Post your "UNPOPULAR" music opinions!

[relentless 254]

A new (and possibly) unpopular opinion:

 

Here and elsewhere I've found this to be a popular opinion:

 

 

I want the band to take time off before making new music. I don't want them to rush because then it won't be as good!

 

 

 

This follows the assumption that Time = Quality; but that's simply not true -- it's not even an accurate assessment on writing music. I understand the intent of these opinions: people want the bands they like to release quality, which I wholeheartedly agree with; but quality is not restricted by time in any way. It's especially puzzling when these comments are made towards bands like Sadie and the GazettE, who were never paragons of songwriting to begin with, releasing material such as "Psychopath", "Tomorrow Never Dies" (after a 2 year break), or "Shoot the Targets Hidden in Your Mind" and "Rize a Flag" (a few months over a year).

 

When you actually consider great songwriters, whether it's from the past 50 years or past 500 years, "time" and waiting has little to do with the quality of a composition. I've mentioned this in the past; but look at the stretch of Beatles albums from 1965 - 1970 (for the sake of simplicity, I'm ignoring their early albums because of how vastly inferior they are to their later works post-Rubber Soul, as well as soundtracks):

 

Rubber Soul: 1965

Revolver: 1966 -- (often considered the most historically significant Beatles record, as well as their strongest creative output as a band)

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: 1967

The Beatles ("White Album"): 1968

Abbey Road: 1969

Let It Be: 1970

 

 

The only caveat with this argument, that I will readily accept, are the different conditions the Beatles worked under vs. a band like Sadie, Dir en grey, or the GazettE. The Beatles had a level of artistic freedom in the studio that the aforementioned bands don't have. The Beatles also stopped all touring activities to focus on their albums in this time frame, which those bands can't do today. Yet, at the same time, these bands have double, even TRIPLE the time the Beatles had to write an album, yet it doesn't often show up anywhere in the quality of writing.

 

I think it's misleading to say a band needs X amount of time to release a good product. Composition is certainly time consuming; but that doesn't mean a band needs to wait a stretch of time to ensure the quality of what they're writing when there's no relation. Bands have released great music after waiting several years, they have also released great music after waiting a few months.

 

The last person I'll mention is the Original Gangsta, Johann Sebastian Bach, who was employed between 1723-1750 as Cantor of the St. Thomas Church in Leipzig where he had to provide music to be performed during ceremonies every week. And these weren't some little 2 minute pieces in between worship, no, they were massive Organ works, highly profound choral works with upwards of 7 movements each, and large-scale dramatic works about the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, and John that would feature over 3 hours of music, along with the various settings of the Mass. JS Bach was the very antithesis of the notion "they should probably take some time off before they write more".

 

When JS Bach wasn't pulling his knife out on people in public and cuttin' fools (this actually happened), he attributed his writing to working hard. And if there's any solution I can think of that can get bands like Sadie or the GazettE to consistently release great music, it would be to look seriously at their craft and put more effort into their writing; but when tracks like "Psychopath", "Required Malfunction", "Attitude", or "To Dazzling Darkness" make the cut, it makes me wonder what their songwriting process actually consists of.

[Karma’s Hat 3107]

To further add to the ones mentioned above while keeping it in the realm of stuff that is very influential right now just for the hell of it: The Velvet Underground also released their seminal works annually for four years, Joy Division's entire catalog was from four years of activity, Wu Tang Clan guys released six albums albums from '93 to '97, David Bowie's annual releases from '71 to '73 and then again from '76 to '80 is all essential and god knows how much early Three 6 Mafia affiliated stuff made within a handful of years is out there... 

 

The namedropping could go on all week and the point is that the examples are innumerable, so when people are giving their bollocks insights on the recording processes of Sadie and Dir en grey it's all unfounded garbage assumption of no worth to anyone. They could make the best album ever all the while having recording execs breathing down their neck and vice and versa, but at the end of the day we don't know what went on in the studio and inside the musicians heads*. The amount of silly speculation I've seen about The Gazette and Dir en grey in the last five years is mind boggling. 

