Post your "UNPOPULAR" music opinions!

[hiroki 5521]

i have to agree that there's a sense in which the contentious nature of stuff posted in here is precisely what generates so much interesting discussion that we hardly see in other threads. of course, it's a precious fine margin between healthy exchange of opinions (and being assertive while you're at it) and unhealthy mudslinging, but as far as i can tell the 'regulars' here are mature enough to tell one from the other and being sensible/respectful about stuff in general.

[violetchain 912]

I guess yes, some topics can get quite heated, but  generally I just see the regulars in here who like to put their two cents in and discuss the post of the day. Myself included. Generally because the unpopular opinions are much more interesting for me. Are we really that bad? lol

Oh no, I'm not saying that the discussion here is bad or mean-spirited - quite the opposite in fact. I think the discussions in this thread are pretty civil, and they're some of the more interesting ones on the site. I'm just saying that if you feel like everyone is arguing against your point in this thread you're probably doing something right.

[evilcoconut 109]

Re:the earlier topic about One Ok Rock. I've always thought they were generic af too and the guy's voice was annoying to boot, but they caught my attention again with the Kenshin ending songs and it seems like at least their last album is pretty good. The singer finally has some character in his voice and doesn't so obviously sound like a former JE idol. Last thing I heard was either Kanjo Effect or Niche Syndrome.  Betting on the former though.

[beni 2149]

Sendai Kamotsu (or whatever they're called) is a sorry excuse for a band. I don't care if they're a joke, I hate their fucking guts and they should cease to exist.

 

Let's imagine a 'Sendai Kamotsu disco' (oh, the horror for you! : p), you'd see me there: *Dancing on my own to their tunes* xD

 

I have nothing new to bring here once again but I couldn't keep ignoring this when there was no support going for them. Because I have much love for them, haha. Guess it shows that it's not exactly an unpopular opinion, right? x'D

 

Oh actually, this might fit rather nicely into the above quotation. Another unpopular opinion, maybe?-

I like 'alter-ego' bands (/side projects) more than the 'serious' foremost band most of the time. It might just be because of the whole different styles and musical direction which is a really awesome contrast after having listened to the actual main band's discography for a while. A band I can confidently say I prefer over their main one is 'My Dragon,' alter-ego band of Kiryu. I enjoy their funny PVs, silly music and appearance choices a lot more than the latter version of them. Same goes for Sendai Kamotsu. Maybe it's just because I'm becoming more of a fan of the colourful, crazy and comical bands and I just don't know it yet. Another one which I can dig quite easily is THE MAD LM.C. Then again, I can never get enough of that duo. I just enjoy looking into any possible alter-ego bands than, I'm guessing, the majority of others.

[relentless 254]

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at since vk is like the antithesis of metalcore/hardcore,

 

Except that's not true at all.

 

 

Visual kei (ヴィジュアル系 vijuaru kei^?, lit. "visual style" or "visual system") is a movement among Japanese musicians,^[1][2][3] that is characterized by the use of varying levels of make-up, elaborate hair styles and flamboyant costumes, often, but not always, coupled with androgynous aesthetics.^[4][5][6] Some sources think that visual kei refers to a music genre,^[7][8] with its sound usually related to glam rock, punk rock and heavy metal.^{[5][9][10][11]} However, visual kei acts play various genres,^{[1][12][13][14]} including those considered by some as unrelated to rock such as electronic, pop, etc.

[Zeus 7997]

Visual kei is whatever you want it to be at the end of the day.

[relentless 254]

In regards to music I agree; but reasoning like that opens the flood gates to an understanding that Visual Kei can be anything that is foremost visual, which isn't true. Visual Kei is a specific style, in a specific part of the world.

[doombox 4421]

Except that's not true at all.

Someone has missed the memo on what hardcore punk is. Punk rock and glam couldn't be further apart and most of the hardcore music I've ever heard is in direct opposition of using frills and glitter to make a dollar. Its about solidarity and inner strength and anti-establishment. Not about dressing up, and fan service and make up.

Vk may have embraced hardcore, but hardcore has not embraced vk.

