion. The Mrs is a big fan.
Oooooohhh! Good catch!
I will concede that Neil Peart is an awesome drummer. But I cannot even begin to describe how utterly annoying that lead singer is. I just really, REALLY cannot stand him. It's like nails on a chalkboard to me.
Which is a shame...because I would actually love to hear more of Neil's work on the kit.
I was afraid to stick my neck out on this. I like their music, think the lyrics are great, have seen them in concert but Getty Lee......ow. Just, ow.
Heretic!
Come visit New Mexico.. I will sit you down and explain Rush to you.. If I can succeed in getting my country music-loving wife to get them and ultimately love them almost as much as I do, I can do that for you as well.. 
I have tried and tried and tried to get into Modest Mouse, mostly due to them being the very favorite band of my best friend.. I even went to see them last summer in Santa Fe.. It was a very good show, but I just couldn't get into it.. Float On is a good song, but there's just so much going on with most of their music, that I just can't figure it out...
Death Cab for Cutie is one I have a hard time dealing with too.. I can see the appeal, but I just don't get it.. Oh, same goes for Jack White's various projects... He's just lost on me..
I have tried and tried and tried to get into Modest Mouse, mostly due to them being the very favorite band of my best friend.. I even went to see them last summer in Santa Fe.. It was a very good show, but I just couldn't get into it.. Float On is a good song, but there's just so much going on with most of their music, that I just can't figure it out...
Death Cab for Cutie is one I have a hard time dealing with too.. I can see the appeal, but I just don't get it.. Oh, same goes for Jack White's various projects... He's just lost on me..
On the other hand, I think the Beatles often get too much credit and I sometimes see them called the most influential band of the '60s. They were great, no question, but there was so much more going on back then. As for comparisons with the Stones, a lot of that was due to the Stones' brilliant marketing at the time. By positioning themselves as the anti-Beatles, people suddenly saw them as equals, even though the Stones were a lot newer band and didn't yet have the songwriting chops they would later develop. I really don't think much of Beatles vs. Stones comparisons because the Beatles were so much more popular-music inspired and experimental, while the Stones stuck a lot closer to their blues, R&B and country influences. Which is why I like the Stones more, personally. Also the Stones stayed together longer and went through more interesting times, musically. It would have been really interesting to see what the Beatles made of reggae, disco, punk etc.
--Justin
Similar threads
