Your controversial opinions/thoughts on music

[Stadler]

In one facebook rock fans group someone posted this question: "Name a better 3 musician band than Rush, if you can" and one man responded with a big list of trio bands including Blink 182 and Green Day.

Even if someone is a big Rush hater I don't get how he can have an opinion that Blink 182 and Green Day are a 'better 3 musician bands' than Rush.
His statement was extremely controversial and objectively wrong.

Depends what your standard is.

- Dookie sold 10 million records; Rush does not, to my understanding, have a diamond record.  Boom. 
- Green Day were first (or second) ballot inductees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.  It took Rush 37 tries.  Boom.

[WildRanger]

In one facebook rock fans group someone posted this question: "Name a better 3 musician band than Rush, if you can" and one man responded with a big list of trio bands including Blink 182 and Green Day.

Even if someone is a big Rush hater I don't get how he can have an opinion that Blink 182 and Green Day are a 'better 3 musician bands' than Rush.
His statement was extremely controversial and objectively wrong.

Depends what your standard is.

- Dookie sold 10 million records; Rush does not, to my understanding, have a diamond record.  Boom. 
- Green Day were first (or second) ballot inductees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.  It took Rush 37 tries.  Boom.

1. (Big) Talent
2. Musicianship
3. Songwriting quality
I think these 3 things are much more important than album sales and RnRHoF(does that institution have any credibility?) induction.

For example, one Ed Sheeran album has sold way more copies than Bowie's Blackstar? So what? Does it make it greater than Blackstar? I think not.

[Anguyen92]

For example, one Ed Sheeran album has sold way more copies than Bowie's Blackstar? So what? Does it make it greater than Blackstar? I think not.

Actually, to me, it does.  I listened to Blackstar and I listened to Ed Sheeran's Divide.  I like Divide better.  I pegged it as my album of the year for 2017 (although 2017 was not a strong year for me in terms of listening to albums.  Also, if I had known better, I would have listened to Nothing More's The Stories We Tell Ourselves when it came out, since that would have been my album of the year for 2017).

[Stadler]

I'm totally with you; for my money, "influence" is the biggest variable, but that's me.  I'm just saying, in all these discussions, you can't assume. 

[SoundscapeMN]

In one facebook rock fans group someone posted this question: "Name a better 3 musician band than Rush, if you can" and one man responded with a big list of trio bands including Blink 182 and Green Day.

Even if someone is a big Rush hater I don't get how he can have an opinion that Blink 182 and Green Day are a 'better 3 musician bands' than Rush.
His statement was extremely controversial and objectively wrong.

Depends what your standard is.

- Dookie sold 10 million records; Rush does not, to my understanding, have a diamond record.  Boom. 
- Green Day were first (or second) ballot inductees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.  It took Rush 37 tries.  Boom.

Just take a look at the list of the albums that have gone Diamond, and ask yourself what it really means other than hordes of lemmings buying 1 album for style over substance.
https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/billboard-lists/7526410/diamond-certified-album-riaa-ranked

sorry, but in 50 or even 25 years, nobody is going to be talking about the importance or influence of Dookie, or frankly Green Day.

Green Day are like the Rabbit Maranville of the Rock Hall. Pretty much a flash-in-the-pan for their window of time.

[Crow]

you act as if green day only had one really popular/successful album

As someone who isn't really a fan even I know that's not true

[Stadler]

In one facebook rock fans group someone posted this question: "Name a better 3 musician band than Rush, if you can" and one man responded with a big list of trio bands including Blink 182 and Green Day.

Even if someone is a big Rush hater I don't get how he can have an opinion that Blink 182 and Green Day are a 'better 3 musician bands' than Rush.
His statement was extremely controversial and objectively wrong.

Depends what your standard is.

- Dookie sold 10 million records; Rush does not, to my understanding, have a diamond record.  Boom. 
- Green Day were first (or second) ballot inductees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.  It took Rush 37 tries.  Boom.

Just take a look at the list of the albums that have gone Diamond, and ask yourself what it really means other than hordes of lemmings buying 1 album for style over substance.
https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/billboard-lists/7526410/diamond-certified-album-riaa-ranked

sorry, but in 50 or even 25 years, nobody is going to be talking about the importance or influence of Dookie, or frankly Green Day.

