Post a controversial music opinion

what are the three songs

yes, the crucial follow-up

The Stones would not be considered overrated if they had died in a fiery plane crash in 1978.

or even 1982, tbh

i've never really understood the idea that mediocre later work takes away from the work the artist did in their prime? you don't have to listen to steel wheels or whatever albums, the idea that they should have died and stopped making music and that would be a better legacy is so strange, they are musicians they want to make music so why begrudge them that?

eh, just playing along

some people see it like Jeopardy! - you amass an early lead due to phenomenal early performance, but then you get reckless and start getting lots of questions wrong so you wind up losing.

but I don't view it that way at alllllll. I mean - an act can become "irrelevant" now and still be legendary for their peak period work.

It's just when people want to work them into the conversation for present time ("they're actually still really amazing") when they've been coasting for years or outright terrible....that's the only time I object.

It's hard to watch an artist you love try to keep riding the same tired horse, or become a parody of him- or herself.

That said, I still listen to the Stones' late 60s - mid 70s albums and they are just as great as they always were, perhaps greater with perspective.

I admit that as much as I loved R.E.M. in their prime (which lasted a long time), their extended period of decline was a bit of a bummer from an "optics" standpoint.

(I never begrudge an act/artist for soldiering on, though)

the other bummer is live, like, if a band starts really incorporating a significant amount of 'bummer' era music in their set and you barely hear the stuff you liked about them. obviously a band is gonna play the new album, but key example is Goo Goo Dolls. I love their first five albums, then they decided to 'sell out' and did Dizzy Up the Girl, and now they pretty much play NOTHING prior to that album other than their hits from A Boy Named Goo. It's like the classic era didn't exist.

"This is from our new album"

"Hope you like our new direction."

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JtvGR8UX1L0/maxresdefault.jpg

what are the three songs

― roflrofl fight (voodoo chili), Friday, January 14, 2022 8:23 AM

definitely on the list:
into the groovey
sympathy for the devil

blanking on anything else. i can this for sure: neither the replacements, elvis, not nirvana have a song on the list.

hope this clarifies. have a great day. thanks for reading.

*and definitely not nirvana

alright. talk to you guys later.

the stones covered countless classic blues and r&b songs, i’m assuming/hoping you’re not counting those?

none for the DISGRACEments, L-vis, or NILvana!

I saw the Replacements in 1989 at the Aragon Ballroom in Chicago. They were shambolically brilliant.

I kind of agree about Elvis Costello and the Replacements being overrated, or at least they were at one time in certain rock-crit circles. These days I'm not sure how people rate them.

I own 1 album by each, "This Years Model" and "Let It Be", and they're fine, but I don't really listen to them that much.

I also don't care for The Replacements, Nirvana, Elvis and the Rolling Stones.
And I'm rarely in the mood for Costello.
But Sonic Youth and Pixies ?

I never "got" the Pixies. They seemed to be a band intent on being grating and annoying. That said, I did hear Trompe le Monde on an excellent system a few months ago, and it sounded pretty damn good.

I’m not personally a big fan of most of the artists Austin listed, but the “maybe three good songs” thing is pure tr0ll.

Yeah, that's clearly hyperbole. All of those bands have some good songs that are still relevant today. I mean Olivia Rodrigo is ripping off "Pump It Up". "Androgynous" has become kind of a gender-nonconformist anthem.

i've never really understood the idea that mediocre later work takes away from the work the artist did in their prime? you don't have to listen to steel wheels or whatever albums, the idea that they should have died and stopped making music and that would be a better legacy is so strange, they are musicians they want to make music so why begrudge them that?

― Blues Guitar Solo Heatmap (Free Download) (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, January 14, 2022 11:05 AM (five hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

well music is subjective so when an artist releases a bunch of garbage it makes you suspect that perhaps their early stuff maybe wasn't as good as you've been rating it. also a good part of the excitement of a good debut is the promise of what's to come.

