Divisive bands

comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 7 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Robb ☀️ ‘It was hot in 1976!’ ☀️ (U22716)
posted 1 hour, 30 minutes ago
Both were just the boy bands of their time.... 100% pure pop boy bands and were both marketed as such.

————

Lol. Nurse, more meds for the troll
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Beatles kind of were a boy band, but to say they were ‘just’ a boy band completely misses point. They did all that (cheesy love songs, screaming girls) AND pushed musical boundaries and writing some of the greatest songs ever. NOBODY can listen to Happiness is a Warm Gun, Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day in the Life, to name but three examples, and say they’re the work of a ‘boy band’.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok I agree I was wrong to describe them as "just a boyband" I agree they were more than that . later on they grew out of that.

Just cos I said they were the boyband of their time doesnt mean they were bad. but I did specifically say that the first half of their career they were a boyband no ifs no buts IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Even that isn’t so clear-cut. First, their early songs were still often excellent, which separates them from ‘modern’ boy bands (subjective, I know). Second, their early and formative experiences in Hamburg taught them to ‘rock’ - to play loud and with real energy for hours on end, bantering with the audience in smoky, often violent, bars. That doesn’t sound like a boy band to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i never said ANY of their songs from any period of their career was good or bad. I have given zero opinion as to whether I thought they were good or bad or if indeed I like or dislike them.

Like I said and you agreed with they were a boy band, they wrote pop songs for a teenage market, and were marketed as such.

As I said I dont care too much but there is defo a touchy fan base that quickly jumps to conclusions and jump on the defensive.

for all those guys ... music is subjective .. there is no rules therefore no guaranteed "this is good" "this is bad" because there is no black and white.

Its fair to say that for at least some point in their career they were a boy band aimed at teenage girls much like !D.

I just knew that saying that would set of the usual crowd on the defensive and attack cos they automatically assume thats me putting them down.
I was proven hugely correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone can say something daft, then say the usual crowd is attacking them. Then say they knew that would happen and be proven hugely correct

comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 4 hours, 41 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 38 seconds ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Raptor✡ (U1071)
posted 1 minute ago
Radiohead infuriated me at the time of the release of their last album, which I define as their worst. They didn’t do any tour to support other than do 3 nights at some puny venue in Camden where it was borderline impossible to get a tkt.

Kid A and Amnesiac are some sublime albums though as is The Bends and Ok Computer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I really love Radiohead up to Ok Computer but I still struggle to get into much of their stuff since then. Some of it is just too experimental without any melody. Hail to the Thief is about as melodic as their albums have got since OK Computer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In Rainbows is also very melodic? King of Limbs, Kid A and Amnesiac are their more experimental/rhythmic/electronic efforts, though even they have more traditionally beautiful moments.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried listening to In Rainbows and didn't quite get into it. They are definitely a band you need to give multiple listens to though. They don't exactly do instantly catchy songs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I read a decent book recently (This Isn't Happening: Radiohead's Kid A and the Beginning of the 21st Century by Steven Hyden). The author makes the point that Pablo Honey is their only 'instant' album, the one that you kind of like as much as you're going to like it after a couple of listens. The others generally feel alienating at first, as if they're going out of their way to challenge you and even put you off, but after a while they seem really accessible, even poppy, and you wonder what it was you found so alienating at first. That's what I love about Radiohead though - underneath all the tortured, experimental sounds, there are simply wonderful songs that hit you, when they do hit you, all the harder because someone has turned the 'weird' dial a little bit.

For me, The Bends, OK Computer, Kid A, Amnesiac, Hail to the Thief and arguably In Rainbows are all works of pure genius. The other albums have their moments. I don't know if Radiohead are divisive but I do often hear them described as 'overrated'. To me, that's like saying Beethoven is overrated. You don't have to like him - that's a matter of taste (I personally find Mozart quite uninspiring at times) - but to deny their genius is pretty much objectively incorrect. Radiohead to me are vastly underrated, simply because I almost never hear them talked about as the greatest and most gifted band of all time. They deserve Beatles-like adulation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get that as far as requiring a few listens to have them latch on to you. I've found that more with Kid A etc. (the albums after OK Computer) although there's still some of that material that hasn't grown on me and I don't think it ever will after numerous listens of trying. OK Computer however I remember listening to that around the time of its release, I put it on in the background while studying for exams, and it kind of blew me away even then. There was a period where I became a bit addicted to it. They don't make music like this now.

OK Computer however I remember listening to that around the time of its release, I put it on in the background while studying for exams, and it kind of blew me away even then. There was a period where I became a bit addicted to it. They don't make music like this now.
—————

It’s just incredible. Sheer perfection.

Ok conputer is a masterpiece.

comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 1 minute ago
Ok conputer is a masterpiece.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Up there with Kings of Leon for me

comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 12 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 1 minute ago
Ok conputer is a masterpiece.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Up there with Kings of Leon for me
----------------------------------------------------------------------
👹

Don’t dislike KoL. They aren’t bad. Just not that great.

Having spent my formative years in the 50s, my teen years in the 60s, and my naughty years in the early 70s, they were definitely the three best decades for music ever, and the music was something else.

I have to say I don't get the Ed Sheeran hype. He would have been an obscure nobody in the three decades I mentioned.

comment by Robb We Win (U22716)
posted 3 days, 19 hours ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 second ago
comment by joeymancityz. (U4783)
posted 2 minutes ago
The Beetles were just the one direction of their day.
...............................

must have missed the part where 1D grafted in the clubs for years, played their own instruments and wrote their own material... sily me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i think they do write some of their own stuff and play instruments?

So are we saying that band should be rated on how good they are with their instruments and how long they played gigs for before making it ?

Is that really how you wanna argue how good the beatles were?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Beatles have one of the most extensive back catelogs of classic music in history which is admired and feted by not only their peers but multiple generations afterwards. They influenced thousands of bands and their music still stands up to scrutiny today and still will in 100+ years
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Agree, the first four Beatles albums are absolute classic albums of the era, and any other era. I outgrew the Beatles era, and musically moved on in the 1970s to Prog Rock. But in my 70s now, am firmly back with the Beatles early stuff, and they get a play in my house most days.

Greatest group ever in my opinion.

I have to say I don't get the Ed Sheeran hype. He would have been an obscure nobody in the three decades I mentioned.

—————

I think it’s partly because he’s average that he’s done so well. The 50s, 60s and 70s were often about superstars like Elvis, the Beatles and David Bowie, who seemed to exist in a separate sphere. Part of the modern age is about blurring that sphere with the one in which regular folk live. A lot of Ed Sheeran’s appeal seems to be along the lines of: ‘Look! He dresses like you lot, talks like you lot and everything!’