rayj wrote:

revrantMeat wrote:wow you guys are all too alternative for me.

Alternative to what?

Melissa Etheridge

haha,

it was a polite way of saying: this thread is trash.
im saying you guys are all (almost all) just being total cuntbags about bands you know people on this forums are going to obviously like (the exception to this is obviously the rolling stones) for the sake of sounding 'alternative' or above another's musical standards.

maybe im wrong, but i think not.

steve

Here are few bands (not really disappointing) that my friends like or love and I don't.
I gave them two or three serious 'listening sessions' over the years.

American Music Club

Sugar

Brick Layer Cake

Poster Children (although there was something likable about 'Daisy Chain Reaction' record)

Slayer

I also tried to listen to Whitehouse twice, the most popular power electronics act on EA forum it seems to me. Well, it didn't work for me although I realised what should be the right mood for that kind of music.
I found that raging 'whitehouse' spot in my psyche.
That was easy.

Definitely not trying to 'out-alternative' anyone, myself. Not intentionally, anyway. I can find something to like about every band mentioned here, if I drop my expectations...

revrantMeat wrote:haha,

it was a polite way of saying: this thread is trash.
im saying you guys are all (almost all) just being total cuntbags about bands you know people on this forums are going to obviously like (the exception to this is obviously the rolling stones) for the sake of sounding 'alternative' or above another's musical standards.

maybe im wrong, but i think not.

steve

I think the posts being contrary to the popular tastes of the board (if such a thing could be known) is what makes this thread interesting... It's not always what's expected. I don't think anyone here is posting these things to be a bastard...

revrantMeat wrote:haha,

it was a polite way of saying: this thread is trash.
im saying you guys are all (almost all) just being total cuntbags about bands you know people on this forums are going to obviously like (the exception to this is obviously the rolling stones) for the sake of sounding 'alternative' or above another's musical standards.

maybe im wrong, but i think not.

steve

Wasn't that the point? Citing bands that disappoint you because they're overrated--meaning that lots of people you know (including, perhaps, those on this board) like them for reasons that elude you. Of course, it's fun to tump over people's golden calves, but still.

When I saw this thread I thought of bands you used to like that ultimately let you down with a terrible release. I'll save that for a different thread, or who knows, I haven't done a search, it might already be out there.

Anycrap, as far as bands/artists where people were like "no, man, you gotta check 'em out" & I didn't like them?

The White Stripes
Neutral Milk Hotel
Towns Van Zandt

revrantMeat wrote:haha,

it was a polite way of saying: this thread is trash.
im saying you guys are all (almost all) just being total cuntbags about bands you know people on this forums are going to obviously like (the exception to this is obviously the rolling stones) for the sake of sounding 'alternative' or above another's musical standards.

maybe im wrong, but i think not.

steve

In starting this thread, it was definitely not my intention for people to "just be total cuntbags" about bands or to try to seem more alternative than the alternative. I simply have found that there are a lot of bands that people rate very highly who I think totally suck for whatever reason. As far as I am concerned, it seems more alternative to like the "alternative" bands and attack those who don't because they would prefer to listen to the Rolling Stones. I know I would much rather listen to all of "Exile on Main Street" than one 45 second song by the hallowed Minutemen. How "alternative" does that really sound to you.
And I partially agree with that post about the Velvet Underground. While the first album is very good, I was expecting "White Light..." to be amazing. It sounded very rudimentary and "Sister Ray" was not edgy in any way (whether or not this is because it has been copied to death, I will never be able to answer since I only came to it 35 years or so after it was released, the context is gone).

the$inmusicisallmine wrote:

fantasmatical thorr wrote: all the worlds superlatives cannot make up for what is mediocre,.

my point exactly. somebody mentioned the Melvins, the Clash, the Fall, etc. I think those bands are far from fuckin' mediocre. Wildly inconsistent, yes, but when they are on, they are good, dammit. It is my opinion that the non-mediocrity of these bands is self-evident, and therefore they are objectively non-mediocre.

So for someone to have their head on so sideways as to come to the Fall (say) and hear their music and find it mediocre (or CRAP), well the whole concept just blows me away. What kind of hype and preconceptions would there have to be in a person's head to warp them so badly that they don't totally love the Fall? Staggering.

I know, I love the Fall. I know some people don't. I know this as a fact. And I know that, on some level, I cannot grasp the concept that a person who likes other music I like would completely fail to appreciate the Fall.

Relativism. Objectivism. Peer Pressure. Unmet Expectations.

So sad that these stupid things keep you nice kids from liking these fine, fine bands. So sad.

FThorr - if you cannot go into law, try going under it. going around it may be frought with severe risk.

As for stating that Melvins, Fall et. al are objectively good and people who don't like them are wrong is just asinine. You make it sound like there is a worldwide standard of aesthetic greatness that exists irrespective of individual interpretation or taste. I can't think of a less openminded statement regarding this debate. I'm sure you're just being "alternative" for the sake of it though.

horsewhip wrote:Television. Side Two of Marquee Moon is fucking terrible.

I love this record, but if I step back from the fact that I just buy it and the decisions behind it, I can see where side two gets...well, side two-y if you're not on board. I will say that I'm surprised you're not into "Elevation," though--that song always struck me as a very strong, dramatic side opener.

'Course, I also love Adventure. It was on solid repeat play for the year after I first heard it years and years ago, and it's in my cells now. But I can see where people didn't get into it.

I think a lot of the "this band started punk! They built the stage of CBGBs!" legend stuff gets in the way for people who hadn't been born yet when these albums came out. By this point, they're thinking "wow, this must be pure, distilled, un-watered-down PUNK" and the cognitive dissonance between the expectation and what they actually hear leads to profound disappointment.

Actually, I think most of the bands listed in the disappoinment threads (there's an old one about revered bands you don't "get"; I can't find it at the moment) suffer from this cognitive dissonance letdown. It'd be interesting if people went ahead and tried to record what they thought a band should be like. (Thinking of BER's comment about REM, I recall that Peter Buck once said something in an interview about how he could imagine some kid somewhere hearing hype about how good REM was, going to a show, thinking REM sucked, and then starting a band that would do what the kid had thought REM would be. Buck said that this would be "the best band ever" or something like that.)