Kanye probably a good example here, you have to overlook a lot even on his good albums, so when his music turns to garbage and he starts acting like a total shithead in public you find yourself being less forgiving. the mystique is gone.

funny thing is I hated the Stones until my early 30s and once I actually got into blues proper, their blues-rawk made more sense to me and I suddenly started loving them.

and I don't mean mild dislike, I outright fucking hated the Stones almost as much as the Eagles prior to then

well music is subjective so when an artist releases a bunch of garbage it makes you suspect that perhaps their early stuff maybe wasn't as good as you've been rating it. also a good part of the excitement of a good debut is the promise of what's to come.

this is why being a metalhead is so diff, we're used to basically everybody saying "xxx SUCKS NOW" after the first demo comes out

yeah, i mean i'm not particularly a fan of elvis costello but i also think the guy has at least two dozen good-to-great songs.

i love almost every noise Nirvana ever played

I'd have to know how familiar the critic was with the output of six different, long-running musical acts, to come up with a ratio of songs heard to songs enjoyed. I'm highly amused by the idea of someone listening to 30-ish Stones and Costello records when they only appreciate half a song from each.

i was gaslit into thinking they were better than what i was hearing.

they are not.

an artist releasing total shit later has literally no effect on me liking their good stuff

gaslighting really does mean nothing now

"you misremember. you actually FUCKING LOVE nirvana. like em MUCH more than David Bowie. Well, you know you left that coffee mug on the roof of your car and drove off. you're kind of shit at remembering things, like how you rate Nirvana over David Bowie."

I'm a fan of both The Replacements and Elvis Costello but I can certainly see why people would consider them both overrated. I suppose I even consider them overrated myself.

Some groups retain an aura for me out of keeping with my actual critical evaluation of them. For instance, the only song I really like on Let It Bleed is "Gimme Shelter", but I'm disinclined to quarrel about whether it's a great record or not, or whether the Stones were in the middle of a strong period.

I am very far from the world's biggest Stones fan, but claiming they have <= 3 good songs is insanity

I wish people would go back to saying 'conned' or 'tricked' instead of 'gaslit' and variations thereof.

fwiw I don't think Let It Bleed is that great either

In the Big Orange SPIN Book, Bill Wyman (no relation to po-faced ex-Stones rotter) was already wondering about Elvis Costello's canonical standing -- in 1994!

So what shit bands do you like Austin?

So what shit bands do you like Austin?

I wish people would go back to saying 'conned' or 'tricked' instead of 'gaslit' and variations thereof.

this whole discussion is basically the first dozen posts on any old ilm thread about a classic rock artists

rolling stones suck. i had a super long explanation written about gaslighting and my intentional use of that word in this context (and how it's totally relevant), but nope that is my explanation: stones are overrated and have always made bad music.

I am very far from the world's biggest Stones fan, but claiming they have <= 3 good songs is insanity

― Muad'Doob (Moodles), Friday, January 14, 2022 3:25 PM

uhm, hi? actual crazy person here. i am living proof that insanity makes perfect sense. and i'm damn proud of that, btw. gotta be the good example, y'know.

i was being a bit too strict with "three songs" thing. there's probably at least 7 or 8 songs that i wouldn't turn off (but certainly wouldn't choose to listen to). i'd really have to think about it, which i simply don't care enough to do.

here's a fairly vanilla one: catalogue r+b 60s-80s demolishes catalogue rock in terms of consistency. even the best stones album is no match for second tier p-funk.

the shit bands i like don't even have a singer or a guitarist most of the time. and the ones that do don't even play power chords. fucking awful dreck.

this whole discussion is basically the first dozen posts on any old ilm thread about a classic rock artists

maybe they were on to something back then, yeah?

https://c.tenor.com/ggJN6xQvSmIAAAAM/brave.gif

I mean you clearly succeeded at posting a controversial opinion.

all praise be to the mighty one known to us only as "ROSS."