artists you don't get

[Annabelle 0]

sonic youth

tom waits (circa rain dogs - onwards)

joy division

animal collective

radiohead

pink floyd

 

i'm sure there is more.

[Slayer 0]

Don't get as in don't get the music itself, or don't get why they're so popular?

 

For me, Radiohead would fit the former, while Oasis would fit the latter

[Annabelle 0]

not necessarily the mainstream popularity, but artists who have been considered media/inddie darlings for whichever reason. the ones that msot people see to have on all of their "best of" lists & so forth.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Weezer. Specifically, how the Pitchforkers embrace Radiohead for their cerebral and complicated music with profound lyrics, then turn around and embrace Weezer for playing I-IV-V progressions and going "oohhhhh ooh-ooh, whoa-oh, yeah oh, ooohh-oh."

 

As for stuff the ol' Banker doesn't get:

Joy Division is good in that seminal way, like the Velvet Underground. You can hear where future bands took their cues, but the future bands improved upon it, too. It's like eating raw eggs.

 

Pink Floyd from '70 to '77 is just amazing stuff, that's all

[5_moves_of_doom 0]

Joy Division is good in that seminal way, like the Velvet Underground. You can hear where future bands took their cues, but the future bands improved upon it, too. It's like eating raw eggs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This, to me, is absurd. Name five bands that have been heavily influenced by VU that have improved on their sound. And I want reasons. Joy Division is a band that I love, but I could see what you're talking about with them.

 

As for the bands that Banky doesn't get... I don't know, I think Radiohead is overrated as hell, but I think all of those bands are great. How much Floyd have you heard, anyway? The others could just be your tastes, but I'm convinced that Pink Floyd produced at least one album for everybody.

 

Anyway, I like all of the bands that I'm going to list, and in some cases I like them quite a lot, but all of these are heralded as some of the greatest of all time and all that, and I've always had trouble realizing just what makes them great, per se.

 

1.) The Rolling Stones -- Prince can play every member of this band's instruments better than they can (including singing and dancing in Mick's case.) He can write more sensual ballads, more raunchy sex songs, and can rock twice as hard. The fact that one man could so flawlessly destroy one of the "greatest rock & roll bands of all time" is amazing to me. The Stones were blues-rock... there were many, many artists who did the blues better; many, many artists who did rock better; and many, many artists who did blues-rock better. I think they've got some solid albums, and I highly enjoy the early guiter interplay between Brian Jones and Keith, but nothing in my mind makes them distinctly great.

 

2.) Echo & the Bunnymen -- Good band, some great singles and sometimes even better albums... but this is definitely a band where I think that the bands that they influenced surpassed them by miles.

 

3.) Devendra Banhart -- He's cool and everything, but... what the hell? There is no originality in what this guy is doing. Marc Bolan, anyone? He's just a guy with long-hair playing folk music, and there is plenty of better folk out there. He's just decent, and nothing more, in my opinion.

 

4.) Tupac -- Eh, Biggie is better.

 

5.) Bob Marley -- Solid albums. Solid songs. But Jesus, the Congos expanded the sounds of reggae 100x more than Bob Marley ever did, and they did it with one fricken' album. In fact, every single highly-acclaimed reggae band that I've gotten into has been better than Marley, making him the worst major reggae artist I've ever heard. I guess he had just been way too overhyped as the man who popularized the genre in America and all that for me not to be completely underwhelmed by the time I actually got into his music.

 

Oh, and finally...

 

6.) The Sex Pistols -- They're important, but they're pretty bad. And they're not even as important as they're supposed to be.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Joy Division is good in that seminal way, like the Velvet Underground. You can hear where future bands took their cues, but the future bands improved upon it, too. It's like eating raw eggs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This, to me, is absurd. Name five bands that have been heavily influenced by VU that have improved on their sound. And I want reasons. Joy Division is a band that I love, but I could see what you're talking about with them.

Maybe it's just that I really don't like Lou Reed for bashing Zappa, but I don't think the VU was THAT outstanding on its own, not compared to their West Coast contemporaries in the Mothers. I don't know, I thought it'd be pretty safe to say they were groundbreaking for their time, but got overshadowed by their followers. That's just the natural progression of music.

