Post a controversial music opinion

I guess if they play them on the radio/kroq or some equivalent

Part of my problem is I haven't voluntarily listened to the radio in well over a decade, so I have no idea what turns up there these days.

I don't personally care if rock bands achieve mainstream success, I'd be happy with them existing and surviving.

A lot of indie rock bands currently seem to be wrapped up in mining 90s grunge sonics, which is fine, I just wish there were more guitar heroics. I want some badass riffs!

yeah and i guess also maybe a band that's unabashedly heavy on the riffs and solos. Pearl Jam is a decent choice.

One of my perpetual and controversial hobbyhorses:

Most of the time, when a band transitions from a fiery debut to more mature and understated follow ups, the debut tends to be the far superior version of the band.

i was v surprised that my favorite rock record from last year (manchester orchestra) actually turned out to be kind of a successful rock record too

mature understated follow-ups forever btw

i guess i don't have many actual controversial opinions except when Ross mentioned King, i remembered that i was extremely bored by the album and after giving it many chances i sold it : /

Part of my problem is I haven't voluntarily listened to the radio in well over a decade, so I have no idea what turns up there these days.

Me either. I am almost totally ignorant of pop music at this point. I know what's up in metal and radio-friendly hard rock because I still get sent promos of that stuff by publicists and labels. But I spend about 80% of my time listening to jazz these days.

Here's my controversial jazz opinion.

Kamasi Washington is this generation's Wynton Marsalis, a very popular, but essentially conservative figure in the jazz world. He maybe enjoys a bit more cred at the moment because the older music he references still has some hip cachet, but he's not bringing a lot of new ideas to the table.

Music criticism is great.

xp i'm not sure i'd agree w/ that take on wynton (i think he's worse than that) but i agree w/ that take on kamasi

Lol, fair

Kamasi's way more important as someone bringing people into the tent than he is as an actual musician (and I like his music). I don't think he'll be very influential in the long run in the "younger players want to sound like him" sense, but his influence in the "young people who didn't know jazz was an entertainment option available to them now actively seek it" sense is massive. (Though his musical skills are frequently underestimated even by people who praise him - I don't see much writing about the fact that he does all his own string and choral writing and arrangements, and produces his albums himself.)

Shabaka Hutchings, on the other hand, is influential in both the "bringing in new listeners" and the "making genuinely innovative music" senses. I think over time he'll be seen as more and more important.

One of my perpetual and controversial hobbyhorses:

Most of the time, when a band transitions from a fiery debut to more mature and understated follow ups, the debut tends to be the far superior version of the band.

― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles)

I’m a huge fan of debuts. Some bands get their sound just right in their first ep/lp, and there’s a sense of wonder that usually gets lost by the time the next album arrives.

Not exactly a controversial opinion though?

I mean, the old trope about bands having had their entire lives to write and develop material for their first album and then, thereafter, having less time to crank out new material in between tours etc?

Yeah, I think it's more "controversial" to believe, as I do, that most bands' debut albums are actually pretty bad, and its album three or four that you really want to pay attention to. My personal list of bands whose first album was great and/or their best work is pretty damn short: the Bad Brains, Van Halen, and...honestly, that's about it. Most bands get better as they go on.

poptimism is extremely good and still underrated in 2018

Yeah, I think it's more "controversial" to believe, as I do, that most bands' debut albums are actually pretty bad

true, more controversial, and also generally wrong.

The list of classic punk bands from the pre-SST era whose best album isn't their first album is like
1. the Stooges
2. the Clash

(or a singles collection)

I'd argue yr wrong about The Stooges and that Fun House is kinda overrated, but really only for the purposes of this thread, but The Stooges first album is pretty fucking solid.

Also, Phil's opinion is wrong because some of the best bands only put out one album

though I would argue that Adam & the Ants 1st album wasn't their best, but partly because the Demos were better

My controversial opinion: Adam & the Ants was a better band than The Clash

About the Clash's 1st album not being their best...

Also, Phil's opinion is wrong because some of the best bands only put out one album

Controversial opinion: Bands that only put out one album suck. I'm not gonna sit here all day worrying about it, but off the top of my head I can't think of a single (rock/metal) band that only put out one album that I give a shit about. All the bands I like have exhibited some degree of longevity.

My controversial opinion: Adam & the Ants was a better band than The Clash

Good lord.

I can't think of a single (rock/metal) band that only put out one album that I give a shit about.

that's because you suck.

Modern Lovers

Modern Lovers

Sucked.

Haha ok

>:(

Modern Lovers sucking is def. controversial and wrong

They're what I think of as "well poisoners": not only did they suck, but they inspired dozens if not hundreds of other bands to suck, too!

not only did they suck, but they inspired dozens if not hundreds of other bands to suck, too!

also known as "The Nirvana Paradox"

xp You’re gonna have to show your work here, sir...

In one of those four-panel, expanding-brain memes, from the top (walnut brain) it goes: Pearl jam rocks; Pearl jam sucks; Pearl jam rocks; Pearl jam sucks

are there any good bands that didn't inspire a bunch of shitty bands?

and yet they still suck

re: modern lovers

unperson otm about poisoning the well and PP the nirvana paradox is a great name for that. Mac DeMarco a culprit

Explain why the Modern Lovers suck

Two words: Jonathan Richman.

His singing? Lyrics? Voice?

Xp. So wrong. Additionally it answers nothing. What is your problem with him? He is one of the funniest and nicest rock musicians. Such a strong presence and so charming. One of the best live acts around.

His singing? Lyrics? Voice?

Yes on all three counts. His supposedly endearing awkwardness rubs me the wrong way – there's no edge to it. I still like 'Roadrunner', though.

plenty of great bands that put out one album - or no albums! a good band is lightning in a bottle and most of them don't last. but feel free to piss on the united states of america if it'll make you happy

xp
He was a young guy in the ‘70s who still loved the ‘50s, he still loved the Old World

The Modern Lovers are terrific rock ‘n roll
songs sung by a guy who sounds like a normal person (instead of a rock star) and who had real personality and an interesting p.o.v. I’m super thankful, they existed and inspired what they inspired...