Post your "UNPOPULAR" music opinions!

[Des 289]

Humanoids are strange. Fun write-up, enjoyed the read.

 

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

 

One curious thing is that Nico claims the song was perfectly suited for her, even implied that in a way it is about her. She said that in an interview from 1981(or so?) which can be heard on a "bonus track" on the Icon compilation of "rare" songs. She was completely drugged-up and falling into an abyss at that point though so not sure if there's any truth to that.

 

Anyway I think enjoyment of Nico's music relies very heavily on your appreciation of her voice. Some (...most? ) hate it, some love it.

[Duwang 676]

I dislike Versailles and Jupiter. I always prefered Aikaryu. Pirate bands banzai.

[Des 289]

Sam Smith is a whiny radiopop idol who sounds like he's having a vasectomy which goes horribly wrong.

 

Imagine Dragons is one of the least imaginative and most sleep inducing groups of recent years.

 

MUSIC was the last girugamesh release that was somewhat listenable.

[Des 289]

The sound quality of The Jimi Hendrix Experience albums is lacking and I haven't listened to a rerelease or remaster yet that I was totally fine with.

 

Early The Beatles' career is largely forgettable but they did great things in the last few years before they split.

 

The first two My Chemical Romance albums have actually aged very well.

 

Lana Del Rey has a better voice than 99% of other women in modern pop.

[Zeus 7997]

Pretentious hipster post incoming but...

 

The sound quality of The Jimi Hendrix Experience albums is lacking and I haven't listened to a rerelease or remaster yet that I was totally fine with.

Nailed it. I have it in FLAC on my computer and couldn't put my finger on what I didn't enjoy about it, even though I enjoy rock and psychedelic funk.

[Des 289]

The music is still fantastic, and I really enjoy Electric Ladyland especially, but I wish the sound was better. There's a remaster out there that makes the guitar tracks a bit clearer with high notes especially sounding better but at the same time it sacrifices something on the low end. So there's always something not quite right. I guess you can't just make it sound better just like how you can never make an 8mm film look as good as a 35mm film no matter what filters you apply or whatever you do with it.

 

But there's a ton of 60's music out there that sounds better than The Jimi Hendrix Experience and yet TJHE was one of the biggest and greatest acts. And Jimi was quite the perfectionist according to other people's reports.

 

Perhaps the original LPs sound better but that's a lot of money.

[Elazmus 1873]

Bringing it back to SakuraSeven I'll make that opinion a little less unpopular.

 

I also love Eiki top to bottom.

[Zeus 7997]

The music is still fantastic, and I really enjoy Electric Ladyland especially, but I wish the sound was better. There's a remaster out there that makes the guitar tracks a bit clearer with high notes especially sounding better but at the same time it sacrifices something on the low end. So there's always something not quite right. I guess you can't just make it sound better just like how you can never make an 8mm film look as good as a 35mm film no matter what filters you apply or whatever you do with it.

 

But there's a ton of 60's music out there that sounds better than The Jimi Hendrix Experience and yet TJHE was one of the biggest and greatest acts. And Jimi was quite the perfectionist according to other people's reports.

 

Perhaps the original LPs sound better but that's a lot of money.

I have radical thoughts and idea on how to "fix" that but this isn't the place for it.

[relentless 254]

 

Early The Beatles' career is largely forgettable but they did great things in the last few years before they split.

 

That sounds about right. It depends on the cut-off for "early" though.

[Lestat 2167]

I have always found the Beatles to be terribly overrated. Their songs all sound the same and there is nothing that stands out as 'amazing'.

[Karma’s Hat 3107]

Early Beatles sucks? Beatles are overrated? What is this turning into the popular opinions thread now

[relentless 254]

Early Beatles sucks? Beatles are overrated? What is this turning into the popular opinions thread now

 

"Beatles are overrated" is as unpopular and incorrect a statement as they come. "Early Beatles were lackluster" is not really unpopular at all, I agree with you there.

[bonsaijodelfisch 328]

Pretentious hipster post incoming but...

 

Nailed it. I have it in FLAC on my computer and couldn't put my finger on what I didn't enjoy about it, even though I enjoy rock and psychedelic funk.