[5_moves_of_doom 0]

Joy Division is good in that seminal way, like the Velvet Underground. You can hear where future bands took their cues, but the future bands improved upon it, too. It's like eating raw eggs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This, to me, is absurd. Name five bands that have been heavily influenced by VU that have improved on their sound. And I want reasons. Joy Division is a band that I love, but I could see what you're talking about with them.

Maybe it's just that I really don't like Lou Reed for bashing Zappa, but I don't think the VU was THAT outstanding on its own, not compared to their West Coast contemporaries in the Mothers. I don't know, I thought it'd be pretty safe to say they were groundbreaking for their time, but got overshadowed by their followers. That's just the natural progression of music.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I still disagree, but am a big Zappa fan too, and had never heard of Lou bashing him. Ellaborate?

[The Czech Republic 0]

Well, the two bands were kind of opposites. You had the Mothers from LA, who were all these dirty pot/acid-addled freaks, then you have the Velvets in New York, who have the all-black art-student Andy Warhol urban sophistication going. Though they were both the most important experimental bands of the 60s, they carried themselves completely differently. Anyway, both were signed to Verve in the 60s, and at a Velvets-Mothers concert in Los Angeles, the VU got booed off the stage by the L.A. freaks. Lou took it to heart and bashed Frank Zappa at every turn for being a bad musician and fucking asshole. Lou then made Metal Machine Music. Eventually, Lou of all people inducted FZ into the Hall of Fame as some big conciliatory gesture, though his kids never believed him.

[Annabelle 0]

cold is the only word i can use to describe joy divisions music. its cold & uninviting. everything is so similar. their style is great when it was updated & built upon by its peers.

 

ps. lour reed is/was a pompus arse. though, i won't let it get in the way of his musical legacy. which, for the msot part, should given to john cale anway. i like the cale vu albums, and cale solo albums more than the lou stuff.

[5_moves_of_doom 0]

That's an interesting tidbit of Zappa/Reed interaction. Though as far as I've collected over the years, Reed was a pompous little fucker and Zappa was an asshole (one with a great sense of humor, that is.) Neither of these things get in the way for me when it comes to listening to their music, however.

[Annabelle 0]

i don't get zappa, either. i figure i am just nto avant-garde enough to appreciate tthe previously mentioned artists.

[The Czech Republic 0]

That's an interesting tidbit of Zappa/Reed interaction. Though as far as I've collected over the years, Reed was a pompous little fucker and Zappa was an asshole (one with a great sense of humor, that is.) Neither of these things get in the way for me when it comes to listening to their music, however.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Zappa was an asshole because he was an obsessive perfectionist who demanded the best from his musicians so as to realize his ideas. Lou Reed just did a lot of smack.

 

And yeah, John Cale was really the brains behind the Velvets, I think. Take him out of the equation (which Lou did) and you've just got vaguely edgy pop songs.

[Annabelle 0]

more like castrated pop songs. the velvets have their reputation because of their first two albums, i reckon.

[The Czech Republic 0]

First time I heard "Stephanie Says" I never would have guessed it was the Velvets.

 

 

Okay. So how bout them Weezer.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

I don't get what a lot of people see in Lamb of God, but that doesn't apply here since most of the metalheads dislike them as well, and the rest of you...either haven't heard them, heard of them, or just don't care for metal.

 

As for why the Sex Pistols are important, it's quite simple: how many bands were so "dangerous" that they were deported from their own country? Nevermind The Bollocks is actually a good album that I feel still holds up today, especially the two big tracks ("Anarchy in the UK" and "God Save The Queen," obviously) and a couple others ("Bodies" and "Pretty Vacant" are my favorites). They didn't start the punk movement, but they did add an edge to it that wasn't quite there yet, and brought it very much so into the mainstream.

Musically? Not very influential. But the fact that people BELIEVED they were dangerous bastards, when in reality the only one remotely dangerous was Sid (junkies, especially psychotic ones, are ALWAYS dangerous), is what makes them important to punk and rock in general.