Edit: I think it was also misread that I said vk is the antithesis of hardcore/metalcore, and not the other way around. Vk can be any genre, but hardcore was built on a lifestyle. Its way more specific and rigid about what defines it. So going back to my original point, a vk band would be logical in expanding into metalcore territory, but a metalcore band going visual is a rare case.

[relentless 254]

Someone has missed the memo on what hardcore punk rock is.

 

No, you have apparently "missed the memo" on what Visual Kei is. I'll requote the Wiki entry:

 

 

 

Visual kei (ヴィジュアル系 vijuaru kei^?, lit. "visual style" or "visual system") is a movement among Japanese musicians,^[1][2][3] that is characterized by the use of varying levels of make-up, elaborate hair styles and flamboyant costumes, often, but not always, coupled with androgynous aesthetics.^[4][5][6] Some sources think that visual kei refers to a music genre,^[7][8] with its sound usually related to glam rock, punk rock and heavy metal.^{[5][9][10][11]} However, visual kei acts play various genres,^{[1][12][13][14]} including those considered by some as unrelated to rock such as electronic, pop, etc.

 

 

Notice that last part? "However, visual kei acts play various genres, including those considered by some as unrelated to rock such as electronic, pop, etc." A Visual Kei act can take on any genre or style and if it meets the conventions of the visual style (i.e. "the use of varying levels of make-up, elaborate hair styles and flamboyant costumes, often, but not always, coupled with androgynous aesthetics"), then it's "VK" and acts in no way as a contradiction of, or "anithesis" to another unrelated form. That doesn't even make any sense.

 

 

 

Punk rock and glam couldn't be further apart and most of the hardcore music I've ever heard is in direct opposition of using frills and glitter to make a dollar.

 

You are trying to equate a musical scene with the content (i.e. music). You are trying to make the argument that the image of many underground punk bands (that admittedly do carry forms of the image you've stated above) have to be adhered to when writing in that style for a VK band? Musically, there is very little that is different between Glam and Hardcore, the only difference is minimal and found in texture.

 

If you want to re-iterate that the musical SCENES are in complete contrast, then I would agree; but the MUSIC isn't.

[doombox 4421]

If you want to re-iterate that the musical SCENES are in complete contrast, then I would agree; but the MUSIC isn't.

I think your're purposely trying to twist my original words out of context. Everyone here knows visual kei has no set musical genre so it can literally be anything. But hardcore, and let me specify for you since thats so important for you, AS A SCENE is built on a LIFESTYLE that is ANTI-GLAM and ANTI-DECADANCE so people that came up in that SCENE with those CORE values are TYPICALLY ANTI-VK. Clear enough for you now?

[relentless 254]

I think your're purposely trying to twist my original words out of context.

 

No. When someone does not clarify something so crucial as to distinguish between music and those that inhabit its communities, it becomes difficult for proper discussion as seen here. If you took any offense to my line of questioning and disagreement, rest assured that it was out of clarification and in no way malicious. Thanks for your understanding, and for your clarification.

[doombox 4421]

No. When someone does not clarify something so crucial as to distinguish between music and those that inhabit its communities, it becomes difficult for proper discussion as seen here. If you took any offense to my line of questioning and disagreement, rest assured that it was out of clarification and in no way malicious. Thanks for your understanding, and for your clarification.

I think most people understood that the entire discussion was based on scenes and you picked one sentence out and made a stink over it when overall the point was clear. But okay glad you understand now.

[relentless 254]

I think most people understood that the entire discussion was based on scenes

 

Except, the "entire" discussion wasn't about scenes. If that was the case, you would never have said the following:

 

 

And I highly disagree about their level of competence. But the real problem is their music lacks identity without the visuals. Crossfaith's music stands out in a sea of metalcore. You can easily tell when it's them. You can't do that with NB.

 

 

And Crossfaith didn't make a name for themselves simply by being metalcore. They made a name for themselves because they had an intense live show and consistently decent music (up until recently I'd say)..

