Unpopular opinions
-
I mean the first part, I genuinely hate the Beatles.
Same.
Third. Rock and roll didn’t begin until 1977 as far as I’m concerned.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I was always a Mountain and Spirit person. A bit before 77.
-
Rock and roll didn’t begin until 1977 as far as I’m concerned.
I'm not really up on dinosaur rock, but I'm guessing Van Halen?
And yes, The Beatles are musical cancer.
-
no way… the beatles are goat...
-
-
I like music from this century. Old stuff sucks.
-
@IronKnuckleHead:
Also possibly worth mentioning: Entombed are one of my favorite bands. Swedes in general do heavy music right.
Their first 2 albums are fantastic and then they did Wolverine Blues which was a big wtf. Haven't listened to them since. But then again, I haven't followed them because I think they broke up at that time and then reformed years later. Don't even know if it's the original lineup anymore.
-
Rock and roll didn’t begin until 1977 as far as I’m concerned.
I'm not really up on dinosaur rock, but I'm guessing Van Halen?
https://www.spin.com/2007/09/1977-year-punk-exploded/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
@IronKnuckleHead:
I can go down the list…Metallica, Slipknot, Pantera, Slayer, etc...all have insanely tight rhythm sections with technical ability on an extremely high level and they write good songs to boot. Personal taste aside, Zepellin doesn't touch them.
"Insanely tight" isn't necessarily a good thing IMHO. I'd probably also put Crazy Horse in my top five rhythm sections, so take from that what you will. Metallica's first record I like and then I'm into Load. Everything in between… meh. Pantera sound like someone gave a roided up chimp raised in a trailer park a guitar. Unironically better when they were a speed metal band. "Phil Anselmo's pain burns in the heart of my little brother." Never much listened to Slipknot but that's not by accident. Slayer are decent, but you'll be not very surprised to hear that I like their first two records better than the rest. I don't dislike their later stuff, just prefer the earlier records.
As far as the rest of this conversation goes... link related.
Also possibly worth mentioning: Entombed are one of my favorite bands. So it's not heavy music that I think is boring, it's this super stiff, soulless take on it I don't like. Harm's Way are another heavy band with some riffs off the top of my head to say nothing of bands like Discharge or Anti-Cimex. Swedes in general do heavy music right.
As far as "super tight" and "technically proficient" go, I'd put the JBs or Parliament light years ahead of any metal band in both regards… and you can dance to it.
Entombed was decent. Always liked their guitar tone. I actually liked a few tracks off of Wolverine Blues. Carcass was actually one of my favorite metal bands back in the day in that genre. Amazing riffs, melodic yet heavy and a great guitar tone as well, under appreciated IMO. I also dug Machine Head and Nailbomb back in the day but so many of these bands stay trapped in a box creatively and their vocalists are very poor to be honest. It gets insanely montonous with the few exceptions.
Metallica gets a lot of hate as expected and I'm not a fan of all of their albums but Load and Reload are terrible. At the end of the day they still have it in them to write a great thrash metal song (see "Spit out the Bone") though.Again, this topic is just turning into what bands and albums we liked. It's not about that. When you talk about "greatest rhythm section ever" and statements like that you have to put your personal taste on the back burner a bit IMO. For example Rush is amazingly talented in that regard and I respect their talent but I'm not a fan of their music at all. But I'm not going to rank them low and make statements like 'they suck and sound like shit just because I don't care for their music. Being a musician I still respect them.
-
I played drums my entire life,and for me it’s all about the groove,the X factor that makes you tap your foot when you here a song. All the great bands have to have a minimum level in competency at bass and drums for whatever it is they’re doing to work. I can’t think of any successful band that had a crappy rhythm section. Even The Ramones who weren’t great musicians had a great rhythm section for what they wanted to do. If you have a chance go to YouTube and watch a live video of Zeppelin doing The Ocean.
And I haven't played guitar my entire life, think that's almost impossible?
but I have played for 26 years….holy fuck I'm getting old. -
-
Entombed was decent. Always liked their guitar tone. I actually liked a few tracks off of Wolverine Blues. Carcass was actually one of my favorite metal bands back in the day in that genre. Amazing riffs, melodic yet heavy and a great guitar tone as well, under appreciated IMO. I also dug Machine Head and Nailbomb back in the day but so many of these bands stay trapped in a box creatively and their vocalists are very poor to be honest. It gets insanely montonous with the few exceptions.
Metallica gets a lot of hate as expected and I'm not a fan of all of their albums but Load and Reload are terrible. At the end of the day they still have it in them to write a great thrash metal song (see "Spit out the Bone") though.I saw Carcass years ago. Might've been for the Necroticism album or Heartwork. I know Robb Flynn gets a lot of flack but I think he's a good guitarist. I loved the stuff he did when he was in Forbidden and Vio-lence, but this was back when the whole Bay Area thrash scene was big. Metallica just fell off the radar for me after the Black album. There's no question that Hetfield is an awesome guitarist and songwriter but he kinda changed his vocal style which lost me. And when the band started doing the make-up thing I didn't know what was going on. I get that bands want to do different stuff musically but often times the new change in sound fails to live up to everyone's expectations. I'll always love the early stuff Metallica did though.
-
Rock and roll didn’t begin until 1977 as far as I’m concerned.
I'm not really up on dinosaur rock, but I'm guessing Van Halen?
https://www.spin.com/2007/09/1977-year-punk-exploded/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ignoring @Chris and his fake hipster opinion, I'd like to remind you of the existence of The Stooges who invented punk 10 years before Sid and Johnny started pretending they could play. And then there's the MC5…
EDIT: I'm enjoying this thread at the minute. Pointless expressions of baseless preference and personal opinion that go largely unchallenged.
-
No one actually “Likes” Iggy Pop, though [emoji16]
And Sid never actually played live with the Pistols. On stage, yes, but had his instrument amplified, I don’t think.
In Johnny’s book, he claimed they never plugged in his bass because he was so bloody terrible.
Which became apparent during his worthless stint as a soloist.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I like this thread. So much teenage angst coming from people with kids and 401ks hahaha
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
We are pretty terrible, that’s for sure…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
My problem with Punk as a whole is that, being musically Trained, I would rather listen to something that actually sounds good, rather than just being progressive. I love the sentiment and most of the riffs, as well as the lyrics, but sadly, most of the 60-late 80s stuff sounded so terrible on record I can’t stand to listen to it, no matter how “good” or “ground breaking” it was.
Minor Threat was kind of the first album I actually connected with as a teen. The others I just liked because of their impact.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
