Your unpopular music opinions

[Helobious 9,454]

Did anyone else say Snoop Dogg is a pretty shitty rapper yet? Because he is

[Vic Mackey 47,038]

On 7/30/2023 at 10:45 PM, Helobious said:

Did anyone else say Snoop Dogg is a pretty shitty rapper yet? Because he is

Not sure how unpopular this is. He is a subpar rapper for many. He was fortunate to come up under the DeathRow Records movement and then went to the biggest label down south in No Limit Records. He is a pretty basic rapper but I like a lot of his songs.

[Paul Wesley 3,278]

“Wichita Lineman” is a fucking terrible song.  Stupid lyrics.  Melody that meanders aimlessly.  
 

Compelling like a dirt sandwich. Totally fucking pointless and without merit. 
 

I guess the record company decided Glenn was handsome and marketable and so they paid off the radio stations to play this banal and insipid piece of shit.  
 

Sorry if you got tricked.  
 

Yes, I resurrected this thread to say that.  I’ve needed to get it off my chest for decades.  

[G650 14,257]

I actually agree

[ohchaucer 1,443]

I actually agree

Thirded. And I just heard this on the radio yesterday and thought, how was this song ever popular?

The chord progression when he’s seeing the chorus outro (on the line…. Line…. Line…) drive me crazy even though it’s a pretty standard progression. Something in the way it crescendos, I think.

[WhatTheBuck 28,783]

Drunken buffoon Glen Campbell annoying Don Rickles on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson back in 1973.

 

[Gil Bang 25,960]

Wichita is great, just because of "small vacation"

[ArtisanalLoaf 25]

Brown Eyed Girl is actually a pretty good song.

[stc 1,462]

brown eyed girl came on the radio while we were crusing around in high school and the first line my friend sings, "hey juan amigo", and he really thought those were the lyrics. still think about it every time i hear that song. 

[jimmyjazz 45,957]

I like the musical structure of "Wichita Lineman", but beyond that, the lyrics and production blow goats.

[yoladu 4,094]

On 1/20/2024 at 12:45 AM, Paul Wesley said:

“Wichita Lineman” is a fucking terrible song.  Stupid lyrics.  Melody that meanders aimlessly.  

I dunno... I am a sucker for those 70s AOR strings.

 

I know not everyone's cup of tea.

[G650 14,257]

I mean, I will belt out some Rhinestone Cowboy or Galveston for all I'm worth. Wichita Lineman just doesn't hold a candle to those hitters.

[Harrison Stafford 3,335]

Blue Cheer was the first heavy metal band.  In 1968, that genre didn’t exist.  Serious Marshall Stacks in the background.  Unfortunately, they weren’t on as the band lip synced through this performance on American Bandstand.  If Blue Cheer had played ‘live’, they would have blown Dick Clark and his audience into the next time zone.  Never got to see them perform, but friends who did said they couldn’t hear for up to a week following the concert.  “Summertime Blues” did well on top 40 radio peaking at No. 14 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart.  As the story goes, Dick Clark caught them smoking a bowl of hash in the dressing room before this performance and said, “It’s people like you who give Rock ‘n Roll a bad name” to which band leader Dickie Peterson said, “Why, thank you very much”.  The band got its name from LSD that was popular at the time in San Francisco.  They should have dosed Dick Clark’s coffee.  Now, that would’ve been some must see TV.

[G650 14,257]

15 minutes ago, Harrison Stafford said:

Blue Cheer was the first heavy metal band.  In 1968, that genre didn’t exist.  Serious Marshall Stacks in the background.  Unfortunately, they weren’t on as the band lip synced through this performance on American Bandstand.  If Blue Cheer had played ‘live’, they would have blown Dick Clark and his audience into the next time zone.  Never got to see them perform, but friends who did said they couldn’t hear for up to a week following the concert.  “Summertime Blues” did well on top 40 radio peaking at No. 14 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart.  As the story goes, Dick Clark caught them smoking a bowl of hash in the dressing room before this performance and said, “It’s people like you who give Rock ‘n Roll a bad name” to which band leader Dickie Peterson said, “Why, thank you very much”.  The band got its name from LSD that was popular at the time in San Francisco.  They should have dosed Dick Clark’s coffee.  Now, that would’ve been some must see TV.

Is this an unpopular opinion?

 

These dudes were the loudest band ever.

[Harrison Stafford 3,335]

10 minutes ago, G650 said:

Is this an unpopular opinion?

 

These dudes were the loudest band ever.

