 |
|
 |
|
On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:23:16 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
On May 21, 7:52 pm, Raja <...@yahoo.com
"Rumours" was their biggest seller from the Nicks era (Buckingham-
Nicks era, really), but I prefer the Fleetwood Mac "white" album from
1975. After "Rumours," they began to degenerate with "Tusk," but for
a while, still had a smattering of good songs on uneven albums.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 11:38:11 +1000, globular <...@there.invalid
Not a great fan of U2 either. Unfortunately Simple Minds became too
influenced by them in the mid-80s.
Non comprendo
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:03:58 -0700 (PDT), "who?" <...@sbcglobal.net
On May 21, 7:52 pm, Raja <...@yahoo.com
Back in the day when "Bread" was popular, I felt the same way as
you feel about the "Eagles. Today I would rather listen to bed
than the Eagles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 14:27:11 +0800, "Stitzer" <here@there
"Raja" <...@w35g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I know tennis rocks (to some people), but wtf...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:18:13 GMT, "James Tiberius Kirk" <...@isgay.com
Raja and the Vag Lubers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 07:38:41 -0700 (PDT), progea <...@hotmail.com
Co-r-rect off, Raja!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
When it comes down to it, we are all speaking our opinions about these
bands. If we say something is good and someone else says it's bad,
what is there to do then but cite some supposed authority's critical
opinion or polls demonstrating that large numbers of fans agree with
us? Pull up any album on Amazon, for instance, and you'll see some
rating it a masterpiece and others calling it the worst garbage
they've ever heard.
That said, I think the early Eagles had some good songs, as did the
early Police. Many people also love Van Halen. And if their hearts are
gratified by tasteless guitar playing and shrieking vocals, who am I
to say they're wrong. To each their own. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 21, 8:53 pm, Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
lol, how can you trust Amazon. People rate albums there after buying
them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 03:13:29 GMT, "Diabolik" <...@noemail.com
"Gracchus" <...@g1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
When it comes down to it, we are all speaking our opinions about these
bands. If we say something is good and someone else says it's bad,
what is there to do then but cite some supposed authority's critical
opinion or polls demonstrating that large numbers of fans agree with
us? Pull up any album on Amazon, for instance, and you'll see some
rating it a masterpiece and others calling it the worst garbage
they've ever heard.
That said, I think the early Eagles had some good songs, as did the
early Police. Many people also love Van Halen. And if their hearts are
gratified by tasteless guitar playing and shrieking vocals, who am I
to say they're wrong. To each their own. ;)
Tasteless guitar playing? LOL
He was the most innovative guitarist of that era in his genre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 21, 8:53 pm, Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
I dont think David Lee Roth shrieked. He didn't have the range for
that. He was an average singer though. The big problem with Van Halen
was they couldnt write songs, but they did make some funny videos. And
oh yeah, Eddie Van Halen was a bit of an attention seeking tool
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 21 May 2009 19:06:29 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
According to Merriam-Webster: "shriek" =
1: to utter a sharp shrill sound 2 a: to cry out in a high-pitched
voice : screech
Strictly speaking, then, you are right about Roth. He merely bellowed,
but Sammy Hagar still may have shrieked.
The only good thing about Eddie Van Halen that I can think of is that
he had a few good guitar solos (like on "Beat It"), but far more often
he unimaginatively overplayed. And yes, except for the cover tunes
they did, the songs themselves were weak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 21, 9:06 pm, Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
Sammy Hagar was pathetic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
I will accept the proposition that Van Hagar, specifically, were
worthless.
Joe Ramirez
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 21, 9:06 pm, Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
100% agree. I get pissed off when I see Eddie Van Halen in top 10 of
guitarist lists. He didnt invent the finger tapping technique as many
of his fans claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapping
"One of the first rock guitarists to record using the tapping
technique was Steve Hackett from Genesis [2]. Two examples of
Hackett's complex tapping can be heard on the song "Dancing with the
Moonlit Knight", from 1973, and "The Return of the Giant Hogweed",
from 1971. Harvey Mandel, well-known for his psychedelic guitar
playing, also employed 2-handed fretboard tapping in the 1960s. Mandel
was one of the first rock guitarists to utilize this technique, years
before Eddie Van Halen and Stanley Jordan first appeared.