 

I don't get most of the bands people talk about nonstop here, like Wilco, Velvet, Radiohead, and the indie rock bands some people cream themselves over.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I tried and failed at The Arcade Fire.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

tom waits (circa rain dogs - onwards)

Very easily off-putting. I think Rain Dogs blew my mind from the first time I heard it, though. The weird music works for me, and his vocal performances reached a whole new level around that time as well. Songs like "Time," "Anywhere I Lay My Head," or "Who Are You" (off Bone Machine) are pretty much the most gut-wrenching, bombastic ballads I've ever heard. Overall, his output from the mid-80s onward provides an absolutely unique type of sound and performance, which I think is a major part of the appeal.

 

I'll second Animal Collective, though I haven't heard the new album yet and everyone tells me I'll like it. I'm still working on the Talking Heads, as we mentioned in that other thread. I also struggle a bit with Television, which I can see is technically great, but doesn't interest me a whole lot. Maybe my 1977-1984 heart just belongs to the Cars.

[Youth N Asia 0]

Radiohead and Tool

[Guest beau99]

Tried Project 86.

 

I still fail to see how they were even signed by Atlantic Records.

[Guest Temet]

Perhaps the importance of bands like The Velvet Underground and the Sex Pistols is not in their music, but their approach to making music...

[Annabelle 0]

lazarus mentioned a band i've never even heard. the sex pistols were not intended to be considered good.

 

add talking heads to this list as well. i've tried them A LOT.

[nl5xsk1 0]

Tool

Nirvana

Zappa

Rolling Stones (they stopped being good a long, long time ago)

Weezer

 

Like Banky (sorta) said, there are many more ... those are just the 5 that jumped to my mind

[Black Lushus 0]

my dumb ol mainstream listening ass doesn't get most of the artists you guys are always mentioning in this folder...

[Henry Spencer 0]

Put me down for Zappa and Television.

[The Czech Republic 0]

How much Zappa have you listened to thus far? Let me show you the way!

[nl5xsk1 0]

I own(ed) Joe's Garage and a live show (I want to see it was at the Fillmore, but don't quote me). And I've heard a bunch of random songs on 'mix-tapes' or as philler on Phish bootlegs. Just never wowed me, Czech.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Random songs ain't the way to go. Each album is meant to be digested as a cohesive work.

 

I recommend We're Only In It For The Money; it's an outstanding fuck-you to the 1960s. Uncle Meat is the same style of editing, but the social commentary takes a way-back seat to musical composition. Jazz fusion + 20th century avant-garde composers. Oh man, good stuff. It'll take two full listens, but it changed my life and can change yours too

 

And I don't like Joe's Garage that much myself. Probably the third-worst era: Vinnie Colaiuta is good enough to pull it past the stale 80s lineup, and no era of Zappa was worse than Flo and Eddie. Oh man.

[nl5xsk1 0]

See, I thought that Joe's was the one that people raved about ... was I wrong?

 

(well, that might be a dumb question, since you're a fan and you're telling me that it's not one of your favorites).

 

Not to encourage p2p, but do you know anywhere to find Zappa online? I'd rather not pay for another disc that I'll just end up selling back for $2.00 (or $3.00 worth of store credit).

[The Czech Republic 0]

http://www.rykodisc.com keepers of the Zappa back catalogue

 

Barnes & Noble and Borders have it all too, and a discount if you're a member.

 

Bother me on AIM I'll send you anything you want

 

As for Joe's, it's one of his few mass-appeal ones, it appears. However, I just can't get into it. It's a bit long, and FZ admits it's ridiculous stuff. The Central Scrutinizer gets old. Strangely, amidst appliance-fucking, groupie-fucking, and personal freedoms-fucking, "Watermelon In Easter Hay" and "Outside Now" are two of his most beautiful songs. Interesting time signatures, too: alternating 4/4 and 5/4, and 11/4.

[Slayer 0]

Joe's Garage is my second favorite studio work (after You Are What You Is)

 

Really, I started off with all his live stuff though. His crowd interaction and playing energy live (something you can't get from the studio recordings) are amazing.