It can be because of the inexact timeline as rock shifted in the late 60’s.  Have had friends lobby for Steppenwolf, Iron Butterfly, etc.  Okay, lobby isn’t the best choice of words.  Replace with ‘want to fight to the death’ on the subject.

Edited January 23 by Harrison Stafford

[tbone_ 14,123]

Cool story about Blue Cheer. I did not know about them.

My pops apparently took my mother to see Iron Butterfly in Dallas in 1970. She says it was so loud she couldn’t even think. But I’m sure it seemed that way to her because this would have been quite the new experience for her at that time.

Wish pops was still around to set the story straight on how loud it really was. I’m guess probably pretty loud though since it was at the State Fair Coliseum. Which is basically all concrete inside.

Which also reminds me that that loudest concert I ever attended by at least a lap over whatever is in second place was Pantera in 1994 at the State Fair Coliseum. Holy fuck is all I can say about that.

[G650 14,257]

I haven't seen it in a minute, but there was a video of Blue Cheer playing live in San Fran, maybe on a barge in the harbor if I remember right.

[Harrison Stafford 3,335]

22 hours ago, Harrison Stafford said:

It can be because of the inexact timeline as rock shifted in the late 60’s.  Have had friends lobby for Steppenwolf, Iron Butterfly, etc.  Okay, lobby isn’t the best choice of words.  Replace with ‘want to fight to the death’ on the subject.

Remiss of me not to mention Led Zeppelin, Sabbath, & Deep Purple.  

[Carl Spackler 3,483]

On 1/19/2024 at 10:45 PM, Paul Wesley said:

“Wichita Lineman” is a fucking terrible song.  Stupid lyrics.  Melody that meanders aimlessly.  
 

Compelling like a dirt sandwich. Totally fucking pointless and without merit. 
 

I guess the record company decided Glenn was handsome and marketable and so they paid off the radio stations to play this banal and insipid piece of shit.  
 

Sorry if you got tricked.  
 

Yes, I resurrected this thread to say that.  I’ve needed to get it off my chest for decades.  

You are doing this thread correctly.

[Paul Wesley 3,278]

At worst, Ringo was the second-best instrumentalist in the band.  He was way more proficient on his instrument than was George or John.  

 

 

 

 

*not counting Billy Preston

[Al_4_ISU 12,463]

On 1/22/2024 at 1:09 PM, ArtisanalLoaf said:

Brown Eyed Girl is actually a pretty good song.

This is an unpopular opinion?

[Al_4_ISU 12,463]

9 hours ago, Paul Wesley said:

At worst, Ringo was the second-best instrumentalist in the band.  He was way more proficient on his instrument than was George or John.  

 

 

 

 

*not counting Billy Preston

My Beatles take for this thread is that John Lennon is the worst member of the band, and not all that compelling of an artist in general.  He was a self absorbed sociopath who hit women and somehow became the face of "peace and love, man".  He was third place (at best) in everything he did for the band (guitar, vocals, songwriting) and was the worst musician overall of the 4.

Everything he did in the Beatles, multiple other members did better.  And he was a shit person to top it off.

Edited March 28 by Al_4_ISU

[G650 14,257]

10 hours ago, Paul Wesley said:

At worst, Ringo was the second-best instrumentalist in the band.  He was way more proficient on his instrument than was George or John.  

 

 

 

 

*not counting Billy Preston

Accurate

[dcbc 14,484]

10 hours ago, Paul Wesley said:

At worst, Ringo was the second-best instrumentalist in the band.  He was way more proficient on his instrument than was George or John.  

 

 

 

 

*not counting Billy Preston

 

*not counting George Martin

 

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

My Beatles take for this thread is that John Lennon is the worst member of the band, and not all that compelling of an artist in general.  He was a self absorbed sociopath who hit women and somehow became the face of "peace and love, man".  He was third place (at best) in everything he did for the band (guitar, vocals, songwriting) and was the worst musician overall of the 4.

Everything he did in the Beatles, multiple other members did better.  And he was a shit person to top it off.

 

Holden?

 

I never read much about his personal issues, but there's no excuse for that sort of thing. 

 

On the musical side of the equation, I'd say that if you're the third or fourth best Beatle, that's not for nothing.  That is to say, I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that he was the least musically-talented member of the band.  But it would not have been the Beatles without him.  And to whatever extent he made noteworthy contributions over the years, it made a difference.

Edited March 28 by dcbc

[Al_4_ISU 12,463]

35 minutes ago, dcbc said:

 

*not counting George Martin

 

 

Holden?

 

I never read much about his personal issues, but there's no excuse for that sort of thing. 