Green Day are like the Rabbit Maranville of the Rock Hall. Pretty much a flash-in-the-pan for their window of time.

Look, preaching to the choir on that one, believe me.  Jon Lord and Chris Squire each had to DIE before they were considered (seriously) for the hall, and to this day, Keith Emerson, Greg Lake and Carl Palmer (another trio) are outside looking in.  Don't even get me started on Bob Fripp and Phil Collins.  I think the crop of "first ballots (or close to its)" - Greed Day, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Radiohead, even REM, who I love -  is embarrassing.

But I don't think Green Day is a fluke; American Idiot is an essential record, and the live version of "Jesus Of Suburbia" almost single-handedly render them the real deal.   The thing is, they (like Blink-182, though it took Tom DeLonge leaving and forming Angels and Airwaves) have both shown they are more than adolescent boy/masturbation songs.   

[WildRanger]

In one facebook rock fans group someone posted this question: "Name a better 3 musician band than Rush, if you can" and one man responded with a big list of trio bands including Blink 182 and Green Day.

Even if someone is a big Rush hater I don't get how he can have an opinion that Blink 182 and Green Day are a 'better 3 musician bands' than Rush.
His statement was extremely controversial and objectively wrong.

Depends what your standard is.

- Dookie sold 10 million records; Rush does not, to my understanding, have a diamond record.  Boom. 
- Green Day were first (or second) ballot inductees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.  It took Rush 37 tries.  Boom.

Just take a look at the list of the albums that have gone Diamond, and ask yourself what it really means other than hordes of lemmings buying 1 album for style over substance.
https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/billboard-lists/7526410/diamond-certified-album-riaa-ranked

sorry, but in 50 or even 25 years, nobody is going to be talking about the importance or influence of Dookie, or frankly Green Day.

Green Day are like the Rabbit Maranville of the Rock Hall. Pretty much a flash-in-the-pan for their window of time.

Look, preaching to the choir on that one, believe me.  Jon Lord and Chris Squire each had to DIE before they were considered (seriously) for the hall, and to this day, Keith Emerson, Greg Lake and Carl Palmer (another trio) are outside looking in.  Don't even get me started on Bob Fripp and Phil Collins.  I think the crop of "first ballots (or close to its)" - Greed Day, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Radiohead, even REM, who I love -  is embarrassing.

King Crimson and ELP deserve the place in the HOF. Also these bands: Thin Lizzy, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, T. Rex and Jethro Tull (and I'm not their fan).

[ThatOneGuy2112]

For example, one Ed Sheeran album has sold way more copies than Bowie's Blackstar? So what? Does it make it greater than Blackstar? I think not.

Actually, to me, it does.  I listened to Blackstar and I listened to Ed Sheeran's Divide.  I like Divide better.  I pegged it as my album of the year for 2017 (although 2017 was not a strong year for me in terms of listening to albums.  Also, if I had known better, I would have listened to Nothing More's The Stories We Tell Ourselves when it came out, since that would have been my album of the year for 2017).

Besides having wrong opinions, you liked that album better because you enjoyed it more, not because it sold more (at least I hope that's not the case). I think what WildRanger is getting at is "more sales =/= better art".

[Anguyen92]

The thing is, and this goes for Linkin Park as well, everyone in my age bracket (18-34) has to know at least one Green Day or Linkin Park song, somehow, or at least, know the song In the End or Boulevard of Broken Dreams.  Heck, I know that if I ever go out to karaoke with a group of workers or friends.  My go-to song to sing would have to be Boulevard of Broken Dreams since it's a song that everyone would know.  You just sing this opening line, "I walk a lonely road, the only one that I have ever known," and everyone knows what song that is.  You can see the live performance of that song at the Reading Festival on Youtube and you can see an entire field of people singing along to that.  A 15 year old song could have that power.

Besides having wrong opinions, you liked that album better because you enjoyed it more, not because it sold more (at least I hope that's not the case). I think what WildRanger is getting at is "more sales =/= better art".