 

Not only is the discussion about different bands in different genres, you start discussing the very music the band's are making. And when you make an incredibly vague point that something is the antithesis of something else (note: you never address scenes, you only addressed the genre's by name. A scene =/= a genre), you're going to have to expect said comment to be clarified because you're lumping obscure points in with each other and equating them. I mean, you COULD have clarified "scenes" from the start because there are several topics going on in the discussion (bands taking conventions from other genres, bands switching sound, marketing gimmicks, the music they're making); but because you didn't I questioned your premise.

[doombox 4421]

Oh ffs, people use the terms "hardcore"and "metalcore" in reference to the scenes all the time. I was only ever talking about switching scenes (then some topics delved into specific bands within those scenes and their marketing). You're being extremely nitpicky over a conversation that you weren't even a part of. So excuse me for not clarifying something that wasn't even directed at you. It was clear there was only one perspective that my word choice worked from. And even you mentioned that a couple of posts ago, it was not a stretch by any means to grasp my point. I think we've covered the parts that needed clarification at this point, have we not?

[doombox 4421]

And then there is this:

You realize they did try the whole metalcore thing without visuals first. But they got nowhere so they went visual where in that scene they were different.

And I highly disagree about their level of competence. But the real problem is their music lacks identity without the visuals. Crossfaith's music stands out in a sea of metalcore. You can easily tell when it's them. You can't do that with NB.

Conveniently missing the part where I did mention scenes by name in my first post on the topic.

[relentless 254]

Oh ffs, people use the terms "hardcore"and "metalcore" in reference to the scenes all the time. 

Which is incorrect. And just because "people" do it, does not make it correct. That is a textbook example of fallacious reasoning known as "ad populum"

 

 

And the there is this:

Conveniently missing the part where I did mention scenes by name in my first post on the topic.

 

 

"Conveniently missing"? Someone is evidently getting a bit defensive. And no, that was not for the sake of convenience, it was for the sake of relevancy. When you said the "entire" topic was about musical scenes, I quoted your own words which showed a diversion from that. You have since revised your statement to where you were now talking about bands within musical scenes and their marketing, which is not "entirely" about musical scenes as a whole. Do you see the error?

 

 

You're being extremely nitpicky over a conversation that you weren't even a part of. So excuse me for not clarifying something that wasn't even directed at you.

 

 

This is a forum, so the fact your comments were not addressed to me is irrelevant when the nature of a forum is to allow ideas and different opinions on them. Just because your comments were towards someone else does not mean you couldn't have taken the time to properly articulate what you were trying to say. Your lack thereof and my responses are merely a consequence of this. Miscommunication.

 

 

 

 

It was clear there was only one perspective that my word choice worked from. And even you mentioned that a couple of posts ago...

 

Was it truly clear? How so? WHAT was clear about your "one perspective"? What does "one perspective that my word choice worked from" even mean? You keep using these extremely vague phrases without any intrinsic meaning to them nor clarification. Excuse me if this is seen as "nitpicking"; but when someone is unable to properly articulate their points I'm going to have questions so I can understand them better. You know, it's the essence of understanding another's opinion and point of view. You becoming incredibly defensive to this line of discussion is unnecessary and off-putting, I'm sorry to say.

[doombox 4421]

Lol. Calm down. My god.

I'm not going to further this because you are going so far overboard. The fact that this is an open forum was the only reason I humored your questions to this point.

And yes, I think you did convenienyly leave that part out so you could accuse me of not having said it. Which you did. Your entire arguement is so ridiculous. Im not going to spell out things for people like you because truth is, I don't speak like you and I don't have to. I clarified my point for you. That was more than enough. If you can't get over some wording you don't like, that's a personal problem. You got the point. Its over.

[relentless 254]

And yes, I think you did convenienyly leave that part out so you could accuse me of not having said it. 

