Bands you don't get.

[The Mirrorball Man]

same goes for Jack White's various projects... He's just lost on me..

Funny story: I used to be an introverted, private, emotionally restrained, socially awkward guy. And I couldn't understand the appeal of the White Stripes, the Raconteurs and other Jack White projects. I just didn't get them at all.
As soon as I made the effort to change and become more spontaneous, lively, aggressive and open to others, something clicked in my head and I became a huge Jack White fan.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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 dunno man, If you have to explain it...

 

[Zulu Romeo]

David Essex.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I never got Guns N' Roses. I didn't think they were a horrible band or anything, but I never understood why they had such a large following.

I used to say the same thing about Pink Floyd, but it took a half-hour sitting next to someone smoking a suspicious-looking cigar one day to make me understand where they were coming from...

 

[Pemmer Harge]

I never got Guns N' Roses. I didn't think they were a horrible band or anything, but I never understood why they had such a large following.

Oh yeah, me too on that one. I consider them an OK hard rock band, but I've never really understood why they're so highly rated. Give me Thin Lizzy any day.

I used to say the same thing about Pink Floyd, but it took a half-hour sitting next to someone smoking a suspicious-looking cigar one day to make me understand where they were coming from...

Pink Floyd is another one for me. Maybe it's a geographical thing - even though they're a British band, I get the impression that Americans like the '70s era Floyd better than us Brits. Their first album, with Syd Barrett, is amazing, however.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

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.

Ed, Ed, Ed....

We love you. We really do. But you really need to stop assuming that just because YOU can do anything musical stoned/drunk out of you fuckin' mind, that we can too!

Eddie Vedder does this, and sings a 2 1/2 hour show flawlessly. PKTrekGirl does this and ends in the hospital. Or at least on the floor of the ladies room.

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.

I will check those out - thanks! Especially Black and Even Flow, since both are very high on my list of favorite PJ songs (in fact, I'd be surprised if I've not already watched them - I watch a LOT of PJ on YouTube). Do you have an account on YouTube? If so, we should really friend each other there so that we can share videos and notes and generally be as fangirl/boy-ish as we like. You would laugh of you saw my YouTube page this very minute.

Also, we need to talk about the bootlegs offline. You want to talk to me about this - trust me.

 

[Mistral]

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.

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

Very good analysis. Her Satanic Majesty's is a great example of how the Stones countered the Beatles-or at least the most blatant example.

U2 is mentioned. I never once understood their rise to such lofty heights and I was there at the beginning. I can listen to them when I'm in the mood but the peaks they've reached baffle me. Many of their early contemporaries had more interesting music, better riffs or were just plain more fun.
But they got the pedestal.

 

[LitmusDragon]

Pink Floyd is another one for me. Maybe it's a geographical thing - even though they're a British band, I get the impression that Americans like the '70s era Floyd better than us Brits. Their first album, with Syd Barrett, is amazing, however.

I'm in this camp as well. Love the Barret-era stuff but don't really care for the rest.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

U2 is mentioned. I never once understood their rise to such lofty heights and I was there at the beginning. I can listen to them when I'm in the mood but the peaks they've reached baffle me. Many of their early contemporaries had more interesting music, better riffs or were just plain more fun.
But they got the pedestal.

That last bit is the thing that I struggle with. U2 takes themselves so doggone seriously that they are absolutely NO FUN.

I actually like a good chunk (although not all) of their music. But it is difficult to like a group of people who seem so incapable of laughing at themselves and/or at life.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I don't know if U2 takes themselves seriously as much as just Bono who takes himself seriously. Everyone else in the band admits they basically started as a shitty Irish punk band that started writing their own music because they were butchering the cover songs they were attempting. Adam Clayton is their bassist because he was the only person they knew with bass and Bono became their singer because nobody else felt like singing.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

I don't know if U2 takes themselves seriously as much as just Bono who takes himself seriously. Everyone else in the band admits they basically started as a shitty Irish punk band that started writing their own music because they were butchering the cover songs they were attempting. Adam Clayton is their bassist because he was the only person they knew with bass and Bono became their singer because nobody else felt like singing.

Actually, I wasn't referring to their attitude about their own music. I was really more referring to their attitude...well, about their own attitude. If you know what I mean.

Everything around this band is just so frakkin' SERIOUS. And maybe it's mainly Bono...but still, it's just no FUN to even think about U2 anymore. They have managed to just suck the joy out their own existence as a band.

I am okay with the concept of 'bands with a conscience' - as a huge fan of both Bruce Springsteen and PJ, I think that fact speaks for itself. But there is a huge difference between having a conscience (good) and sucking the fun out of everything you touch (bad).

 

[Davros]

I never got Guns N' Roses. I didn't think they were a horrible band or anything, but I never understood why they had such a large following..

I got them, I just thought they were horrible.

 

[C_Miller]

I don't know if U2 takes themselves seriously as much as just Bono who takes himself seriously. Everyone else in the band admits they basically started as a shitty Irish punk band that started writing their own music because they were butchering the cover songs they were attempting. Adam Clayton is their bassist because he was the only person they knew with bass and Bono became their singer because nobody else felt like singing.

Actually, I wasn't referring to their attitude about their own music. I was really more referring to their attitude...well, about their own attitude. If you know what I mean.