 

some Hendrix stuff is downright unlistenable, especially on headphones, because back in the day producers still tried to figure out what they could do with that new and fresh stereo, which lead to some very irritating experiences if you have the opportunity to listen to it on speakers, or to switch the playback to mono it could become much more enjoyable

[Traxan 148]

I know this won't be popular on a VK board...

 

I am getting a little tired of Japanese girls not looking the least bit Japanese any more. Exhibit A:

 

[Guest lynchisizer]

I have always found the Beatles to be terribly overrated. Their songs all sound the same and there is nothing that stands out as 'amazing'.

Finally someone who thinks exactly like me *.*

[Bear 1817]

I have always found the Beatles to be terribly overrated. Their songs all sound the same and there is nothing that stands out as 'amazing'.

 

I agree. How anyone can tell the difference between this, this and this is beyond me. The Beatles simply had no diversity whatsoever. 'tis all the same.

[Traxan 148]

This would get me lynch on some metal boards:

 

Black Sabbath are boring and did not invent heavy metal, just a darker version of the blues. Judas Priest invented metal. Halford is the metal god, Ozzy is just a clown.

[relentless 254]

I have always found the Beatles to be terribly overrated. Their songs all sound the same and there is nothing that stands out as 'amazing'.

 

I'm guessing you aren't familiar with their works.

 

There are numerous things there to appreciate; but a lot of it is not readily noticeable by your average music listener unequipped to discover such qualities. Thus, Beatles conversations tend to go this way:

 

 

They were good for their time; but bands nowadays are so much better.

 

Unfortunately, this "assessment" (if one is to even call it that) falls short of taking into consideration the music the band wrote. Which is odd, because we're discussing a musical act, so why don't we discuss the music?

 

To sum, the Beatles' music is rooted in a level of craft and complexity that Pop groups lacked back then, and which many lack today. Not only is the music itself well-thought out with a level of detail most bands can't even come close to utilizing, the Beatles also had the benefit of being guys who freely pulled from styles across the Earth to incorporate into their sound. While most bands are fine with lumping themselves into a "genre" and performing "that kind of music", the Beatles preferred to create their own sound.

 

 

Not only is the music incorporating a vastly different sound from traditional Indian music; but McCartney's contributions came heavily influenced by Stockhausen and the increasing Avant Garde scene at the time within Art music.

 

 

 

Employing a wide range of effects from various instruments, and implementing the use of taping/tape loops (by reversing the tape to make a guitar solo go backwards, or to distort the original sound), the Beatles were diving into an aspect of music that no one else dared in the world of Pop music. While most acts (with some shining counter examples such as Brian Wilson) were basing their songs entirely on 3 chords (showing up often in the Beatles' early works), the Beatles expanded the harmonic structure of their music to a startling degree, even with "pop ditties" that on first glance are merely pleasing to the ear.

 

 

Here, There, and Everywhere on first glance is just a pretty love song right? No. In fact, Here, There, and Everywhere is a song with lyrics that holds an intimate relation to the music that not even senpai Kyo's "feels" can come close to.

 

We start in G major, where most of the song resides; but as early as the second line ("I need my love to be here") we begin introducing harmonic tension with a Bb that is followed by Am7 and Dm7 to again establish the tonic, G.

 

This is where it begins getting interesting. Halfway through the second verse, we go through a set of secondary dominants (F#m7, B7) which teasingly brings us to Em for a short period of time until we're onto the next verse and back to G. We never left the tonic; but instead went through a progression of chords that pulled us away from G; but seamlessly brings us back through an Em, Am, and Am7.

 

Then comes the infamous middle section ("I want her everywhere...") where we immediately jump to an F major chord. Not only is this unusual because F is not in the key of G (F#m7b5 is), but the leap happens suddenly that avoids conventions set in music at this time. Music of this time was still heavily-reliant on the Circle of Fifths established in the 17th and 18th centuries after the Renaissance. This harmonic structure lead the way for modulation by either going down a fifth, or up a fourth. In a Baroque work for instance, if you're in C major, you're either going to F or G for the new key, which are next to C in the circle of fifths. The Beatles expanded that by reaching to more remote keys for harmonic tension. We go from G, to F in the middle section. While Blues acts were relying on E A B progressions for the basis of their sound, the Beatles freed themselves from their origins and took a far wider perspective to how the music was shaped. Thus we go from a Beatles song that consists of 3 chords (I Saw Her Standing There), to songs that can feature as many as 8 unique chords in the opening bars alone (I Am the Walrus). Simply put: the Beatles became better songwriters. This is not a unique instance, as harmonic complexity would go on to shape the Beatles' greatest works, including "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Something" -- oddly enough, both by George Harrison.

