Controversial opinions

[Monahorns]

What I suspect is happening is that you're looking at the songs that made the Beatles initially famous and defining their entire careers on those songs. Well, that would be like me defining the Who by "My Generation" or Led Zeppelin by "Shapes of Things" (one of the earlier Yardbirds hits with Page, though that was a kick-*** song) when both groups obviously did far more impressive work than those initial songs.

Not really. I looked at their career a long time ago in the context of rock music and came to my conclusions. I don't think their music is bad. I like some of their songs, but I think their popularity has influenced too many other bands, and we have ended up the worse for it. It's average music which appeals to the average person. That will make a lot of many and sell many tickets but that doesn't mean much to me.

The comparison doesn't hold up. First, Nirvana didn't really open the door. Lollapalooza did. (In other words, Jane's Addiction did.) Furthermore, Alice in Chains had found success before Nirvana did. Second, it's one thing to open the door from Seattle, a city that was on the rise at the time and that the music industry already followed. It's quite another to do it from a decaying port city on a continent that the industry was almost entirely ignoring.

Do I think there market would have eventually opened up to Brits? Yes, but it would have been much slower and more gradual, which means it very well could have missed groups like the Who or the Yardbirds and therefore Led Zeppelin.

There was momentum building from years of good bands and increasing popularity. Like most people I heard of Jane's Addiction because of Nirvana. Others set the stage but Nirvana busted the door open. Still if they never existed it would have been someone else probably Soundgarden which is what most critics expected. Alice In Chains was making music before Nirvana hit it big but they had no commercial success until Nirvana hit it big. But here is the thing, Nirvana was making music before they hit it big too, and before Alice In Chains.

About other British bands I think their excellence stands on its own. The Who, Stones, and Zeppelin weren't dependent on the Beatles for people to recognize that.

I don't know what to tell you. Music evaluation is largely a matter of opinion, so I suppose someone could say Mozart followed the fads in a mediocre way because Bach came before he did and influenced him. However, I don't see what fad Revolver and Sgt. Pepper were following and I wouldn't call them mediocre. It was pretty impressive stuff and pretty original at the time it was made. Definitely not N Sync-style pop.

It's all about opinion. That's the point. I gave mine.

The Beatles did evolve and add elements to rock/pop music. I just didn't like them. They ruined music.

 

[Mr. Deez]

It's average music which appeals to the average person. That will make a lot of many and sell many tickets but that doesn't mean much to me.

In '66, what was better than Revolver, and how was it better? Can you do the same with '67 and Sgt. Pepper? I'm honestly curious to know who was putting out much better music.

Like most people I heard of Jane's Addiction because of Nirvana.

I don't think that's true. Most people heard about Nirvana with Nevermind. That came out in the fall of 1991. By then, Jane's Addiction had already put out Nothing's Shocking (had "Jane Says" and "Mountain Song") in 1988 and Ritual (had "Stop!" and "Been Caught Stealing") 1990. They were already a well-known, which is why people cared about Lollapalooza in the first place.

Alice In Chains was making music before Nirvana hit it big but they had no commercial success until Nirvana hit it big.

At the time Nirvana hit it big, Facelift (had "Man in the Box" and "Sea of Sorrow") had been out for a year. They weren't big stars they, but they had commercial success.

About other British bands I think their excellence stands on its own. The Who, Stones, and Zeppelin weren't dependent on the Beatles for people to recognize that.

It does stand in its own, but as I think you'd acknowledge, in the music industry, excellence doesn't mean record deals, airplay, or success, nor does the absence of excellence mean the absence of record deals, airplay, or success. They may not have been dependent on the Beatles for people to recognize their excellence, but outside of England, who would have heard them to know they were excellent? It took record companies recognizing the marketing opportunities of British bands for that to happen, and that didn't happen until Vee Jay records humiliated Capitol Records by putting out the Beatles.

The Beatles did evolve and add elements to rock/pop music. I just didn't like them. They ruined music.