 

The only thing worse is seeing all the classic vagueties in music reviews like Inspired™ and those that read like bloody field reports "SPOTTED A RIFF AT 0.33 VERY COOL. PRODUCTION VERY NAIS. NICE BEAT AT 4.01" you catch the drift. 

 

*there is an exception of course if it's someone documented and studied like the aforementioned bach 

[Des 289]

Music is, I believe, the second hardest medium to write passable reviews on though. So no wonder that sometimes we don't get any further than "I like that riff". The only things more difficult to review must be the museum arts like paintings and sculptures.

 

Literature and film are considerably "easier" to review.

[nullmoon 784]

A new (and possibly) unpopular opinion:

Here and elsewhere I've found this to be a popular opinion:

This follows the assumption that Time = Quality; but that's simply not true -- it's not even an accurate assessment on writing music. I understand the intent of these opinions: people want the bands they like to release quality, which I wholeheartedly agree with; but quality is not restricted by time in any way. It's especially puzzling when these comments are made towards bands like Sadie and the GazettE, who were never paragons of songwriting to begin with, releasing material such as "Psychopath", "Tomorrow Never Dies" (after a 2 year break), or "Shoot the Targets Hidden in Your Mind" and "Rize a Flag" (a few months over a year).

When you actually consider great songwriters, whether it's from the past 50 years or past 500 years, "time" and waiting has little to do with the quality of a composition. I've mentioned this in the past; but look at the stretch of Beatles albums from 1965 - 1970 (for the sake of simplicity, I'm ignoring their early albums because of how vastly inferior they are to their later works post-Rubber Soul, as well as soundtracks):

Rubber Soul: 1965

Revolver: 1966 -- (often considered the most historically significant Beatles record, as well as their strongest creative output as a band)

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: 1967

The Beatles ("White Album"): 1968

Abbey Road: 1969

Let It Be: 1970

The only caveat with this argument, that I will readily accept, are the different conditions the Beatles worked under vs. a band like Sadie, Dir en grey, or the GazettE. The Beatles had a level of artistic freedom in the studio that the aforementioned bands don't have. The Beatles also stopped all touring activities to focus on their albums in this time frame, which those bands can't do today. Yet, at the same time, these bands have double, even TRIPLE the time the Beatles had to write an album, yet it doesn't often show up anywhere in the quality of writing.

I think it's misleading to say a band needs X amount of time to release a good product. Composition is certainly time consuming; but that doesn't mean a band needs to wait a stretch of time to ensure the quality of what they're writing when there's no relation. Bands have released great music after waiting several years, they have also released great music after waiting a few months.

The last person I'll mention is the Original Gangsta, Johann Sebastian Bach, who was employed between 1723-1750 as Cantor of the St. Thomas Church in Leipzig where he had to provide music to be performed during ceremonies every week. And these weren't some little 2 minute pieces in between worship, no, they were massive Organ works, highly profound choral works with upwards of 7 movements each, and large-scale dramatic works about the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, and John that would feature over 3 hours of music, along with the various settings of the Mass. JS Bach was the very antithesis of the notion "they should probably take some time off before they write more".

When JS Bach wasn't pulling his knife out on people in public and cuttin' fools (this actually happened), he attributed his writing to working hard. And if there's any solution I can think of that can get bands like Sadie or the GazettE to consistently release great music, it would be to look seriously at their craft and put more effort into their writing; but when tracks like "Psychopath", "Required Malfunction", "Attitude", or "To Dazzling Darkness" make the cut, it makes me wonder what their songwriting process actually consists of.

Agreed. Although not a Guns N Roses fan, I have two words to support your argument.

Chinese Democracy.

[Des 289]

I miss the real "subcultures". The goths, the punks, the skaters, the glam rockers, the hair metallists, the hippies and stoners, etc. Looking at youth these days they all seem to blend into one another. There's the occasional longhaired metalhead, but that's it? They have no style, not the slightest taste in fashion, and no attitude that stands out.

