|
|
| beer |
AzQb
, ohhhh, you speaketh the truth!! very much so. RUST NEVER SLEEPS.
Damn shame the same can't be said for ol' Mick T!
He helped. True Blue. Monlight Mile.
|
|
|
| JaGgEr |
Limb Bizkit
Eminem (!)
Linkin Park
Queens of a stone age
Blink 182
Sum 41
|
|
|
| full moon |
Radiohead is really good... But Creed, Kiss, Eminem, Aerosmith, Motley Crue, Sting, Def Leppard all are horrible... |
|
|
| Pattie |
I think Freddie Mercury was a good singer, and the rest of the band are good musicians. I agree with you all about Creed though.. |
|
|
| Gazza |
Didnt CSNY tend to write separately? - if so,I guess that doesnt count. Young's solo stuff is streets better than CSNY anyway and always has been..
for writers who didnt lose it after the songwriting duo split up ? - how about:
Lou Reed (post John Cale)
Brian Wilson (post Mike love, although Brian has collaborated with numerous partners to varying degrees of success)
both of them maybe only great sporadically and occasionally awful..but at their best.....still wonderful
..oh..and Joe Strummer...
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
[quote]~AzQb wrote:
1. Ferry after Roxy: UgH
Roxy toured in 2001 so what are you alleging--'after'...and I've seen Ferry several times sans Roxy, including in November at the Orpheum. Excellent show--be open-minded and check it out--his new album is excellent. |
|
|
| sasca |
Cale didn�t write very much (officially) with Reed. He was the Brian Jones of the Velvet Underground, expanding Reed�s compositions with his instrumental abilities and explorative personality. (of course, it is difficult to say where arranging stops and composing begins).
As for Ferry, he was responsible for one of the best nights of my life when he performed in Cape Town a couple of years ago. Both his solo material AND Roxy Music songs became less avante-garde through the seventies. If I had to choose, I�d choose the earlier material but much of his later work is beautiful. |
|
|
| ~AzQb |
YerEminEnCeGaZzA!
Yessssssssssssssssssssss...as usual, thanks for the "open ear"...post-partnership Lou is the exception to the rule, but i STILL prefer older Roxy to anything newer...
...Strummer. Yes a Most obviously overlooked Master!
~Learning...recovering....Joeylovin...RoLlInOnThEFloOrLaUgHiN...~z!
|
|
|
| Prodigal Son |
wow, good ones by some people. I forgot about Queen. They are indeed overrated. "Another One Bites the Dust," "Crazy Little Thing Called Love," "Under Pressure" with Bowie and "You're My Best Friend" are my picks as their only good songs. Maybe "Tie Your Mother Down" but most of it is gay pomp-rock 70s shit. Indeed, all the "hair" bands that somehow survive thanks to the inexplicable specials from VH1 about them. Though they were revolutionary, I always though the Sex Pistols were overrated (while people tended to underrate the Clash). The Police weren't ALL that, Led Zep certainly couldn't hold a candle to the Stones (Keith professes this in his UNCUT magazine interview) and were great but not among the top 20 rock bands ever. Also, Duran Duran, Wings, T. Rex (though they are still good) Eminem, Creed, Nickelback, any other stupid Christian rock band like Creed, any pop act going such as Avril Lavigne (awful singer), Christina Aguilera (singer turned skank in attempt to save career and divert attention to some T&A), Britney Spears (see Aguilera), etc. |
|
|
| Cant Catch Me |
Yeah, polls are a scourge on the land. Was it Mark Twain that said there are lies, damn lies and then statistics?
But the real issue is that these musical rankings encompass �pop music,� which is essentially musical junk food for the masses. Serious music, which would include classical, jazz, blues, authentic folk and country and some of what we�d call �good� rock n� roll, plus maybe some categories I'm missing, on the other hand, is best left to experts, critics, academics and a small subset of the populace that�s sophisticated enough to appreciate it. It�s just that a few, too few really, of the serious rock bands have broad enough appeal that they�re included in the �pop� music grab bag. And when polls turn to the untutored masses for their rankings of pop acts, the serious groups don�t always do as well as they ought to.
I�m no musical historian, and I think that it was just before my time that it happened (you could probably guess my age based on that!), but I�m curious about the few times in modern history that �pop� music was actually synonymous with �quality� music. It had to have happened, certainly at times in the 60s� and perhaps the early �70s (and maybe also the �50s?), but a couple of other times as well. (Examples would be Hank Williams, say, Elvis Presley, the Beatles, the Stones, and surely there are others. [If anybody says Queen, they're gonna get a wedgie with that Freddy Mercury jockstrap somebody mentioned.])
Or, could it be that in some rare cases quality music somehow managed to get briefly to the top of the heap in pop, even though the field of pop was otherwise mediocre? But, overall, I think that historically pop music has almost always been crappy, discardable junk. And what we�re seeing now is just a continuation of that trend.
So, for those of you with experience or knowledge of these matters, when were the times (the few times, just my guess) when serious, high-quality music was also hugely popular? Or, rephrasing the question, when was popular music anything other than just junk?
|
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
One time I can think of is in the late 20s, when jazz was springing to popularity and Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington were selling lots of records, while Jimmie Rodgers was doing the same with his blue yodels.
|
|
|
| sasca |
Athens, 470 BCE |
|
|
| Prodigal Son |
Well, the mid-60s would be just that. The radio and charts had crapola indeed, such as Jay & the Americans, the Grassroots, the usual British invasion crap bands, etc. But what we real music fans, and critics, call great music today was synonymous with pop charts as you had the Beatles, Stones, Byrds, Doors, Hendrix, (not the Who in the US at least), Motown, the Lovin' Spoonful and other groups dominating the charts. But about 1968 is when most of the best groups from the mid-60s (1964-67) that ha survived, ended up being big on the album charts or in cult following, yet mostly absent on the singles charts which became dominated by pop crooners, studio bands and bubblegum. In various forms, it continued throughout until the 70s when stupid record execs saw the LP as a new way to garner sales and we saw huge no. 1 albums by idiots like the Carpenters, Peter Frampton, etc. There were hardly any good rock acts in the 70s that ruled the album and singles charts. The bands we like today from the 70s and 80s either didn't sell too much but earned critical praise or did such with a degree of success on the album charts. But rarely big hit singles. Yes, that sounds right. It also occured in the 50s, but outside of the mid-to-late 50s and the mid-60, there was never a period where pop music, in general, was associated with the music we regard as great today. Whoo, I said a mouthful. |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]