"it"? What's "it"? What are you referring to when you think I left out a part of your post to accuse you of not saying "it"? You're grasping for straws here, big time. In scholarly study when you are pulling from a quote, you choose the relevant portion to discuss -- as I did previously. Any thing that is irrelevant (not pertinent to the discussion), will be ignored. It seems like you're having serious difficulty of trying to figure out why I quoted that post -- to demonstrate you were not just talking about scenes. You have since revised your statement saying you were talking about other things as well. It may be convenient to me because I didn't have to dig far to find your own contradictions; but for the sake of the polemic? I was practicing discretion by making sure that only relevant portions remained. I viewed parts of your post irrelevant, unless you would like to demonstrate how they were?

 

Otherwise, that is what is called "irrational". I've openly stated why I quoted your post (why this is an issue, I have no idea -- and you think I'M nitpicking..). You can choose to believe there's some conspiracy in me quoting your own words; but you won't get far with that belief.

 

 

 

Your entire arguement is so ridiculous. Im not going to spell out things for people like you because truth is, I don't speak like you and I don't have to. I clarified my point for you. That was more than enough. If you can't get over some wording you don't like, that's a personal problem. You got the point. Its over.

 

 

I am not presenting an argument as much as I am correcting you on your poor job of articulating ideas. You got defensive, and as evident from recent posts you are getting upset. I never said I wanted you to "speak" like I do, I merely sought clarification, which got you upset and caused you to assume malicious motives (when there are none). That's really the only reason why I'm still carrying on at this point. You've made it personal, and that is something I find to be one of the most immature moves you can pull. You got defensive, then upset, and started trying to make attacks on WHY I've been engaging in conversation with you. It's especially disappointing when I have taken great care to refrain from such childish antics. Perhaps I'll keep this in mind for next time so I can better engage a topic without causing some to be so combative. My apologies.

[doombox 4421]

It. You know. THAT PART I BOLDED for you in the previous post. I'm grasping? You're the one who suddenly lacks basic reading skills and feels a need to pick apart everything a person has said unnecessarily. Kindly remove the stick from your ass and drop your bullshit.

I wasn't upset or defensive until right now where I said I was over this and you're still pressing some power trip. Sad news though, I'm not gonna sit here and feed your ego. You want to continue go nitpick my wording because that is the highlight of your day, go ahead. I'll come back to the thread when people actually have something relevant to say.


Also do you think no one sees what a condescending asshole you're being? Lol and I'm the one defensive and upset? Nice projection.

[Lestat 2167]

I think relentless has merely proven that with well-calculated and meticulous reading, anyone can grow upset over misunderstanding their own personal written words. Expletives have ascertained not to be leading someone beyond their point and are but a last resort of a defensive wall when someone is aware of being driven within a corner by their own minor mistakes. I should not have brought up the topic about musical genres, it was obviously wrong in sense of how people's particular and exclusive tastes build up a fortification when something they treasure is looked down upon or spoken differently about than what someone's expectations from others are, as in that we expect people to adore something as much as we do — and when the opposite party fails on their behalf of doing so, we grow frustrated.

 

Personally, I do not think this thread is a safe haven anymore for those who are easily stepped on their toes (like myself, admittedly), I have seen a lot of people being driven into the tree trops, those who have been verbally assaulted and without being a moderator, I cannot do anything about it (as much as I would love to), whilst I have more than often given the green light to merciless oral aggression in this thread.

[Zeus 7997]

Personally, I do not think this thread is a safe haven anymore for those who are easily stepped on their toes (like myself, admittedly), I have seen a lot of people being driven into the tree trops, those who have been verbally assaulted and without being a moderator, I cannot do anything about it (as much as I would love to), whilst I have more than often given the green light to merciless oral aggression in this thread.

It never was. This topic is all about drama, debate, and not seeing eye to eye on certain things.

[CAT5 9075]

It never was. This topic is all about drama, debate, and not seeing eye to eye on certain things.

Exactly. I'm sure neither ender-ender nor relentless are losing sleep over the things discussed in this thread.

[Lestat 2167]

People are using profanities at each other directly and no one steps in? Wow, just wow.

[Sakura Seven 593]

People are using profanities at each other directly and no one steps in? Wow, just wow.

 

Does it ever get exhausting being so whiny?

[JukaForever 758]

Profanities in the internet?! OMG such potty mouth doo-doo fingered people smh

 

But really though, this is quite tame.