Unpopular views about music

I have a few unpopular opinions:

1. My Chemical Romance is good.

2. Going off of that, Danger Days is objectively their best album. The storytelling and the music work together better than Black Parade, and I think it was the best possible (full) album for them to sign off with.

Also, in other basic emo opinions, Folie A Deux was Fall Out Boy's best album and they should have stayed broken up.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Higgins and Pickle Inspector
Izzy Stradlin is a better guitarist and a better composer than Slash.
 
Steam Powered Giraffe is actually pretty great, for me anyway, because I stayed away from Tumblr during their heyday. That and I just dig robots.
-On that note, Hatchworth is better than The Jon.
 
-Billy Talent and the Arctic Monkeys are some of the worst bands of the last decade, they are like Tokyo Hotel levels of bad.
-Rihanna's vibratos are ugly as fuck.
-I'm not too keen on the pop songs of Robbie Williams, but he's decent at singing swing.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Doseferatu
Due to listening to the same "Rock" stations since high school, I have lost complete taste for Led Zeppelin and AC/DC. I know they have some good hidden gems, I own several of their albums, but after the 1000 time hearing Stairway to heaven I can just barely tolerate it without changing the dial. AC/DC is worst of the two, I never want to hear Thunderstruck again, i've had enough.

Still like Pink Floyd, despite the radio only playing "Another brick in the wall" and "money". However, in a true unpopular opinion, I do not like Money being on "Dark side of the moon". It disrupts the attitude and flow and sounds like it was thrown on simply to have a single for the charts. "Sloop John B" from the Beach boys "Pet Sounds" is the same problem - a radio single ruining the tone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShittyRecolor
Spudnik said:
Due to listening to the same "Rock" stations since high school, I have lost complete taste for Led Zeppelin and AC/DC. I know they have some good hidden gems, I own several of their albums, but after the 1000 time hearing Stairway to heaven I can just barely tolerate it without changing the dial. AC/DC is worst of the two, I never want to hear Thunderstruck again, i've had enough.

Still like Pink Floyd, despite the radio only playing "Another brick in the wall" and "money". However, in a true unpopular opinion, I do not like Money being on "Dark side of the moon". It disrupts the attitude and flow and sounds like it was thrown on simply to have a single for the charts. "Sloop John B" from the Beach boys "Pet Sounds" is the same problem - a radio single ruining the tone.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's especially hard listening ot AC/DC if you're not into them since their whole MO is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I still haven't listened to them enough to get bored of them, and they're one of the most fun bands to jam out to, but I can completely understand where you come from. Overexposure can spoil the enjoyment of pretty much everything.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Spudnik
Since AC/DC and Queen have both recently done successful tours with new singers, I'm honestly surprised Led Zeppelin hasn't attempted to try once again to replace Robert Plant. I mean, Plant himself said that he's perfectly fine with them going on without him.
 
ZepFloyd94 said:
That's an unpopular opinion?
Click to expand...
Well, I know music critics in particular shit on it a lot, so that may have skewed my perception. From what I've seen, it doesn't seem like a particularly "cool" genre to like. But hey, that has its advantages. At least you don't see people in King Crimson shirts purely for the aesthetic.
 
Breloom said:
Well, I know music critics in particular shit on it a lot, so that may have skewed my perception. From what I've seen, it doesn't seem like a particularly "cool" genre to like. But hey, that has its advantages. At least you don't see people in King Crimson shirts purely for the aesthetic.
Click to expand...
Music critics usually don't know what the fuck they're talking about. If you look at a lot of the acts that are considered classics today, almost all of them were shat on during their original release. Look at Rolling Stone magazine and how they initially HATED Led Zeppelin.

Also, while you won't see T-shirts of King Crimson, Yes, or ELP, I have seen a T-shirt of Wish You Were Here's album cover at Hot Topic. So prog isn't completely safe from the hipsters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Breloom
Breloom said:
Well, I know music critics in particular shit on it a lot, so that may have skewed my perception. From what I've seen, it doesn't seem like a particularly "cool" genre to like. But hey, that has its advantages. At least you don't see people in King Crimson shirts purely for the aesthetic.
Click to expand...

There is a bizarre hatred against prog rock among "academic" critics. I've just read Paul Hegarty's Noise Music: A History (don't read it: it is full of postmodernist garbage -- impenetratable academicese; arbitrary and changing definitions; uncritically quoting Adorno as if he were Jesus). He hates prog rock (especially Yes) enough to devote one chapter to it. His bone of contention seems to be 1) prog rock consciously imitates the form of classical music; 2) it values virtuosity and 3) it is not punk (which is liberating and Marxist and shit, i.e. the "good" noise).
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: TheMightyMonarch, Army Burger and Breloom
Positron said:
There is a bizarre hatred against prog rock among "academic" critics. Just read Paul Hegarty's Noise Music: A History (don't read it: it is full of postmodernist garbage -- impenetratable academicese; arbitrary and changing definitions; uncritically quoting Adorno as if he were Jesus). He hates prog rock (especially Yes) enough to devote one chapter to it. His bone of contention seems to be 1) prog rock consciously imitates the form of classical music; 2) it values virtuosity and 3) it is not punk (which is liberating and Marxist and shit, i.e. the "good" noise).
Click to expand...
I never really got how these aspects devalued the genre, especially the one about virtuosity. Why wouldn't someone want to be the very best they could be at something they loved?

I feel this is getting to the point of going OT, though, so here's another unpopular opinion to keep things fresh: Nirvana is.... OK. I can tolerate their music and I can see how people could connect to it but they never really clicked with me. I always thought it sounded a bit generic.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Spudnik
Breloom said:
I feel this is getting to the point of going OT, though, so here's another unpopular opinion to keep things fresh: Nirvana is.... OK. I can tolerate their music and I can see how people could connect to it but they never really clicked with me. I always thought it sounded a bit generic.
Click to expand...

Nirvana is alright, they were really good at having that massive chorus/verse switch, and they codified a genre. But I think the "other" Seattle Grunge bands are probably better, especially Alice in Chains.
 
I personally think noise bands and bands, guitarists especially, who, in place of solos, or during bridges, use noisy interludes, are just not good enough at their instruments to play anything different or more melodic.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ExciteDyke and Gym Leader Elesa
I really don't consider myself a 'music person'. My favorite band is a metal band but mostly I listen to whatever happens to be popular that's catchy. Or stuff that I just know of. I tend to do individual songs more than artists.
I'm a filthy casual :\
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back