And that's ok. I always thought Nirvana kinda sucked balls.

 

[Chop]

Dr Pepper is gross. It’s basically prune juice soda.

 

[Chop]

The Stones album — Their Satanic Majesties Request — was a lousy (and failed) attempt to copy and piggy back off of The Beatles Sgt Pepper’s album.

It had one good song though: She’s a Rainbow.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The Stones album — Their Satanic Majesties Request — was a lousy (and failed) attempt to copy and piggy back off of The Beatles Sgt Pepper’s album.

It had one good song though: She’s a Rainbow.

Imagine how dumb the Rolling Stones were. Who tries to copy and piggyback off of a mediocre pop group that was no better than N Sync?

 

[Chop]

The way Mick and the band treated Brian Jones, and basically ran him out of the band, was horrible.

 

[Chop]

Anyone who thinks The Beatles “ruined music” hates music from after 1970. Also, their favorite bands from post-1970 (whomever they may be) probably cite The Beatles as an influence.

 

[Chop]

From around 1976 or so on, Ron Wood has been the glue that has held The Stones together.
He mediates the disputes and fights between Mick and Keith.
He is able to carry the guitar work the nights Keith is too inebriated to perform well (or barely at all).
He has great stage presence, and steps it up when Keith is having one of those nights, and tones it down when Keith comes to the forefront to show off. No ego problem.
The last 40-45 years of touring are, in large part, thanks to Ron Wood.
My favorite Stone.
All around good guy.
Best haircut in rock music history as well.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Anyone who thinks The Beatles “ruined music” hates music from after 1970. Also, their favorite bands from post-1970 (whomever they may be) probably cite The Beatles as an influence.

It's cool to hate on the Beatles in much the same way that it's cool to hate on the Dallas Cowboys or New York Yankees.

 

[Chop]

The Houston Astros should be back in the National League.

And the pitcher should have to bat in all leagues at all levels of baseball.

 

[Monahorns]

In '66, what was better than Revolver, and how was it better? Can you do the same with '67 and Sgt. Pepper? I'm honestly curious to know who was putting out much better music.

I would say The Who and Jimi. If you disagree that is fine.

I don't think that's true. Most people heard about Nirvana with Nevermind. That came out in the fall of 1991. By then, Jane's Addiction had already put out Nothing's Shocking (had "Jane Says" and "Mountain Song") in 1988 and Ritual (had "Stop!" and "Been Caught Stealing") 1990. They were already a well-known, which is why people cared about Lollapalooza in the first place.

I am speaking from my experience. I don't remember any of those songs being on TV until Nirvana was a thing. Lollapolooza was organized by Perry Farrell, but here are the big acts from the first year. Main Stage: Jane's Addiction, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Living Colour, Nine Inch Nails, Ice-T & Body Count, Butthole Surfers (occasionally billed as "BH Surfers,") Rollins Band, Violent Femmes, Fishbone[5]

In early 1991, at least 6 bands were more known than Jane's Addiction. Funny that the organizer put his band as a main act. Not bias there. Hehe. But look at the next year all the grunge acts and Red Hot Chili Peppers. That was the first one I remember. Probably true for most people.

At the time Nirvana hit it big, Facelift (had "Man in the Box" and "Sea of Sorrow") had been out for a year. They weren't big stars they, but they had commercial success.

I watched MTV pretty religiously during that time. Regardless of the release dates, those songs weren't played on TV until Nirvana hit. The first Alice In Chains video on MTV was Rooster which was in 1992 or 1993. Then those other videos were played.

It does stand in its own, but as I think you'd acknowledge, in the music industry, excellence doesn't mean record deals, airplay, or success, nor does the absence of excellence mean the absence of record deals, airplay, or success. They may not have been dependent on the Beatles for people to recognize their excellence, but outside of England, who would have heard them to know they were excellent? It took record companies recognizing the marketing opportunities of British bands for that to happen, and that didn't happen until Vee Jay records humiliated Capitol Records by putting out the Beatles.