Everything around this band is just so frakkin' SERIOUS. And maybe it's mainly Bono...but still, it's just no FUN to even think about U2 anymore. They have managed to just suck the joy out their own existence as a band.

I am okay with the concept of 'bands with a conscience' - as a huge fan of both Bruce Springsteen and PJ, I think that fact speaks for itself. But there is a huge difference between having a conscience (good) and sucking the fun out of everything you touch (bad).

Did you watch the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame performance of U2 with Bruce Springsteen guesting. Bono was spouting off the most pretentious BS ever and Springsteen shook his head and said "Well, let's have some fun with that." Kind of shows the difference between the two.

Here it is if you haven't (It really is a great performance): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiSRT-L_kSY

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Did you watch the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame performance of U2 with Bruce Springsteen guesting. Bono was spouting off the most pretentious BS ever and Springsteen shook his head and said "Well, let's have some fun with that." Kind of shows the difference between the two.

It certainly does, but it has very little to do with music. I don't want to be Bono's friend, I'm just potentially interested in his songs, you know what I mean? Prince or Lou Reed don't seem to be very pleasant people either, and I never seen anyone hold that against them.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

^ Hey, Prince is a kickass Basketball player.

That being said (presuming I don't have to help pay for the giant fucking monstrosity that is their current stage), I'd rather see U2 than the Boss live (although I've technically seen Springsteen live, it was for a half hour acoustic show that I'd rather not count, since it kinda sucked).

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't know if U2 takes themselves seriously as much as just Bono who takes himself seriously. Everyone else in the band admits they basically started as a shitty Irish punk band that started writing their own music because they were butchering the cover songs they were attempting. Adam Clayton is their bassist because he was the only person they knew with bass and Bono became their singer because nobody else felt like singing.

Actually, I wasn't referring to their attitude about their own music. I was really more referring to their attitude...well, about their own attitude. If you know what I mean.

Everything around this band is just so frakkin' SERIOUS. And maybe it's mainly Bono...but still, it's just no FUN to even think about U2 anymore. They have managed to just suck the joy out their own existence as a band.

I am okay with the concept of 'bands with a conscience' - as a huge fan of both Bruce Springsteen and PJ, I think that fact speaks for itself. But there is a huge difference between having a conscience (good) and sucking the fun out of everything you touch (bad).

Did you watch the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame performance of U2 with Bruce Springsteen guesting. Bono was spouting off the most pretentious BS ever and Springsteen shook his head and said "Well, let's have some fun with that." Kind of shows the difference between the two.

Here it is if you haven't (It really is a great performance): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiSRT-L_kSY

Funny, I don't see Bruce shaking his head in a negative way at all. Its not like Bruce isn't known for a rambling speeches himself.

I love them both, pretention and all.

 

[Kirby]

Led Zepplin - I had a bunch of friends that loved them, I've heard all their stuff, I have a few of their albums, but it just never did anything for me.
I do like quite a bit of Robert Plant's solo stuff, but I never really connected with the Zep.
Also Pink Floyd and the Rolling Stones, they're ok, but nothing special.

 

[BlobVanDam]

I never got Guns N' Roses. I didn't think they were a horrible band or anything, but I never understood why they had such a large following.

I will argue to the death that Appetite for Destruction is possibly the greatest rock album of all time, yet I don't understand why GNR (and Slash) is considered so huge.
They only had a handful of other good songs among Use Your Illusion I/II, then fizzled out to nothing. I get GNR musically, but considering their overall musical output since they began (or lack thereof), I don't understand their continued popularity. I guess Appetite is just that damn good.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Did you watch the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame performance of U2 with Bruce Springsteen guesting. Bono was spouting off the most pretentious BS ever and Springsteen shook his head and said "Well, let's have some fun with that." Kind of shows the difference between the two.

It certainly does, but it has very little to do with music. I don't want to be Bono's friend, I'm just potentially interested in his songs, you know what I mean?

So you seriously only care about the song itself? And anyone, with any attitude or personal vibe whatever could be singing it, and it wouldn't matter to you at all?

See...I don't get that at all. And if you feel that way, then why not just program beeps and burps into a computer and be done with it?

I'm sorry...but for me, a band's attitude does influence their music - not only via the songs that are written, but the way in which they are sung, a bands stage presence, their rapport with their audience both on and off stage, everything. Entertainment, for most people, is a package deal - not an academic exercise of good song/bad song.

Now...I've seen Bruce Springsteen live on a few different occasions, have had backstage passes, and have even met him personally once. Not to mention listening to/watched video of countless bootlegs of countless concerts over the years, and listening to still more concerts (not to mention interviews galore with pretty much every member of E Street) on E Street Radio. And I can tell you with absolute certainty that he's still having FUN. And it shows in every performance of the E Street Band.

I NEVER feel any fun surrounding U2. Bono is a great singer...and I actually quite like several of their songs. But this imposed seriousness surrounding them just weighs down the whole thing...and makes them really un-fun to listen do, despite the quality of the music. In short, continuing to like U2 feels like work. And it feeling like work has nothing to do with the music quality. It has to do with what they have done to their own entertainment value.

For pure entertainment value, I'll take the Boss any day of the week. No contest.

 

[zakkrusz]

Mostly 90s stuff like Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, and Nirvana despite being a fan of rock.