 

I believe it would make for a more diverse and fascinating society if these different styles were more present (given they would still be able to live peacefully alongside eachother of course!)

 

Does hipster count? Nah, I think hipsters were more or less the result of the death of all the other cultures. If you think about it, people are struggling to define the hipster. "What makes a hipster" seems to be a much harder question to answer than "what makes a *any of the above*" as if they are a bunch of people who are bored with being normal but have no clue what else to do.

 

As far as music is concerned, it's very possible that the lack of diversity in music caused the lack of diversity in subcultures or vice versa (what came first, the chicken or the egg?). When I was 15 and in school, we'd often talk about different subcultures in the classroom. We would make whole presentations on them and teach eachother about the diversity of people.

 

With the job(s) I do these days I often come in contact with children of about this age and quite honestly, I have a hard time remembering names and faces because they are all the same. Casual conversation during breaks/lunchtime never leads to any particular interests or lifestyles. In fact, most seem to be largely unaware of hippies, goths, punks and IF they have an idea of these terms they're only used as mockery or they're used to indicate that they once existed... a long time ago.

 

I asked myself if the internet is to blame. Does the internet make it easier for people with other interests to meet up and express their desires to live certain lifestyles and listen to certain music together... sure does. But does that mean there is less of a desire to express one's self in daily life? Do people leave their steampunk boots, smoke weed everyday-shirts and mohawk haircuts at home because they can use the internet to meet up with others who find these things cool? I think that may play a big part.

 

On the other hand, one could argue that subcultures started dying when grunge came around in the early 90's (it was about that time that 80's metal and new wave was killed off and shoegaze and goth almost died too) but then again the grunge brought a lot of people together too and could be considered a subculture. These days there isn't a single subculture of a considerable size other than "hipsters" who are not actually "hip" but rather "subnormal", like, let's be slightly less normal, but still actually kind of normal...

... Jesus that was too long, I need to get off of the computer.

 

Too long, didn't read: blaaaaaaaaa.

[Heroin 53]

^

all I have to say is that I never had internet until I was 18.

 

do I express myself as a rocker? fuck yeah! I have the heart and soul haha

 

what I see around me are just boring mother fuckers, dressing the same like all the local yokels

all that sub culture is just dead. did meet the coolest people that live on to these past cultures. straight up industrial people, goth, punk, hippie. and they're all saying the same thing about the diversity of people and where the scenes are.

 

its more of a feeling to actually define if a certain place feels more "real" industrial or whatever sub culture youre in. thats just for me though.

[Atreides 454]

I'm not sure if it's unpopular,but I think Jupiter is junk.  I miss Versailles :,(

 

Also, at least amongst my friends, I think M-Flo is severely underrated, they were way ahead of their time.

 

Again amongst my friends, they all hate Zazen Boys.  I think they're genius.

 

Dead End is a hundred times better than X-Japan.

 

Dir En Grey always was horrible.

 

Zeus is the best album by La'Cryma Christi.

[MaikoMizu 167]

Ahhh... I would put in my opinion on the why people are attached to bands but I don't want to start a war on MH. I tried doing so on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram and it didn't end pretty. 

I also thought MEJIBRAY was a weird band at first but they've really grown on me ever since mid 2014. 

[Igyou_Hime 80]

I'm not sure if it's unpopular,but I think Jupiter is junk.  I miss Versailles :,(

Agreed, again, their cd's are like 2 different songs... I think Hizaki and Teru's stuck in a rut When Kamijo left it relly showed he was a big part of Versailles creativity.

[Des 289]

Jupiter is _...zzZZzzzzZZ^ZZzz... with an ugly guitar sound.

 

MEJIBRAY is ^...ZZzzZZzz_ZZzz... with ugly everything.

 

Since the "newness" has worn off, ARCHE from DIR EN GREY is now ...zzZZzzheylistenit'surokoandphenomenonZZzzZZzzZZzzZZheyit'srinkakuzzZZZzzZZzz...