You are correct on the history. But imagine the Beatles never existed. You don't think record companies would have recognized the market opportunities of the Stones or The Who and others? I think it was inevitable.

And that's ok. I always thought Nirvana kinda sucked balls.

That's ok. You are free to do so. I liked them. This thread is about opinions.

 

[Monahorns]

Anyone who thinks The Beatles “ruined music” hates music from after 1970. Also, their favorite bands from post-1970 (whomever they may be) probably cite The Beatles as an influence.

That objectively false, because I do like music after 1970. But you are probably correct that they list The Beatles as an influence. I just like their other influences.

 

[Monahorns]

It's cool to hate on the Beatles in much the same way that it's cool to hate on the Dallas Cowboys or New York Yankees.

I don't hate them or obsess about them. I ignore them.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I would say The Who and Jimi. If you disagree that is fine.

That's fine, but knowing what both of them were making at that time I think very few would agree with you.

I am speaking from my experience. I don't remember any of those songs being on TV until Nirvana was a thing. Lollapolooza was organized by Perry Farrell, but here are the big acts from the first year. Main Stage: Jane's Addiction, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Living Colour, Nine Inch Nails, Ice-T & Body Count, Butthole Surfers (occasionally billed as "BH Surfers,") Rollins Band, Violent Femmes, Fishbone[5]

In early 1991, at least 6 bands were more known than Jane's Addiction. Funny that the organizer put his band as a main act. Not bias there. Hehe. But look at the next year all the grunge acts and Red Hot Chili Peppers. That was the first one I remember. Probably true for most people.

Jane's Addiction was pretty well known. There's a reason why those bands were willing to work with them and willing to let Jane's be the main act. Famous groups usually don't let less famous groups upstage them.

I watched MTV pretty religiously during that time. Regardless of the release dates, those songs weren't played on TV until Nirvana hit. The first Alice In Chains video on MTV was Rooster which was in 1992 or 1993. Then those other videos were played.

Two things. First, MTV wasn't the only way people listened to music back then. Radio and CDs were pretty big. Second, "Stop!" and "Been Caught Stealing" were on MTV before Nirvana. Third, "Man in the Box" was on MTV before "Rooster" and before Nirvana.

But imagine the Beatles never existed. You don't think record companies would have recognized the market opportunities of the Stones or The Who and others? I think it was inevitable.

Possibly, but it would have been far more gradual and very be easily could have left some of those groups behind - not because of their inability but because of timing.

That's ok. You are free to do so. I liked them. This thread is about opinions.

True, but I don't dismiss Nirvana as a pop group, and I can give pretty specific reasons why I don't like them.

 

[Vino Bevo]

This is an interesting thread. I love the Beatles and count them as one of my top five favorite bands. I also know there are those that don't agree. There are many bands others count in their top five that fall well outside my taste - The Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, Pink Floyd, The Doors to name a few. I despise them but highly respect their talent and place in music history. It's just that their music makes my ears bleed.

My personal opinion isn't fact any more than anyone else's - just a matter of taste and preference.

 

[Monahorns]

That's fine, but knowing what both of them were making at that time I think very few would agree with you.

This discussion isn't about who is the most popular. It is about controversial opinions. I don't get why you are arguing about this.

Jane's Addiction was pretty well known. There's a reason why those bands were willing to work with them and willing to let Jane's be the main act. Famous groups usually don't let less famous groups upstage them.

It was a music tour. I don't think it was that hard to get people to sign on to it. Siouxsie And The Banshees and the BH Surfers weren't turning down any requests in 1991. I think you make more of this than it warrants.

Two things. First, MTV wasn't the only way people listened to music back then. Radio and CDs were pretty big. Second, "Stop!" and "Been Caught Stealing" were on MTV before Nirvana. Third, "Man in the Box" was on MTV before "Rooster" and before Nirvana.