Oh yeah, I liked the album because I enjoyed it better than Blackstar and it just so happens to sell more.  Other people may think the same as well.  Doesn't make it a wrong opinion.  Like I stated before, if I heard Nothing More's The Stories We Tell Ourselves when it came out, that would have been my album of the year, and it sold way less than Blackstar and Divide.

[Crow]

The musical quality of an album is actually 100% based on how many copies it sells. That's why dark side of the moon is the best album EVAR

[Stadler]

But let's not lose the point:   no one - or at least not I - ever said that "most albums sold" automatically means "great".  BUT, if there is a person that uses that as a scale - and it's not unreasonable to do so, as the list of bands whose most highly regarded record is also their best selling is as long as my penis - then so be it.   My only point was, whether art is subjective or obkective depends totally on the standard being used (and whether that standard is objective or not).  That's all. 

[ThatOneGuy2112]

Are we still using green text for sarcasm around these parts? 

But I understand, it's just hard for me not to strongly disagree, as I think Balckstar is one of the best albums this decade so far, and I don't really care for Ed Sheeran at all. I get why he has mass appeal, but it's not for me.

I've also always been the kind of person who, if I see art that has mass appeal and a large audience, then I concede it must have some kind of merit to it. Things don't become popular if it's hated by nearly everyone who sees/hears it, which is the closest something can get for me to call it "objectively bad".

[bosk1]

In one facebook rock fans group someone posted this question: "Name a better 3 musician band than Rush, if you can" and one man responded with a big list of trio bands including Blink 182 and Green Day.

Even if someone is a big Rush hater I don't get how he can have an opinion that Blink 182 and Green Day are a 'better 3 musician bands' than Rush.
His statement was extremely controversial and objectively wrong.

The next time you describe in any manner someone's opinion on music to be "objectively" right or wrong, you will be banned from the forum.  Last warning on the subject.

[twosuitsluke]

I started to get interested in music thanks to Green Day's American Idiot and then became fan of Blink-182 and other pop-punk bands. And to be honest, while I don't listen to much of those bands anymore and I do enjoy some Rush (I think A Farewell To King, Permanent Waves and Grace Under Pressure are great), if you were to ask me to make a top 50 of my favorite albums I can say that American Idiot and Blink-182 self-titled album would rank above any Rush album (I guess that's pretty controversial  ) Part of it might just be nostalagia, but this person might come from a similar place than me.

It's unbelievable to me. And yeah, words can't describe how controversial it is. 

Between me and all my friends this is not controversial at all. Blink-182 and Green Day were monumental to me and I have little to no interest in Rush. The music those two bands wrote will always be a big deal to me and my musical journey. I am able to understand that some people are in agreement with me and some aren't, this is down to personal tastes and experiences. It's really very simple.

[darkshade]

I've not been impressed with a lot of music released in the 2010s, outside of a very few examples. This spans many genres. I think it's one reason I've gravitated to non-Western music, aboriginal music, or just other music I haven't yet really explored from decades past, it seems like "it's all been done" or "no one is stepping up like they did in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, developing new styles, sounds and entire genres" but it's really that everyone is just doing the same thing, everything sounds dystopian, depressing, and/or fake/plastic; or plain trash with no musicality to it whatsoever, or just re-exploring old sounds that have been done a million times before, maybe adding a twist, or just experimental for the sake of it instead of finding something new. I thought it was just me, but as this decade is soon coming to a close, I realize it's not. I still like a lot of different sounds and styles, and still try to remain open-minded , but I look at all the releases the last 9 years and I don't have any connection to any of them, rarely care to put any of them on, again, aside from a very few exceptions. I think the last great piece of music released as of this moment is The Whirlwind by Transatlantic, and the only good songs that have come out in the mainstream, at least in the US, I can count on one hand, and half of them are rip offs of some kind, or weren't even that popular looking back.

[Sacul]

On the other hand, I think the 2010s are my second favorite decade of music, so I'm curious what those exceptions you liked are.

[King Postwhore]

As a guy turning 51next week I think you are not searching hard enough.  There is awesome music out there this past decade.

