Post a controversial music opinion

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...

I can see why people wouldn't like him though.

morrisp otm

I've been quoting "Pablo Picasso" all week

All of Tom Scholz's solos sound the fucking same

The modern lovers totally had an “edge” but it doesn’t seem like one you all would like.

“Hospital” is an extremely creepy ballad of a man obsessed—passively aggressively putting down a drug addicted young women for her unhealthy decisions and setting himself up as a kind of savior... but it’s obvious he only cares about her insofar as he wants to be with her. “Nice guy syndrome to the max.”

Similar types of bitterness run throughout the album. Even “pablo picasso” is kind of like a complaint that all the cool guys get to harass women and he can’t. His pining for the “old world” can easily be seen in this vein as well—a kind of prefigure of the current MRA fetishization of a world before feminism. He doesn’t lay it out but looking at the album as a whole he definitely sees himself as a kind of doeky guy who doesn’t really cut it in the “new world” of sexual liberation.

More musicians should shit on their fans

I don’t think the presence of these uncomfortable themes make the album “bad” as I don’t need my music to align with my morality (to a point—there is still a line). It’s actually weirdly psychologically convincing—the catcher in the rye of proto punk or whatever genre it is.

Self xp

He’s not complaining that he doesn’t get to harass women; he’s trying to teach a lesson to creeps who do:

Oh well be not schmuck, be not obnoxious
Be not bellbottom bummer or asshole
Remember the story of Pablo Picasso

I also don’t read “Hospital” at all the way you do

When you get out of the hospital
Let me back into your life

idk man