I've never heard of radio and CDs. What is this you say?

Do you have the exact dates for when all these videos were shown? Do you also have the play frequency over time? You sound like you have loads of data on this.

True, but I don't dismiss Nirvana as a pop group, and I can give pretty specific reasons why I don't like them.

Now there's a controversial opion!

 

[nashhorn]

This has been a great thread. On the ‘my own opinion’ example I remember telling my son I was enjoying new appreciation of the Beatles after listening to musical discussions on the XM Beatles channel. Then I read reviews of channel where most people were complaining about too much talk and not enough music. I decided to keep my mouth shut after reading that, oh well.

 

[Mr. Deez]

This discussion isn't about who is the most popular. It is about controversial opinions. I don't get why you are arguing about this.

I get that, and you can think what you want. That's fine, and I can respect that. However, you don't offer a lot of specificity as to why you hold the opinions you hold.

It was a music tour. I don't think it was that hard to get people to sign on to it. Siouxsie And The Banshees and the BH Surfers weren't turning down any requests in 1991. I think you make more of this than it warrants.

If Juicy Jizz and the Jerk-offs asked them to join their music festival, they wouldn't have. Jane's Addiction asked them to, and they did. There's a reason for that. My point is that JA was a pretty successful band before Nirvana. Hell, they had two albums and three successful singles before Nevermind even came out.

Do you have the exact dates for when all these videos were shown? Do you also have the play frequency over time? You sound like you have loads of data on this.

No, I don't have loads of data. I remember when I saw the videos and looked up the release dates to make sure they were consistent with my memory.

 

[Mr. Deez]

There are many bands others count in their top five that fall well outside my taste - The Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, Pink Floyd, The Doors to name a few.

To me, there's music that I think is good quality and music that is I simply enjoy listening to even though it's trash. For example, I can rap the full lyrics to "The Humpty Dance." I'll readily admit that, like most rap, it's trash, but it's funny and I can't help but enjoy it even if I'm ashamed of it.

I don't think the Rolling Stones and the Doors are great quality (though they did some songs that were), but I mostly enjoy their work so I'm reasonably favorable to them. I do think Pink Floyd is pretty good quality, and I do enjoy their work.

Bruce Springsteen might be the most overrated musical artist of the last 50 years, and I don't enjoy his work. I honestly can't think of anything he does particularly well. I always thought Neil Young was pretty spare and not just because of the Joe Rogan controversy (though that doesn't help).

 

[Driver 8]

Bruce Springsteen might be the most overrated musical artist of the last 50 years

Agree. I never saw the appeal of Springsteen, or...

*possibly controversial opinion ahead*

The Grateful Dead
Maybe you need to be a 60s hippie type to like them, idk

 

[Mr. Deez]

Agree. I never saw the appeal of Springsteen, or...

*possibly controversial opinion ahead*

The Grateful Dead
Maybe you need to be a 60s hippie type to like them, idk

That may be true, but I have to admit that I don't know very much of their music.

 

[Monahorns]

If Juicy Jizz and the Jerk-offs asked them to join their music festival, they wouldn't have. Jane's Addiction asked them to, and they did. There's a reason for that. My point is that JA was a pretty successful band before Nirvana. Hell, they had two albums and three successful singles before Nevermind even came out.

I never said, I don't think, that Jane's Addiction wasn't successful at all. Alternative music was a thing, mostly on college campuses, but after Nirvana it became more mainstream.

No, I don't have loads of data. I remember when I saw the videos and looked up the release dates to make sure they were consistent with my memory.

Obviously those songs were released beforehand. My comment is more about the level of popularity of alternative music before and after Nevermind. The videos' play frequency I bet shows that. Soundgarden had some somewhat successful albums before 1991 but they never were played on tv or radio nation wide. Before 1991 I remember seeing Living Colour, Faith No More, Metallica, and Motley Crue all over the place. But none of the grunge bands or JA. I'm sure there were radio stations that played them and they had success but it was a different world after 1991. I've read articles and watched documentaries on this stuff. But maybe they were all wrong.