[Crow]

like the vast majority of my music comes from the late 2000's and the 2010's and i have a ton of great albums

[Stadler]

I started to get interested in music thanks to Green Day's American Idiot and then became fan of Blink-182 and other pop-punk bands. And to be honest, while I don't listen to much of those bands anymore and I do enjoy some Rush (I think A Farewell To King, Permanent Waves and Grace Under Pressure are great), if you were to ask me to make a top 50 of my favorite albums I can say that American Idiot and Blink-182 self-titled album would rank above any Rush album (I guess that's pretty controversial  ) Part of it might just be nostalagia, but this person might come from a similar place than me.

It's unbelievable to me. And yeah, words can't describe how controversial it is. 

Between me and all my friends this is not controversial at all. Blink-182 and Green Day were monumental to me and I have little to no interest in Rush. The music those two bands wrote will always be a big deal to me and my musical journey. I am able to understand that some people are in agreement with me and some aren't, this is down to personal tastes and experiences. It's really very simple.

I think the point of a lot of posts here is just that there is context, and that can't be ignored.   My favorite album of all-time is "Going For The One" by Yes.  I love it.  It is the perfect album by my standards and though I've heard it 500 times if I've heard it once, I still put it on and get both a physical and emotional lift from it.  It is a spiritual record for me.

But I have to be real.  In the context of the world/planet/listening community, it's a polarizing record.  It's not even - likely - the consensus "best" Yes album (Close To The Edge), it's not the best selling - and therefore presumably most popular - Yes album (that's probably 90210), and it's not an album that contains any of the top ten most played "Yes" songs in concert (according to Setlist.fm https://www.setlist.fm/stats/yes-63d6bef7.html).   

There are other songs/albums that play a formative role in my life - Billy Joel's The Stranger; Genesis "Evidence Of Autumn"; Black Sabbath Sabbath Bloody Sabbath - but again, there should be some context to the larger musical world.   "Evidence of Autumn" is just not at the level of "Good Vibrations" or "Let It Be" or "All Along The Watchtower". 

[Ben_Jamin]

Metal and Rap fans are the most stubborn music fans, or fans of music. Prog fans are among the most critical music fans.

Which leads me to me classifying myself as a Fan of Music. Meaning I enjoy muaic regardless of Genre. I may not own lots of albums from the vast array of Genres, doesn't mean I don't enjoy listening to said Genre.

[KevShmev]

Metal and Rap fans are the most stubborn music fans, or fans of music. Prog fans are among the most critical music fans.

Which leads me to me classifying myself as a Fan of Music. Meaning I enjoy muaic regardless of Genre. I may not own lots of albums from the vast array of Genres, doesn't mean I don't enjoy listening to said Genre.

Agreed.  While a lot of my favorite is prog, I don't like identifying myself strictly as a prog fan.  There was a debate last week about sitting vs standing at concerts on the Neal Morse FB forum, and there were a few comments about how prog fans prefer to sit down because they like to focus on the music more, which to me was code for "listen intently for any mistake that they can then bitch about on the internet the next day" , at the expense of, ya know, having fun and enjoying themselves.  I had just as much fun seeing Tears for Fears two years ago than I did seeing Haken four months ago. Diversity is a music fan's friend.

[Ben_Jamin]

Metal and Rap fans are the most stubborn music fans, or fans of music. Prog fans are among the most critical music fans.

Which leads me to me classifying myself as a Fan of Music. Meaning I enjoy muaic regardless of Genre. I may not own lots of albums from the vast array of Genres, doesn't mean I don't enjoy listening to said Genre.

Agreed.  While a lot of my favorite is prog, I don't like identifying myself strictly as a prog fan.  There was a debate last week about sitting vs standing at concerts on the Neal Morse FB forum, and there were a few comments about how prog fans prefer to sit down because they like to focus on the music more, which to me was code for "listen intently for any mistake that they can then bitch about on the internet the next day" , at the expense of, ya know, having fun and enjoying themselves.  I had just as much fun seeing Tears for Fears two years ago than I did seeing Haken four months ago. Diversity is a music fan's friend.