Tapping was also used by Ace Frehley as early as 1975, for his live
solo at the end of the song "She" during Kiss's performance on the
Midnight Special. The technique would remain a part of Frehley's solos
from 1977 through the Kiss reunion during "Shock Me". Various other
guitarists such as Frank Zappa, Billy Gibbons from ZZ Top, Brian May
from Queen, Duane Allman [3] from the The Allman Brothers Band and
Leslie West from Mountain were using the tapping technique in the
early 1970s as well. Ace Frehley and Frank Zappa used a guitar pick
for their style of tapping.
Eddie Van Halen helped popularise the tapping technique for the modern
audience and influenced many guitarists in his wake. Thus, many people
wrongly assume that Eddie actually invented tapping. His explanation
is that he was inspired to use tapping after hearing the fluid left-
hand only pull-offs in Jimmy Page's guitar solo for "Heartbreaker",
and expanding this technique by adding his right hand finger(s) out of
necessity in reaching higher notes. Perhaps the most well known
employment of tapping is the short piece "Eruption" on the first Van
Halen album which was released in 1978, which features very fast
tapping triads and formed the blueprint for heavy metal lead playing
throughout the 1980s."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 03:14:46 GMT, "Diabolik" <...@noemail.com
<...@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 9:06 pm, Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
100% agree. I get pissed off when I see Eddie Van Halen in top 10 of
guitarist lists. He didnt invent the finger tapping technique as many
of his fans claim.
LOL. So what if he didn't invent it? He made it popular.
He was the most innovative guitarist of that era in his genre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 21, 10:14 pm, "Diabolik" <...@noemail.com
Since Hackett, May and Allman were very popular guitarists, they would
have popularized it first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 00:04:10 -0400, "RichL" <...@yahoo.com
Diabolik <...@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
"Innovative" implies that he invented something or broke new ground in
some way with his playing. He's talented and popular but I really
wouldn't call him innovative.
Brian May was doing tapping before Van Halen was around, as were many
before him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 04:43:48 GMT, "Diabolik" <...@noemail.com
"RichL" <...@supernews.com...
He did break new ground, with his distinct sound, riffs and by popularising
tapping.
He's one of the role models for modern guitarists.
I would.
Sure, but if it wasn't for Van Halen it probably wouldn't be as popular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 05:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
On May 21, 11:43 pm, "Diabolik" <...@noemail.com
Yes, because you are ignoring the word's definition.
Irrelevant. Popularizing something doesn't compare to originating it.
There's nothing wrong with Van Halen using techniques that others
pioneered, but there's no point in pretending that he invented them.
And I reiterate that he was *not* a tasteful guitar player. All Eddie
Van Halen did was help perpetuate a trend toward playing more notes
faster without much consideration for the notes chosen. In doing so,
he spawned countless guitar players who couldn't distinguish flash
from substance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 13:27:39 GMT, "Diabolik" <...@noemail.com
"Gracchus" <...@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 11:43 pm, "Diabolik" <...@noemail.com
I define as *creating your own style and sound* as inovative, and that what
Van Halen did.
I didn't suggest it was.
Who's pretening he invented them?
All I suggested was that he created his own *distinct* sound, and playing
style.
Of course he didn't have the substance of, for eg, a blues player, but he
did have subtance, unlike other guitarists of his generation, like Malsteem.
Substance comes from the soul, and you either got it or not, irrelavant of
the techniques you use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 07:01:08 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
On May 22, 8:27 am, "Diabolik" <...@noemail.com
By that definition, any artist/band who doesn't sound like someone
else is an innovator. That's setting the bar pretty low. A few
examples of people I'd call innovators would be Charlie Parker, Les
Paul, Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles, etc. They changed music, recording,
technology in a major, lasting way. Van Halen did none of that.
I totally agree. So far, I've seen no evidence that Van Halen has it
or ever did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 14:43:11 GMT, "Diabolik" <...@noemail.com
"Gracchus" <...@m17g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On May 22, 8:27 am, "Diabolik" <...@noemail.com
Well he has to be as popular and successful as Van Halen of course, or
what's the point fo being an innovator if nobody knows who you are?
For sure.
Well he was the basis for many modern guitarists, so I think he changed a
lot in guitar playing.