 

On the musical side of the equation, I'd say that if you're the third or fourth best Beatle, that's not for nothing.  That is to say, I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that he was the least musically-talented member of the band.  But it would not have been the Beatles without him.  And to whatever extent he made noteworthy contributions over the years, it made a difference.

I'm not saying that he was useless to the Beatles and that they would have been as good with someone else, but I AM saying that the credit he gets is excessive.  George and Paul were better musicians, singers, and songwriters.  Ringo was a better musician and singer.  To many people, John Lennon is the definitive Beatle.  To me, he's the guy that brings the least to the band.

[dcbc 14,484]

18 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'm not saying that he was useless to the Beatles and that they would have been as good with someone else, but I AM saying that the credit he gets is excessive.  George and Paul were better musicians, singers, and songwriters.  Ringo was a better musician and singer.  To many people, John Lennon is the definitive Beatle.  To me, he's the guy that brings the least to the band.

 

Yeah, I understood that.  It's not an unreasonable take.  

[tbone_ 14,123]

I'm not saying that he was useless to the Beatles and that they would have been as good with someone else, but I AM saying that the credit he gets is excessive.  George and Paul were better musicians, singers, and songwriters.  Ringo was a better musician and singer.  To many people, John Lennon is the definitive Beatle.  To me, he's the guy that brings the least to the band.

That may be true individually. But to me the thing about music is that when you bring the right pieces together 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 > 4. For the Beatles 1+1+1+1=~27. That’s the unexplainable magic that makes great music great.

Individually is Lennon the third best? Maybe. Would they be The Beatles without him? No.

[dcbc 14,484]

24 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Individually is Lennon the third best? Maybe. Would they be The Beatles without him? No.

Charlie Watts was the most proficient musician in the Rolling Stones by miles.  Mick Taylor is a more technically proficient guitar player than Keith.  And the Stones keep rolling because, in the end, it's Mick and Keith.

[Horn Draoi 255]

21 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Charlie Watts was the most proficient musician in the Rolling Stones by miles.  Mick Taylor is a more technically proficient guitar player than Keith.  And the Stones keep rolling because, in the end, it's Mick and Keith.

No argument.  Charley was exemplary.  Ronnie was hired because he was Keef 2.0 and could handle Keef’s “guitar weaving” approach.  Keef has plenty of tricks, but he’s not a particularly guitar proficient-what he has is an ear to keep things moving-while Mick does what he does-just being the world’s greatest front man in the world’s greatest RnR band.

[elguapo 4,586]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'm not saying that he was useless to the Beatles and that they would have been as good with someone else, but I AM saying that the credit he gets is excessive.  George and Paul were better musicians, singers, and songwriters.  Ringo was a better musician and singer.  To many people, John Lennon is the definitive Beatle.  To me, he's the guy that brings the least to the band.

The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few tunes.

[dcbc 14,484]

4 minutes ago, Horn Draoi said:

No argument.  Charley was exemplary.  Ronnie was hired because he was Keef 2.0 and could handle Keef’s “guitar weaving” approach.  Keef has plenty of tricks, but he’s not a particularly guitar proficient-what he has is an ear to keep things moving-while Mick does what he does-just being the world’s greatest front man in the world’s greatest RnR band.

Spot on.  My favorite tidbit about the Stones was that, unlike a typical band, which follows the drummer.  In the Stones, Keith sets the rhythm, and Charlie follows Keith.

[locodos 5,387]

Here's an unpopular Beatles opinion.  I never really loved any of their songs.  Some of them are pretty good, but I don't have any of them on rotation.   I'm glad everyone else loves them, I just don't. 

[ztejas 43,452]

11 minutes ago, elguapo said:

The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few tunes.

 

[Al_4_ISU 12,463]

52 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Charlie Watts was the most proficient musician in the Rolling Stones by miles.  Mick Taylor is a more technically proficient guitar player than Keith.  And the Stones keep rolling because, in the end, it's Mick and Keith.

Yeah, that's not much of an argument.

That said, the Stones best work came with Mick Taylor.  He was the perfect foil for Keith, IMO.

[dcbc 14,484]

Just now, Al_4_ISU said:

Yeah, that's not much of an argument.

That said, the Stones best work came with Mick Taylor.  He was the perfect foil for Keith, IMO.

He enabled Keith to be as Keith as Keith could be.

[Al_4_ISU 12,463]

1 minute ago, dcbc said:

He enabled Keith to be as Keith as Keith could be.

