Unpopular Music Opinions

xChumChumx · 07-10-2009, 02:48 PM

Anything that Ken believes is basically an "unpopular" opinion. I hate all the Slipknot praise. Granted they are talented the fact that people don't grow out of them is sad. When you're 30 and you're looking forward to the next Slipknot album that is sad. Slipknot doesn't come to me as a band that can really grow. Imagine when they're older and been around for awhile, you think they'll still be wearing those cliche masks and headbanging on gigantic drums. Speaking for myself, I sure hope not.

CM Diddy · 07-10-2009, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakstang
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The same could be said for the Beatles in the early years. Also the same could be said for Elvis Presley. That doesn't change the fact that what they did was revolutionary. I don't think it necessarily entails "creating something new".

Couldnt have said it better myself. For once, the planets and stars align, and Dak and CMD see eye to eye on a subject.

[quote=Bigpapa42;1051429]

Quote:

The landscape would be different... but how different? Would grunge fail to go mainstream, or just hit a bit later in a slightly different manner? Is it possible that Pearl Jam or Alice in Chains would have still become stars, perhaps even bigger than they did? I think so.

Now, speculation is cool...but your going a bit overboard. The bottom line is Nirvana put Seattle on the map. And How can Pearl Jam be any bigger? They're easily one of the biggest acts in the world.

Quote:

When I think of a band or artist that was truly revolutionary, then I think of one who actually changed music, not just altered the popular music landscape. You can't take away the influence and role of the Rolling Stones, but would rock n' roll have failed without them? No, it would've still happened. Maybe somewhat differently, but it would still be there.

But did the Rolling Stones change the musical landscape? Damn right they did. As did Nirvana.

Quote:

But would punk have happened without the Pistols and Ramones? Would metal have come through without Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin? Those bands were more revolutionary, in my mind.

Punk nor Metal never wouldve happened without those bands.

Quote:

I'm not trying to take away from Nirvana and their legacy. I came to truly love music right in that era and I recall hearing Smells Like Teen Spirit for the first time back in 1991. I'm not trying to take away from what they did, but simply find that many music fans - whether they are actually Nirvana fans or not - tend to overvalue their contributions. Some seem to attribute to them Velvet Underground level influence and change, and I don't see it.

You clearly are trying to take away from them. Like I said in my first post, you want to tell me Cobain was a hack guitarist, a terrible singer, and a mediocre song writer...I can agree wholeheartedly.

But to say they didnt revolutionize music is just flat out wrong. Poison, Crue, and the rest of the tool bands probably wouldve milked 3 more years out of the glam scene had Nirvana not come around.

Quote:

I don't know that we've seen the utter death of creativity in those geners so much as we've seen a focus on the less creative. I think the creativity has just become less mainstream and tougher to find. Stifled, not necessarily dead. Much like Hollywood giving us endless remakes, sequels, and cookie cutter films, record companies are playing it safe and want to put out an album they know will sell - which means they want the same album as last time and the time before.

Excellent point. Maybe true creativity still is around, and Against Me comes to mind.

KenTheKiller · 07-10-2009, 02:54 PM

I don't really see how you can enjoy bands like Suicide Silence that are boring and repetitive with the same style vocal over and over (I hope I'm not just making a generalization as admittedly I have not listened to more than a few of the songs.) Slipknot have evolved from their old music and continue to include new elements or build on past elements. That's a good, talented band. And people who criticize them for their masks are luls. Judas Priest wore leather. Kiss had facepaint. Slipknot wears masks. Oh how terrible >.>

CM Diddy · 07-10-2009, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xNICKYURINEx
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Anything that Ken believes is basically an "unpopular" opinion. I hate all the Slipknot praise. Granted they are talented the fact that people don't grow out of them is sad. When you're 30 and you're looking forward to the next Slipknot album that is sad. Slipknot doesn't come to me as a band that can really grow. Imagine when they're older and been around for awhile, you think they'll still be wearing those cliche masks and headbanging on gigantic drums. Speaking for myself, I sure hope not.