I have, even though not to the extent of Hendrix and the likes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 08:01:29 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
On May 22, 9:43 am, "Diabolik" <...@noemail.com
Sadly, many great innovators have been virtually unrecognized in their
own lifetimes, only to be appreciated later. Many more are appreciated
by their peers, but not the general public. Among guitar players, I'd
cite Nick Drake, Richard Thompson, Danny Gatton, and Roy Buchanan as a
few examples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 08:16:39 -0700 (PDT), number_six <...@hotmail.com
On May 22, 7:01 am, Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
Anyone know whether Stanley Jordan developed the tapping technique, or
does it predate him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 22, 11:01 am, Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
Robert Quine.
Back to VH, you can be influential without being truly innovative.
Eddie Van Halen certainly was the former.
Joe Ramirez
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 08:31:00 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
Absolutely. I loved Quine's playing with Matthew Sweet (especially
alongside Richard Lloyd). I was sad to read a few years ago about his
death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 21 May 2009 22:26:17 -0700 (PDT), The Nice Mean Man <...@aol.com
1] The Doors
2] The Doors
3] The Doors
4] The Doors
5] The Doors
6] The Doors
7] The Doors
TNMM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 01:56:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnB <...@tinyworld.co.uk
On 22 May, 06:26, The Nice Mean Man <...@aol.com
Gosh, all those doors! Do the decent thing, old chap, and use one of
them to leave by ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 10:36:06 -0700 (PDT), The Nice Mean Man <...@aol.com
On May 22, 4:56 am, JohnB <...@tinyworld.co.uk
Sorry that I stepped on your toes there, 'chap'. You obviosly suffer
from a case of
1] Arrested adolescence
2] Arrested adolescence
3] Arrested adolescence
4] Arrested adolescence
5] Arrested adolescence
6] Arrested adolescence
7] Arrested adolescence
Now... why don't you go and dust off Break On Through for the 30
millionth time. Sounds like you need another fix.
The Nice Mean Man
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 11:11:13 -0700 (PDT), Relayer <...@aol.com
On May 22, 3:56�am, JohnB <...@tinyworld.co.uk
What I never liked about the Doors were they keyboards, that sounded
like one of the air organs you would by at Woolworths as a kid
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 20:12:42 +0100, The Home Guard <...@theSPAMTRAPhomeguard.info
Allow me to paraphrase what you are saying: 'These bands have got a low
*rating* on *Rate* Your Music, therefore they're *overrated*'.
Ummm... Haven't you just picked out RYM's most *underrated* bands,
statistically speaking?
--
My band: feedback always welcome
http://www.myspace.com/thehomeguardinfo
http://cdbaby.com/cd/homeguard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 22, 2:12 pm, The Home Guard
<...@theSPAMTRAPhomeguard.info
RYM is rated by fans, DDD is rated by critics, VH1 is rated by critics
as well.
I compared the three list. These bands are highly rated by critics but
are lowly rated by fans. Now got the clue?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 15:23:30 +0100, The Home Guard <...@theSPAMTRAPhomeguard.info
Actually, the point I was trying to make was this: why is one list more
valid than another? Using exactly the same statistics, it's possible to
reach precisely the opposite conclusion if you start from a different
standpoint.
Purely out of interest, what are you listening to at the moment?
Personally, I happen to be thoroughly enjoying the new album from
Madness. Without looking, I doubt they're particularly highly rated on
any of the lists you provided. I also doubt that The Liberty of Norton
Folgate is even on the radar of most people reading this. But - you know
what? - I don't let that spoil my enjoyment of what I think is a top
quality release.
Now, are you going to tell me I'm wrong to like Madness and that their
new album isn't as good as I think it is because that's what the
statistics tell you? Or can you accept that some people like some kinds
of music, other people like other kinds, and none of them is "right" or
"wrong"?
--
My band: feedback always welcome
http://www.myspace.com/thehomeguardinfo
http://cdbaby.com/cd/homeguard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 08:00:56 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
On May 23, 9:23 am, The Home Guard
<...@theSPAMTRAPhomeguard.info
If Raja were to accept what you propose, he would have to stop posting
lists and find a new compulsion. :)
I don't mind the lists myself. Often they give rise to interesting
discussions. But he does seem to believe that there is a "final word"
to be had. (e.g., Robert Plant is the greatest singer in the history
of rock, The Beatles' rockers were bad, Steely Dan sucked, etc.). For
support, he'll usually turn to "expert testimony," citing cherry-
picked links leading to critics' articles or polls that coincide with
his own opinions. This is comparable to what a number of rst posters
do when trying to prove "their" tennis player is GOAT, except that
it's even more bogus when applied to art. Using winning percentage or
slam count at least says something about a player's record in
competition. Album sale stats and fan ratings only prove popularity,
and critical opinion is entirely subjective.