Being diverse is great. I've been to many different styles of shows and have enjoyed myself at mostly every one. I do like the looks I get when I wear a certain band shirt that is completely different from the show. I don't care, it's just the shirt and I like the music thats gonna be playing live on stage.

[ChuckSteak]

God dammit no more objectivity vs subjectivity stuff!

Can this be a rule on the forum? Anytime someone states that art (or anything else) can be objectively good or bad, it's just deleted.

This post is objectively true.

[RAIN]

Megadeth is a better band BECAUSE they keep changing their lead guitarists and drummers.  Lineup changes make them better.  I don’t think they should keep either for more than two albums, because that’s when they tend to slip and suck.  Just imagine if Metallica did the same and had a new guitarist every 2 albums? Wow

Musicals/Broadway is amazing.  And Les Misérables alone is better than most Rock/Metal albums.

Slayer sucks, and I don’t think they were every as influential as everyone likes to say.

Van Halen with Sammy Hagar was the best lineup, unfortunately the first 2 albums 5150/OU812 sucked in the production/mix.  FUCK is single handedly the best album by any band, period, save for Savatage Edge of Thorns.  On that note, I love Jon Oliva, but Edge of Thorns is still the best album Savatage ever released 

Nickelback is amazing, and everyone knows it.  Get off the bandwagon of hate, because we all know you…yes YOU, collect all of their albums.

You either love Rush or hate them…there is no “casual Rush fan”, and if you disagree, I don’t believe you 

[bosk1]

Megadeth is a better band BECAUSE they keep changing their lead guitarists and drummers.  Lineup changes make them better.  I don’t think they should keep either for more than two albums, because that’s when they tend to slip and suck.  Just imagine if Metallica did the same and had a new guitarist every 2 albums? Wow

That's just silly.  Changing lead guitarists and drummers does not make any band better.  And Megadeth was at its best for the long string of albums when they had Marty and Nick. 

Musicals/Broadway is amazing.  And Les Misérables alone is better than most Rock/Metal albums.

Eh, tastes.    Les Misérables is pretty good.  If you love it, good for you.

Slayer sucks, and I don’t think they were every as influential as everyone likes to say.

"Everyone" doesn't.  They do suck.

Van Halen with Sammy Hagar was the best lineup

Yes.

FUCK is single handedly the best album by any band, period, save for Savatage Edge of Thorns. 

No.

Well, I was mainly responding to the Van Halen part, not the Savatage part.  Regarding the Savatage part, no comment because nobody cares about Savatage.

Nickelback is amazing, and everyone knows it.  Get off the bandwagon of hate, because we all know you…yes YOU, collect all of their albums.

I don't think I've ever heard a Nickleback song.  If I have, it did not make an impression.

You either love Rush or hate them…there is no “casual Rush fan”, and if you disagree, I don’t believe you 

I don't hate them, but I'm not a fan either.  I owned a greatest hits album a long time ago and probably listened to it twice.  I can casually enjoy the odd song here or there.  But large doses of Rush bore me.  And I don't care whether you believe me.

[RAIN]

Megadeth is a better band BECAUSE they keep changing their lead guitarists and drummers.  Lineup changes make them better.  I don’t think they should keep either for more than two albums, because that’s when they tend to slip and suck.  Just imagine if Metallica did the same and had a new guitarist every 2 albums? Wow

That's just silly.  Changing lead guitarists and drummers does not make any band better.  And Megadeth was at its best for the long string of albums when they had Marty and Nick. 

Your response to my controversial opinion is itself a funny controversial opinion.  I believe, in Megadeth specifically, the changing lineups have made them better and not stale, but only after no more than 2 albums.  The only exception was Marty, he had a good run of 3 albums...and maybe 4.   

[Crow]

I'll jump on the "slayer sucks" train because ugh they're awful

Is it controversial to say Devin Townsend's best album is Casualties of Cool and I feel it's unlikely to be topped?

[bosk1]

Is it controversial to say Devin Townsend's best album is Casualties of Cool and I feel it's unlikely to be topped?

I could not disagree with you if I wanted to.