Slipknots first album was amazing. (Thank Ross Robinson for that) After that...They lost me. Iowa was a very bad sophmore album imo, and then after that they just seem like they got rich and less angry.

KenTheKiller · 07-10-2009, 02:56 PM

Iowa is their weakest album for sure but it had some good songs on it. Vol 3 and AHIG isn't as angry but they still have some raw heavy songs mixed in with other elements which make it work.

Just my opinion but I feel Vol 3 and AHIG blow their other CDs out of the water.

Tommy Platinum · 07-10-2009, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM Diddy
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Slipknots first album was amazing. (Thank Ross Robinson for that) After that...They lost me. Iowa was a very bad sophmore album imo, and then after that they just seem like they got rich and less angry.

A lot of people say that, but their music is no longer all about anger and that is where they have evolved. Their self-titled CD is a very one-dimensional release compared to say, Vol 3, which is a much better and more credible album overall, with more varied emotion, more creativity and a higher quality of songs. They lost a fair few fans because they toned down the anger, and don't get me wrong I do enjoy their first CD, but they definitely evolved and became a better band to me.

I don't understand the criticism that they can't grow. They have grown more than most bands, and in that I include not only a lot of the bands Nicky likes, but a lot of the bands I like.

CM Diddy · 07-10-2009, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A lot of people say that, but their music is no longer all about anger and that is where they have evolved. Their self-titled CD is a very one-dimensional release compared to say, Vol 3, which is a much better and more credible album overall, with more varied emotion, more creativity and a higher quality of songs. They lost a fair few fans because they toned down the anger, and don't get me wrong I do enjoy their first CD, but they definitely evolved and became a better band to me.

I don't understand the criticism that they can't grow. They have grown more than most bands, and in that I include not only a lot of the bands Nicky likes, but a lot of the bands I like.

I cant really get into the Slipkont discussion too much, since I loved the first album, hated Iowa, and gave a few other albums a brief listen. They just dont do it for me. The line between Stone Sour and Slipknot is too blurry for me.

Bigpapa42 · 07-10-2009, 03:05 PM

So if Nirvana were truly musically revolutionary, they changed music - not altered the popular music landscape, but actually changed and influenced music - as much as the likes of The Beatles, The Velvet Underground, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, the Sex Pistols, Pink Floyd, or the Ramones? I'm sorry, as much as I love the work of Nirvana, I can't see that to be true.

Now if you want to lump them with other great bands and artists who changed the landscape of popular music and had a great deal of influence and sold a ton of records, then I'm with you. Put Nirvana with the Rolling Stones, Korn, Guns n' Roses, Michael Jackson, and yes, even Elvis.

xChumChumx · 07-10-2009, 03:08 PM

I'm not arguing, I think Suicide Silence is very one dimensional to most people. But if you listen to the new album, which you obviously haven't done Ken, they tried to make it very chilling. But I wouldn't compare Suicide Silence to Slipknot because they're in two different scenes. Suicide Silence still goes out of their way to preform small stages even when they're touring with huge acts such as Download Festival and Music As a Weapon. Slipknot are all rich, why wouldn't you expand your music? Got nothing else better to do with a record label's money. Plus, the following of Slipknot is often a cult following. They could release a CD of their farts and have people buy it. I knew this kid who forced himself to like StoneSour because Corey Taylor was in it, same with Murder Dolls. They're very talented but I don't think what their doing is anything new or special. They've grown but how much can they really grow considering the circumstances. They're like ICP, they're a fad with certain groups of people. I'll never see them as anything more than that.

KenTheKiller · 07-10-2009, 03:09 PM

Well CMD... Stone Sour are ftw so that's not necessarily a bad thing. Slipknot now mix hard songs, soft songs, radio friendly hard rock songs, etc. in their albums, even some atmospheric songs. Some prefer it this way, myself included, some don't.

Unpopular Music Opinions

This is a discussion on Unpopular Music Opinions within the Music Room forums, part of the Entertainment Forums category; Anything that Ken believes is basically an "unpopular" opinion. I hate all the Slipknot praise. Granted they are talented the ...