There is NO right or wrong when it comes to musical
appreciation...with the possible exception of Kenny G.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Have you considered the possibility that the critics are right and the
fans wrong? Maybe the critics have broader, more cultivated tastes
than the fans. Maybe the self-selected fan voters on music websites
have narrow, geeky preferences that condemn some middle-of-the-road
music just for being middle-of-the-road. Or maybe there's no
statistically significant difference between an album that's ranked
750 and one that's ranked 1,250, so that not having an album in the
top 1,000 is not a meaningful metric. Maybe having 10 albums in the
top 5,000 is a more significant artistic accomplishment than having
two albums in the top 1,000.
In other words, your methodology does not seem adequately rigorous to
me. I think you looked at lists you knew would generate the types of
bands you wanted to trash anyway. Don't you think it's surprising --
or to the rest of us, suspicious -- that a purportedly data-driven
list of overrated bands should fail to include a single band that you,
personally, really like? You simply happen to despise *all* the bands
your "study" identified? Right.
Joe Ramirez
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 22, 4:53 pm, poisoned rose <...@aol.com
I disagree. Most critics dont even listen to the bands they wrote.
They go by popular perception. The fans on RYM know their shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Okay lets put this way.
1) Highly rated on critic list (DDD, VH1) - Highly rated on fan list
(RYM) - Highly rated by me
- several bands like that are (Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd, Who,
Velvet Underground)
2) Lowly rated on critic list (DDD, VH1) - Highly rated on fan list
(RYM) - Highly rated by me
- several bands like that are (Sabbath, Joy Division, Purple, Yes,
VDGG)
3) Highly rated on critic list (DDD, VH1) - Highly rated on fan list
(RYM) - Lowly rated by me
- several bands like that are (Talking Heads, Radiohead, Allman
Brothers, Grateful Dead)
4) Lowly rated on critic list (DDD, VH1) - Lowly rated on fan list
(RYM) - Highly rated by me
- several bands like that are (Hawkwind, Rush, Verve)
5) Highly rated on critic list (DDD, VH1) - Lowly rated on fan list
(RYM) - Lowly rated by me
- several bands like that are (U2, Beach Boys, Police) ---- the one
on this thread
6) Lowly rated on critic list (DDD, VH1) - Lowly rated on fan list
(RYM) - Lowly rated by me
- several bands like that are (Motley Crue, Poison, Creed)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
No critics dont base quality as a factor. They go by historical
importance.
Well if you are middle of the road, then you are nowhere.
Hardly! I would have loved to trash The Who. And their rate him on
RYM. Also some of the bands I dont care for at all like Talking Heads
did very well on the critics list and fan votes on RYM.
I like Moody Blues very much. Their best ranked album is outside the
top 1000. And they are not on VH1s list but on DDD list. So I couldnt
include them since they are not rated very high by critics or fans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 19:41:18 -0700 (PDT), amy <...@yahoo.com
i will notify the moodies I'm sure they would puke
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
I doubt that this is entirely true, but if it is, then you're guilty
of methodological malfeasance. It was up to you to select evaluations
based on similar criteria. If we're comparing apples and oranges --
one group looks at quality, while the other looks at history -- that's
your fault.
Joe Ramirez
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 15:25:01 -0700 (PDT), Professor X <...@hotmail.com
With a lot of critics, and this is with anything from food to music to
art, a culture prevales whereby it is almost blasphemous to say
anything negative about certain artists or acts. A good example would
be The Beatles, who we are supposed to blindlt ACCEPT as being the
greatest band of all time. Indeed, to say that they were anything else
makes you liable for the death penalty! You also have to remember that
the fan vote, whilst it may not represent a broader understanding of
music on an individual level, it will do so as a collective. I'm sure
that 100,000 fan votes must count for more than the opinion of one
critic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 19:02:25 -0400, "RichL" <...@yahoo.com
Professor X <...@hotmail.comandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Artists_of_Rock_ N'_Roll
The fans voted for the Beatles with their wallets.
Fans yes, critics no (e.g., Britney Spears) -- usually bad but
occasionally good..