[Adami]

I disagree about Casulaties, but it is a great album, and if that speaks to you most, then it's no different than any other album of his speaking to someone else most.



Except the masses that worship Terria. They're wrong. Objectively. I object to their opinions, subjectively.

[425]

You either love Rush or hate them…there is no “casual Rush fan”, and if you disagree, I don’t believe you 

I'm a casual Rush fan. I really like a lot of their music, but there is a certain cold quality to it that limits how often I listen to them. Also, I do not really think Geddy has a good full-album vocal performance pre-Signals, and even then, he's just fine most of the time. His vocal performances are uniformly bad pre-Farewell to Kings.

[LCArenas]

• Madonna is the most overrated musician in music history.  Neither her singing or composing abilities are outstanding compared with artists of her decade, (None of her songs particularly stand out compared to songs from, say, Cyndi Lauper or Whitney Houston) and most of her success came from pure sex selling schticks. To compare her with Michael Jackson as Queen of pop is asinine; MJ is lightyears away.
  
• Gary Cherone WAS a good choice, at least vocally, to replace Sammy Hagar in Van Halen; listen to Extreme's debut and Pornograffitti and many of those songs could be straight taken out from a VH album; the dude really had the talent. The problem came when they gave EVH complete songwriting freedom without someone to guide or filter his ideas to actual songs, man even told Gary how to sing and it came out as complete shouting nonsense, far below what he could actually pull off. He was dealt a shit hand.
• Heaven and Hell is the best Black Sabbath album. I don't know how controversial this is in the forum community but everytime I say this among my metal-loving friends they react as if I just spat in Ozzy's name

It might be controversial but I absolutely hate the Disturbed cover of Sound of Silence. The original is great because it's so subdued and quiet and the level of emotion in it is so great and then the cover is just this big bombastic power ballad with vocals overdoing it to the top. But I know some people love it so maybe it's just me.

If they had kept the style they began the song with the cover would have been perfect.  I thought they were going to take it up to ballstothewall-ville from the beginning, so I was pleasantly surprised when the song actually started. Theeeen they did what I expected them to do with the song and I stopped caring

[ThatOneGuy2112]

Except the masses that worship Terria. They're wrong. Objectively. I object to their opinions, subjectively.

How dare you.

To add to this thread: The Antlers' Hospice is one of the more overrated albums of the 2000's. It's a good record, but in hindsight is perhaps a bit too overdramatic for it's own sake.

[Zantera]

While I would say their music is decent, I would consider Ghost to be possibly the most overrated band of the last decade. If they didn't have the visual element of the ghouls and Papa and the whole "mythos" surrounding the band, just on the music alone they would be touring small venues and barely anyone would care about them. Then again I have to give them props because while being a pretty average band musically, they have elevated themselves to one of the most popular rock bands today and it's all thanks to the marketing. There's a lot of bands who make much better music who won't get as far as them.

And on the topic of overrated I would also add Death Grips. They started off good and I think they have put out a few decent albums (Money Store is great) but it's become really apparent to me in the last few years that they ran out of ideas quite some time ago and their whole thing has gotten pretty stale.

[MirrorMask]

While I would say their music is decent, I would consider Ghost to be possibly the most overrated band of the last decade. If they didn't have the visual element of the ghouls and Papa and the whole "mythos" surrounding the band, just on the music alone they would be touring small venues and barely anyone would care about them. Then again I have to give them props because while being a pretty average band musically, they have elevated themselves to one of the most popular rock bands today and it's all thanks to the marketing. There's a lot of bands who make much better music who won't get as far as them.

But that begs the question: is the whole image a gimmick, or something smart that actually helps them? the music would be the same even if they'd show up in jeans and t-shirt, should the whole Pope image be consider something negative if it actually puts them on the map? the notes are only seven in the end, you have to come up with something on top to present a show and to make yourself recognizable.

You say that the music is decent at best, and that many bands make better music; I daresay that anyone would agree that Iron Maiden has better music than mostly everything in metal, do they need with such strong songs Eddie? of course not .But they DO have Eddie, and it made them even more popular, and it's something unique to see Eddie during their show, can you blame them for it?