[Lestat 2167]

I've found that subcultures in music only really exist in small groups nowadays. I used to have a circle in Belgium that existed solely of 80's thrash metal followers, and they looked as if they came straight out of that period in time. As expected, however, it fell apart after a while and more people started dressing casually and the guys cut their hair (the tears I've shed). 

 

You're right about social media playing a role in this, I think. No one has to dress themselves to an extreme anymore to be recognized. Walking down the streets today gives me not even the slightest idea about what people's tastes and interests are, it's really sad seeing the same people all over again. They don't stand out, they don't give off any sort of vibe that separates them from the rest. It's just like everybody wants to follow in a flock of sheep.

[eiheartx 1310]

But, at the same time, do we really need (or have to) to follow the dress code because we love -insert music genre- ?

 

I, personally, don't give a flying fuck.

[emmny 4139]

i love the idea of dressing up for ur music, and i just like fashion on its own but considering how much of modern fashion is inspired by punk/goth subcultures they kind of go hand in hand. i wish it was easier to get goth clothes where i live because i fucking love goth/punk/visual kei fashion and i think its so cool now (as noted in an era of homogeneity) to look like a total freak for your subculture of choice.

 

also unpopular opinions:

messiah, sabato, killing me, raven and decadence slay most other single that has been put out post-mejibray.

 

i tried getting into versailles but besides a few singles they kind of put me to sleep which is so sad considering they're so pretty and great musicians

but the only thing worse than that is the trash on starwave records......hizaki is rolling in his grave as we speak.

[Tokage 5930]

The whole 'dressing after your subculture' can be cool, but it always makes my eyes roll back into my sockets whenever I hear people like that going on and on about how 'all you mainstream SHEEPLE look and dress the same!!!' when they're doing exactly that as well

[doombox 4421]

I haven't liked anything Hizaki has been a part of since Hizaki Grace Project... but thats probably just me.

[Ikna 1225]

Don’t know where you all live, but here that Nu Goth thing has been booming so strongly recently that everyone started to run around in platform boots, ripped black jeans, T-shirts with occult symbols and crosses and wearing darker lipstick (mostly red shades though). Even people who take the chance to talk bad about ’those freaky angsty goths’ are riding on the bandwagon. So if you believe that subcultures are a guarantor for individuality, then you are wrong. They can be deluded to the point of merely being a shallow costume and fashion trend and have always been. The day a new art, music or social movement is born is the same day the time bomb to its commercial cannibalization has started ticking. I’d even pose the theory that most subculutres have become more similiar and alike as well. Surely, with the invention of new substyles of substyles and subcultures within subcultures we can pretend them to have diversified, but upon closer examination you will see that those styles have often moved away so much from their roots (and towards the mainstream) on one side or they are just the same as the others, only marketed under a different name. So yeah, my unpopular opinion: subculture were always commercialized. let’s stop pretending the music, media and fashion industry didn’t pull this off in the past.

 

I very much love gothic rock and post-punk and I was very enthusiastic about that whole surge of goth revival and trad goth thing. But even I realized I should not try to live in some illusionary world, where the goth/wave scene is somehow much deeper, cooler and more individual than others. I think it is even better not to give a shit about that anyway, because concentrating too much on it may cause you to become more uniformal and boring than if tyou would not. I think the mid 00s emo scene was a prime example of young people trying too hard to be different and not to fit in and in the end they became as stereotypical and obnoxious as the groups of people they always ranted about.

 

True though, I really like it when I meet people who appreciate to dress like the Wavers and New Romantics and it makes me happy to talk about my fav music with similiar minded people. The interesting people may not even be active in the scenes (a lot of reasons: having a job, family, studying, not time and money to go to concerts or buy new clothes).

[emmny 4139]

^lol h&m goth/pastel grunge =/= goth

[Tokage 5930]

STOP OPPRESSING MY TUMBLR AESTHETIC!!

[Des 289]

I know @Jigsaw9 will try to kill me for this:

Nico's recording of 'Heroes' is better than David Bowie's.