Fans no, critics yes (e.g., Velvet Underground) -- sometimes good,
sometimes bad.
Fans yes, critics yes -- c'mon. You're deluding yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 16:21:02 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
On May 22, 5:25 pm, Professor X <...@hotmail.com
Submit your own choice for greatest band of all time. Only then will
we decide if you are subject to the death penalty. :)
Really, what is more important is what "great band" means to any given
person. If you are rating instrumental proficiency or live
performance, loads of bands would be better than the Beatles. Their
great strengths were composition, arranging, and studio work. If you
don't value these things, then they are not a great band. If you do,
they are very great indeed.
I agree with you, though, that there seem to be unwritten rules about
bands that are sacrosanct. Pink Floyd also comes to mind as one of
them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
Modern Talking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 22, 6:21 pm, Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
Pink Floyd is frequently dismissed as a band for druggies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 19:42:38 -0700 (PDT), amy <...@yahoo.com
they are for dope heads and you are a dope
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 03:13:56 GMT, "Worf son of Mohg" <...@kurah.cahm
And vag lubers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 18:55:14 -0700 (PDT), "who?" <...@sbcglobal.net
Even when I used to hang around with druggies in my youth,
(I prefered alcohol) I could never get into Pink Floyd, as much as I
tried.
Sometimes I would take a toke or two to see if I could understand
their
popularity, but it never happened
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 19:12:35 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
On May 22, 8:55 pm, "who?" <...@sbcglobal.net
A friend once gave me "The Wall" as a gift. I listened several times,
thinking it might eventually sound less tedious. This never happened
either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 22 May 2009 23:51:01 -0700 (PDT), "who?" <...@sbcglobal.net
On May 22, 9:12 pm, Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 12:36:44 GMT, "Diabolik" <...@noemail.com
"Gracchus" <...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On May 22, 8:55 pm, "who?" <...@sbcglobal.net
I rate "The Wall" as one of the best albums of all time.
I think the arrangements on this album are fantastic and sets a precedent to
future arrangements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 22, 10:12 pm, Gracchus <...@hotmail.com
Pink Floyd is effete. Their vintage '70s material rocks less than
virtually any "great" rock music I've ever heard. And they fail to
make up for their lack of energy with attractive melodicism.
Before you ask, yes Raja, I will concede that "Piper" is more
energetic than Floyd's non-Syd material, and actually has some cool
garage-psych tunes. But the music the band is most famous for --
that's effete.
Joe Ramirez
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 22, 6:25 pm, Professor X <...@hotmail.com
That's an exaggeration, but of course you're correct that the
overwhelming consensus is that the Beatles were a great band. Still,
if you can make out the contrary case, go right ahead. But please be
sure to distinguish between showing that the Beatles were not a great
band and merely showing that you don't *like* the Beatles. (Remember
that there's no obligation to like them even if they were great.)
I disagree with this contention for several reasons:
First, collective "man in the street" opinion is often good at
answering "common sense" questions, or making judgments about
personalities and attitudes, but is usually poor at dealing with
complex or technical matters. Uninformed or misguided opinions about
science, logic, art, etc., don't suddenly become accurate and
insightful when multiplied.
Second, there is a difference between taste and judgment -- whether I
like something, and whether I deem it good. This distinction is
sometimes hard to respect, but good critics at least make the effort,
and their background and training help them. The typical fan makes no
effort to separate these views and almost always conflates them
completely.
Finally, whatever value collective fan opinion may have depends on an
unbiased method for compiling it. Even if I trusted in the wisdom of
fan preferences, I wouldn't give much credence to a pile of opinions
submitted by self-selected voters. Many website voters are motivated
by a desire either to boost their favorite artists (somehow, every
album you enjoy becomes an all-time classic :)) or to tear down the
ones they hate. What such rating websites tend to provide is a summary
of extreme opinion from a nonrepresentative sample of music fans,
namely, those who love geeking out on music rating websites.
Joe Ramirez
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 11:56:11 -0500, Dale Houstman <...@skypoint.com
I don't even think this is true: "man in the street" opinion (since
anyone can be the "man in the street" at the precise moment a question
is being asked) is not even good at answering "common sense" questions,
unless one thinks any and all humans at any given moment are godd at
answering "common sense questions" at which point the entire idea of
"common sense" must come into question. Which it should actually.