 

 

 

 

tl;dr -- saying "the Beatles are overrated" holds no bearing in reality. If anything, saying they're "overrated" only proves just how "underrated" they truly are. It's OK to say "meh it's not for me"; but to claim the music is "overrated" implies a quality that we can readily verify that makes it so. Unfortunately, no such quality exists in their music that would indicate this. Instead, from the examples provided above, they are in no way "overrated". There is a reason why they are considered the "Greatest band of all time", which comes from their cultural impact and their songwriting craft as a band.

[Senedjem 510]

jesus christ 

[Lestat 2167]

They're bland, end of story.

[Des 289]

That sounds about right. It depends on the cut-off for "early" though.

 

The Beatles become a band of interest to me from about the time Rubber Soul came out, which is about halfway through their career I think. When critizicing some Beatles output it's often thought of as kicking against a holy shrine though so I figured it would be an unpopular opinion.

 

Anyway I think that's a very nitpicky analysis of one song relentless and it does show The Beatles had some great ideas but it can be easily countered by unorthodox examples of classical, experimental and jazz music from way before The Beatles (were even born). And then you might say "but that's not pop" then the question becomes "but is that important". I mean, one could even dig up an ancient Greek song which was probably popular at that time but uses all kinds of notes in a seemingly random order, void of logic to our ears today. Were they thousands of years ahead of their time? Nah I don't think so.

 

I do like the Revolver album but the overanalyzing that some do to defend the band from naysayers holds about as much value as the opinions of the naysayers.

 

EDIT: heh oh shit, by searching for 'Beatles' in this topic I found an old post of mine that said The Beatles took an existing concept and milked it.

 

I guess I still stand by that for their early songs but they did "redeem themselves" with their later records. And I guess the milking was done more so by their manager and the record labels than the members of the band.

[relentless 254]

 

Anyway I think that's a very nitpicky analysis of one song relentless and it does show The Beatles had some great ideas but it can be easily countered by unorthodox examples of classical, experimental jazz music from way before The Beatles (were even born). And then you might say "but that's not pop" then the question becomes "but is that important". I mean, one could even dig up an ancient Greek song which was probably popular at that time but uses all kinds of notes in a seemingly random order, void of logic to our ears today. Were they thousands of years ahead of their time? Nah I don't think so.

 

I do like the Revolver album but the overanalyzing that some do to defend the band from naysayers holds about as much value as the opinions of the naysayers.

 

 

There were a few things I wanted to address if you don't mind.

 

First:

 

 

but it can be easily countered by unorthodox examples of classical, experimental jazz music from way before The Beatles (were even born). And then you might say "but that's not pop" then the question becomes "but is that important".

 

Yes, because our discussion strictly involves Popular music. Endless problems arise when you try to compare styles in Popular music to those in Art music. The aesthetic is entirely different, the way the music shaped is entirely different, and the way the music is presented is entirely different in every way. Comparing Art music to Popular music is incredibly unfair because with one (Art music) you have a set of musical traditions in form and harmony that aren't found in Popular music. The focus on how the music is shaped is completely different. The idea of chord structure is very different. And depending on era, the idea of harmony is completely different. Pop music and Art music are separate, and should remain so because musically, even though many share the same kind of harmony, their aesthetic is entirely different. The cool thing with the Beatles, is they took the "logic" present in Classical works and applied that understanding to the music they wrote. And contrary to how you feel, my examples aren't nitpicking in anyway. With Beatles' works from Rubber Soul and on, there are endless examples of what I have described. It's not as if I'm painting the Beatles to be virtuoso's by any means; but their music carries a profound knowledge and understanding of vastly different styles across the world that Popular groups did not do at this time. This is fact.

 

 

 

I mean, one could even dig up an ancient Greek song which was probably popular at that time but uses all kinds of notes in a seemingly random order, void of logic to our ears today.