Exactly.  Woody fits and grooves with Keith better than anyone else, but you just wouldn't get "Can't You Hear Me Knockin'" with anyone other than Mick Taylor.

[tbone_ 14,123]

the Stones keep rolling because, in the end, it's Mick and Keith.

They do now. But they wouldn’t have had the same groove that made them The Stones without Charlie Watts.

[dcbc 14,484]

3 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

They do now. But they wouldn’t have had the same groove that made them The Stones without Charlie Watts.

For sure.

[WhatTheBuck 28,783]

On 3/28/2024 at 11:24 AM, locodos said:

Here's an unpopular Beatles opinion.  I never really loved any of their songs.  Some of them are pretty good, but I don't have any of them on rotation.   I'm glad everyone else loves them, I just don't. 

You’re so rad. 

[locodos 5,387]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

You’re so rad. 

Ah, Thanks man!

[ohchaucer 1,443]

The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few tunes.

They had to pull Ringo off the ceiling with a rake to sing Yellow Submarine.

(And pos rep for a great reference)

[DixonHur 11,305]

On 3/28/2024 at 10:24 AM, locodos said:

Here's an unpopular Beatles opinion.  I never really loved any of their songs.  Some of them are pretty good, but I don't have any of them on rotation.   I'm glad everyone else loves them, I just don't. 

I spent my early childhood obsessed with The Beatles, but as I got older I realized they were good, but there were other better, more influential bands in the 60's.  The Beatles were just lucky enough to be anointed the "it" band of the time.

[tbone_ 14,123]

I don’t get Neil Young at all.

[DixonHur 11,305]

Queen is the most overrated band in rock history.

There I said it...and I feel better.

[Gil Bang 25,960]

On 1/22/2024 at 5:29 PM, tbone_ said:

Cool story about Blue Cheer. I did not know about them.

My pops apparently took my mother to see Iron Butterfly in Dallas in 1970. She says it was so loud she couldn’t even think. But I’m sure it seemed that way to her because this would have been quite the new experience for her at that time.

Wish pops was still around to set the story straight on how loud it really was. I’m guess probably pretty loud though since it was at the State Fair Coliseum. Which is basically all concrete inside.

Which also reminds me that that loudest concert I ever attended by at least a lap over whatever is in second place was Pantera in 1994 at the State Fair Coliseum. Holy fuck is all I can say about that.

Necro bump:  when I lived in Dana Point (12 years back) Martin Gershwitz (sp) was a local in town and used to host (and play in) open jams at a local watering hole.  The dude played GREAT, but holy shit, he looked like a parody of a geriatric rock star.   Very long, very thinning hair, with a bad dye job. 

Oh yeah...the guitar player from The Busboys was a regular too.  heck of a player.

Edited April 3 by Gil Bang

[ztejas 43,452]

15 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Queen is the most overrated band in rock history.

There I said it...and I feel better.

I wouldn't protest that one too hard. The Queen and Elton John biopics/movies came out right after each other and I liked the Elton John one better because I realized that I like his music better. 

[honolulu horn 6,158]

On 3/28/2024 at 7:58 AM, Al_4_ISU said:

I'm not saying that he was useless to the Beatles and that they would have been as good with someone else, but I AM saying that the credit he gets is excessive.  George and Paul were better musicians, singers, and songwriters.  Ringo was a better musician and singer.  To many people, John Lennon is the definitive Beatle.  To me, he's the guy that brings the least to the band.

Well you certainly are adhering to the thread title, I'll give you that. 

Was Ringo better on drums than Lennon was on any specific instrument? Maybe so. Was he a better overall musician? Jesus. Was he a better singer? Double Jesus. 

[DixonHur 11,305]

2 minutes ago, honolulu horn said:

Was Ringo better on drums than Lennon was on any specific instrument? Maybe so. Was he a better overall musician? Jesus. Was he a better singer? Double Jesus. 

Reminds me of the quote when Paul was asked if Ringo was the best drummer in the world, and Paul replied that he's not even the best drummer in The Beatles.

Anyone touting Ringo as the best musician in The Beatles is smoking the good shit.

[Al_4_ISU 12,463]

Reminds me of the quote when Paul was asked if Ringo was the best drummer in the world, and Paul replied that he's not even the best drummer in The Beatles.
Anyone touting Ringo as the best musician in The Beatles is smoking the good shit.

Paul was the best musician in the Beatles by a wide margin.

[DixonHur 11,305]

16 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Paul was the best musician in the Beatles by a wide margin.

I don't agree, but it's certainly a popular and defensible position.  

For me, George was the best all-around musician in The Beatles.