 

[Chop]

Too many people are getting nearly useless college degrees.

Going into high school, the bottom 50% academically should be encouraged (though not forced) to go to a trade school. That would make around 50% of our high schools trade schools instead of academic classrooms. Anyone could opt for the academic/pre-college high schools regardless of grades or ranking. Some of the trade schools would be new-blue collar stuff, like basic IT, computer graphics and drawing, basic computer work, etc. Others would be more traditional--plumbing, electrician, carpenter, construction, secretarial, etc. Others would be medical--EMT, semi-nurse, etc.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I never said, I don't think, that Jane's Addiction wasn't successful at all.

I know you didn't. However, you've suggested that they weren't successful before Nirvana and considered Nirvana to have opened the door for them.

Alternative music was a thing, mostly on college campuses, but after Nirvana it became more mainstream.

I think you're overstating Nirvana's impact. They changed the game for grunge. I don't deny that at all. Groups like Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, and (arguably) Stone Temple Pilots greatly benefited from Nirvana, even if AiC found success before.

Nirvana (along with Jane's Addiction) also helped mostly kill hair metal (Poison, Warrant, etc.), and I'll always give them credit for their part in that.

However, there was already a significant non-grunge alternative genre that predated Nirvana and had mainstream success (though they were disproportionately represented on college campuses). I'm talking about REM, Violent Femmes, Red Hot Chili Peppers, and yes, Jane's Addiction. There was also British alternative that was well established - bands like the Cure, the Smiths, the Stone Roses, and Depeche Mode. Personally, I knew about all of those bands before 1991 and in the case of the REM, the Cure, the Smiths, and Depeche Mode, no later than about 1987. And I wasn't on a college campus. I was about 11 years old and had an older brother who listened to all that stuff. (He didn't go to college.)

Obviously those songs were released beforehand. My comment is more about the level of popularity of alternative music before and after Nevermind. The videos' play frequency I bet shows that.

Soundgarden had some somewhat successful albums before 1991 but they never were played on tv or radio nation wide.

Before 1991 I remember seeing Living Colour, Faith No More, Metallica, and Motley Crue all over the place. But none of the grunge bands or JA. I'm sure there were radio stations that played them and they had success but it was a different world after 1991. I've read articles and watched documentaries on this stuff. But maybe they were all wrong.

FWIW, "Man in the Box" and "Been Caught Stealing" were nominated for MTV video music awards in 1991 - about three weeks before Nevermind was released and a full year before Nirvana was nominated for any awards. Link. (And Caught Stealing won Best Alternative Video.) I presume that MTV wouldn't nominate songs that didn't get much or any airtime.

 

[SabreHorn]

Going into high school, the bottom 50% academically should be encouraged (though not forced) to go to a trade school

While I understand your thinking, and it is not entirely flawed, you are making the same brain-dead assumption that the educrats running our university made years ago and continue to make. (Please understand I am not calling you "braindead", but I shall continue to call the educrats running The University and others not only braindead but damn right lazy.)

You will never convince me that the third quarter graduate of Strake Jesuit or St Marks or Dallas Jesuit or Memorial or Highland Park or West Lake, et al is not better prepared than the top 10-20% of any number of inner-city schools, particularly those that have been taken over by the State (Beaumont, Port Arthur, Forest Brook, Wilmer Hutchins).

While The University of Virginia is much smaller than Texas, Park Muth found it "his job" to read through 20,000+ applications to sort out 2500-2800 acceptable applicants. Not only do we have more applications, BUT we also have a helluva lot more university employees who appear to be sitting around on their lazy asses with nothing to do.

Quality of education is not equal in public or private schools but consider who performs and who doesn't.