 

Historically speaking, we know exactly what ancient Greek music was and how it worked. It was modal and eventually evolved into Gregorian chanting, so that may not have been the best example; but I can kind of see what you mean.

 

 

 

 

I do like the Revolver album but the overanalyzing that some do to defend the band from naysayers holds about as much value as the opinions of the naysayers.

 

A simple harmonic analysis to determine the quality of songwriting is not over-analyzing. That idea leads to lazy reasoning because it implies I'm looking for something in the music that is not readily there. That I'm relying on some deep interpretive method only I possess. That's not the case. It's an unconventional approach for this forum because I feel not many can or are willing to discuss such aspects in music (harmony); but that doesn't mean the process of doing so is "over-analyzing" or that it shouldn't be done. This is music, so the music should be discussed, and that's exactly what I've done.

[Des 289]

Overanalyzing was the wrong choice of words, I meant that pointing towards thoughtful chord progressions to defend a musician's output does not hold any value for someone who simply doesn't like the music. Be sure that they heard those chords, whether or not they can name the chords or put them in historical context doesn't matter much, they still heard them and decided they didn't like it.

 

Anyhow, I don't think we're gonna get anywhere because I already completely disagree with your statement that pop music should be seperated from "art music" as you put it. The two can easily overlap... and it's interesting that you say the two should remain different but you praise The Beatles for taking the "logic" of classical compositions and applying that to their pop music.

 

"even though many share the same kind of harmony, their aesthetic is entirely different."
I'm not sure I understand but that seems very contradictory to me! I'll admit I'm just confused now.

 

So we both like some of The Beatles but from different point of views? Or something? I don't even know.

[relentless 254]

 

Anyhow, I don't think we're gonna get anywhere because I already completely disagree with your statement that pop music should be seperated from "art music" as you put it. The two can easily overlap... and it's interesting that you say the two should remain different but you praise The Beatles for taking the "logic" of classical compositions and applying that to their pop music.

 

"even though many share the same kind of harmony, their aesthetic is entirely different."

I'm not sure I understand but that seems very contradictory to me! I'll admit I'm just confused now.

 

So we both like some of The Beatles but from different point of views? Or something? I don't even know.

 

 

In regards to Art and Pop music overlapping, that is a narrow way to look at the broader picture of harmony and form. Yes, you are technically correct (at least in tonal works) that the harmonic focus on a Classical work stressing the V-I cadence carries overlap with the I-IV-V progressions you often see in Pop music; but their significance in a Classical work is not the same as in a Pop song. The difference is I-IV-V in Pop is not used as the basis of the work with intent to modulate to the Dominant, like in Classical. Let's look at Sonata form quickly

 

 

THIS is what I mean by the "logic" of Art music, specifically Classical which the Beatles toyed with. Of course the Beatles did not entirely dive into Classical forms; but they used the qualities for what it calls for to inform their music. In Sonata form we start on the tonic, then we modulate to the dominant in the Exposition. Once we (sometimes) repeat the exposition, we move to the development where we can more freely choose where to go from here. The music stresses modulation and change through proportions. As we move through the Development of the work, we often fall into the parallel minor but it is not required. We seemingly pull further away from the tonic; but as the recapitulation enters we begin the move back to the tonic. Pop music largely does not carry this aesthetic or this form; but what the Beatles did was take note of modulation found in Classical and harmonic structure to inform their music.

 

And what is the "form" of Popular music? Well, there really isn't one other than what people call "Verse-Chorus-Verse". In that simplistic form, we don't get modulation. We don't get a sense of development from the movement of the harmony. We get one part, a second, then the first part replayed, then the second replayed. In Classical, that doesn't happen. The only instance you can really find of that is Rondo form; but Rondo form takes one theme and keeps introducing new themes one after the other to contrast with the original one.

 

The Beatles weren't using Classical form; but they were using understandings in Art music (and specifically Classical) to inform what they were doing. So it's not a contradiction because they were still a Pop group and the Pop music aesthetic never changed. They just happened to have a wider appreciation to wildly different music throughout the world and they expressed that. Dipping into styles of Art music =/= Art music.

 

 

I hope that cleared up some of what I was getting at.

[Senedjem 510]

relentless's artpop could mean anything