[Jigsaw9 6783]

I know @Jigsaw9 will try to kill me for this:

Nico's recording of 'Heroes' is better than David Bowie's.

 

You're lucky I've never actually known of / heard that cover, ha!

[beni 2149]

Engrish always makes a Japanese track more enjoyable. - An unpopular opinion of mine thanks to the MH chat of this afternoon.

[Atreides 454]

Agreed, again, their cd's are like 2 different songs... I think Hizaki and Teru's stuck in a rut When Kamijo left it relly showed he was a big part of Versailles creativity.

 

I don't have much to say besides the fact that I completely agree with you.  Kamijo's solo stuff by contrast is actually quite awesome I think, so I'm not really too disappointed. 

[Sakura Seven 593]

Eiki is a great single. Hi haters.

[Tetora 625]

Conclusion of Studies on Humanoid Subjects in Dimension 113XR:

 

Music, like drugs, simulates emotions and feelings, triggers chemical responses, and can often replace the need to actually accomplish things in life, experience things outside of the Humanoid`s own head, and so forth.

 

Even feelings such as sadness become wired so that the user starts to enjoy them, and latches onto sad songs or certain drugs to re-live those feelings, to feel that sadness, and perhaps bring them closer to something they lost, as that sad feeling is all that they have left.

 

Eventually the chemicals associated either stop firing, or lose their potency.

 

Subjects move on to the next song, the next drug, pursuing an endless cycle that is first attached to their current station in life, and then morphs into their very station in life.

 

Bach, later heralded as a great genius, created a new composition weekly as the people would prefer to not be inconvenienced by hearing the same composition two weeks in a row, despite not being able to play it out on their yet-to-be-invented MP3 players and smartphones.

 

Humanoids take issue with the disposable nature of current music, and debate issues of quality in the music created by certain artist-bots, yet do not discuss how they helped perpetuate the disposable nature of music, and devalue it with their current electronic ecosystem of downloading as much music as their computers and patience can handle, for free, and decide that they hate an artist or release after listening to the creation a grand total of quite possibly one full rotation, or less. The humanoid then proceeds to either delete the files, or leave them to mingle with countless other files in a forgotten corner of their computer drive.

 

If it amuses the user, they may partake in spreading ill words about the work and artist for as long as they can continue to receive attention for it. They can often spend more time partaking in this activity than actually listening to the work itself.

 

The subjects often place listening to music for pleasure higher than consuming drugs, although both often provide similar results, and unfortunately, Humanoids can not be as socially accepted for an act which is more obviously based around instant stimulation, similar to masturbation, and can not as easily argue that they are entitled to free drugs, or download drugs for free and cut profits for the grower or meth-lab industry in half.

 

The subjects argue that music can spread emotions and ideas in a unique way, yet this is left out of most critical review and analysis, where technical aspects are often favored. This also perplexes older Humanoids who wonder how Bach and The Beatles made way for Dubstep and works that fall into the current Pop Top 40.

 

Humanoids have also failed to create an agreeable criteria for rating music or its quality, despite having centuries to do so, and often resort to arguments or acts of downright hatred when they continuously re-discover that they are unable to share or sometimes even communicate their feelings and tastes to others without disagreement.

 

All of these issues and the striking similarities between music and drug-use have led us to come to the conclusion that music should be removed from the dimension that Humanoids inhabit, and that their brains should also be altered in order to remove the sectors that enable what they identify as taste`s and opinions.

[denkserw 2]

About the discussion above. Except metal guys that is more often to see everywhere. Some years ago when I cared because now I don't know. You could see all different styles ,like punk or Goth or thrash metal or black metal etc but only in specific areas you knew they hung out.

The last thing I remember was grunge that happened or nu metal. Except the emo/scene shit that noone took it seriously. Everyone made fun of them like they had no value.

Does something exist today? Is there any new subculture today? I don't know .maybe it's rap or something in fashion. Rock styles are "old-school "times.