"common sense" is usually just someone's reading of a culture's
aggregate "mood" at any given moment in time and space. Thus it would be
"common sense" to beat a nagging wife if you had been living during the
time (most of recorded time) when women were mere chattel. Still "common
sense" for many people and some cultures. As for making judgments about
"personalities and attitudes" what could one say for a "man in the
street" who thinks torture is perfectly okay if it's done by the "good
people"? Or any number of "man in the street" opinions on social
attitudes. As for personalities: most people i've run into can't even
make valid judgments on their own spouses and children. So although "man
in the street" statements can be amusing, and (now and then) accurate or
insightful (0r incite-ful) they still have to be assayed one by one, and
a lack of knowledge is a lack of knowledge.
Most people are uninformed and incapable of expressing complex thoughts.
dmh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On May 21, 8:52 pm, Raja <...@yahoo.com
You are now indulging in hyperbole in order to make the gap between
these bands' reputations and their quality seem larger than it
actually is. I don't care very much for Van Halen, except for a few
songs, but they were not "worthless." The Police were far from
worthless, as discussed at length in another recent thread. I'm not
really an Aerosmith fan either, but at their best they were a very
good band, not a mediocre one. U2 I've already discussed (and I notice
that you are much harder on them in this thread than in your first
one). I agree that the Eagles were largely boring, but I would
hesitate to call them "overrated" because I don't think they were ever
rated that highly -- they were simply very popular. Tom Petty and the
Heartbreakers were commercial, but were not "corporate rock" as that
term is usually understood.
Joe Ramirez
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
yes compared to the other great hard rockers like Black Sabbath, Deep
Purple, Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Who etc, they are dire. I tried 1984, it
was quite awful. Then I tried their debut (usually considered their
best) and it stank too except (Aint Talking About Love and Eruption)
They had a few good pop songs, good enough to fit a single disc of a
best of collection, nothing more.
They were better than Van Halen, definitely. But that is not an
achievement
I disagree with you on U2. You are biased towards 80s alternative rock
bands.
What???? Who gave you that misinformation that they are not highly
rated? Look at this glowing Rolling Stone review. They are immortals
apparently.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7248609/the_immortals__the_greatest_arti sts_of_all_time_75_the_eagles
"The Eagles forever changed country and rock, but I just think of what
they did as being great American music. It's amazing how one band
could take all those influences -- country and rock, of course, but
also soul, R&B and folk -- and still sound so distinctive"
... that sentence wanted me wanna puke.
Okay I meant commercial when I said corporate rock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Yeah, I agree that's a pretty big load. Eagles ... "forever
changed" ... in the same sentence? But I think (hope?) such tripe is
not representative of critical opinion.
But your evaluation is still way off. Commercial rock "at its worst"?
You can't honestly believe that. Even if you don't like the TP & the
Heartbreakers, I'm sure you can think of many commercial outfits that
were much, much worse.
Joe Ramirez
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
But they aren't as much rated as much as Tom Petty, so they dont
matter. I dont care if Journey was far worse than TP and
Heartbreakers, no one rates them
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Geebus - What's wrong with tightly written songs that are radio
friendly with lyrics that can be examined on many levels? That is what
you get with Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. Mike Campbell played
guitar to fit the song, and not as an act of self-worship. As for
"corporate", Petty was one of the few who really made a difference for
Artist's Rights. When he realized the band would never recoup the
advances under the bad contract their former manager got from the
record company, he told everybody that the band was going to declare
bankruptcy to free themselves. And they held the tapes on their soon
to be smash album, Damn the Torpedos, to prove they were serious. The
record company caved, and gave them a new fair contract. Later, the
record company wanted to use the draw of a TP and the H album to move
the market to a higher price level. Petty fought this publically for
the fans, and the album was priced normally. Who else had the guts and
was in a position to do this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Thats is precisely what was wrong about their music. Yes they wrote
radio-friendly half baked rock and sold a lot. They deserve as much
respect as say Steve Miller Band or Bob Seger or John Cougar
Mellancamp. Nothing more. They are way too high on rock lists. I dont
like Bruce Springsteen either but he had more artistic integrity (well
at least early on).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Tom Petty rocked the hardest over his first four albums I'd say, but
anyway he is about the opposite of corporate rock, Raja obviously you
don't know much about the story of their band. I think you are using
"corporate rock" to mean that the band is not one of yur favorites.
richforman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|