That said, I came out of a graduating class of 568, where fewer than 20% went to college. The rest were off to learn a trade or work in a chemical plant or refinery, which my dad did for 48 years. I agree that we need skilled trade workers. We are short between 150,000 & 200,000 electricians on the Gulf Coast. Throw in pipefitters, welders, etc and we need to be directing those not academically inclined to the trades.

 

[Statalyzer]

I'm not a Beatles hater at all, but man, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is really overrated as an album. I don't think I'd put any song on that list in the band's top 10 to 15, and there's not an especially great "whole is more than sum of parts" quality to it either.

It seems to be popular because of the memorable name, the cool and complicated cover, and the whole "We're pretending we're this different band" idea even though that theme hardly lasts through the whole album.

Sgt Pepper itself is a kind of a mediocre song. Little Help From My Friends and Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds are memorable, and they're good, but not the best (also not a good sign if 3 of your best remembered songs of the album are your first 3 and then it goes downhill from there). Day in the Life is at least half of a good song but then goes off the rails. The rest of the album is pretty forgettable unless you're a Beatles fanatic.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm not a Beatles hater at all, but man, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is really overrated as an album. I don't think I'd put any song on that list in the band's top 10 to 15, and there's not an especially great "whole is more than sum of parts" quality to it either.

It seems to be popular because of the memorable name, the cool and complicated cover, and the whole "We're pretending we're this different band" idea even though that theme hardly lasts through the whole album.

Sgt Pepper itself is a kind of a mediocre song. Little Help From My Friends and Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds are memorable, and they're good, but not the best (also not a good sign if 3 of your best remembered songs of the album are your first 3 and then it goes downhill from there). Day in the Life is at least half of a good song but then goes off the rails. The rest of the album is pretty forgettable unless you're a Beatles fanatic.

I probably think more highly of Sgt. Pepper than you do, but I do think it is overrated. It is often considered the masterpiece of it's genre, and I don't even think it's the Beatles best work. I think most of it is good, but "Good Morning, Good Morning," "Within You Without You," and "When I'm 64" are fairly dead tracks to me.

In my view Revolver is their best album. It's truly a work of greatness. Abbey Road is a close second. I think the White Album could have been great if it hadn't been a double album. It has several great tracks and then a bunch of crap tossed in to make it a double album.

 

[Chop]

While I understand your thinking, and it is not entirely flawed, you are making the same brain-dead assumption that the educrats running our university made years ago and continue to make. (Please understand I am not calling you "braindead", but I shall continue to call the educrats running The University and others not only braindead but damn right lazy.)

You will never convince me that the third quarter graduate of Strake Jesuit or St Marks or Dallas Jesuit or Memorial or Highland Park or West Lake, et al is not better prepared than the top 10-20% of any number of inner-city schools, particularly those that have been taken over by the State (Beaumont, Port Arthur, Forest Brook, Wilmer Hutchins).

While The University of Virginia is much smaller than Texas, Park Muth found it "his job" to read through 20,000+ applications to sort out 2500-2800 acceptable applicants. Not only do we have more applications, BUT we also have a helluva lot more university employees who appear to be sitting around on their lazy asses with nothing to do.

Quality of education is not equal in public or private schools but consider who performs and who doesn't.

That said, I came out of a graduating class of 568, where fewer than 20% went to college. The rest were off to learn a trade or work in a chemical plant or refinery, which my dad did for 48 years. I agree that we need skilled trade workers. We are short between 150,000 & 200,000 electricians on the Gulf Coast. Throw in pipefitters, welders, etc and we need to be directing those not academically inclined to the trades.

Per my post, the bottom half is not forced to go the trade school route, just encouraged. If a kid is in some awesome school where the bottom 20% equals the top 20% of a normal high school, then almost all will probably go the academic route. An interesting situation would be where the parents want their kid to go to college, but he hates school and wants to work as a welder. The parents have to control, but it could get dicey.

 

[Chop]

Things were better when most people were apathetic and not into politics much at all.

 

[Chop]

The Kinks is a seriously underrated band.