|
Post by someguy on Feb 24, 2018 15:41:58 GMT
Nonsense. Iommi was undeniably great, but what did he do of note after Ozzy left? Two good albums with Dio and then years of mostly worthless crap. Post-Sabbath Ozzy had its ups-and-downs too, but on the whole was both better and more successful. Compared with VH who also had a decent run after DLR with Hagar. Not as good as the DLR era, but better than what Sabbath managed without Ozzy. At least VH (nor Ozzy) ever released something as embarrassing as Forbidden. Wait. You were praising the friggin Pixies and you're ragging on post-Dio Sabbath, Iommi's solo album, etc.? Hey, the friggin' Pixies deserve praise. Few bands from the late 80s/early 90s have stood the test of time better.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 24, 2018 19:34:52 GMT
Wait. You were praising the friggin Pixies and you're ragging on post-Dio Sabbath, Iommi's solo album, etc.? Hey, the friggin' Pixies deserve praise. Few bands from the late 80s/early 90s have stood the test of time better. I don't actually hate the Pixies, but they don't do much for me. There would be literally hundreds of artists who started in the late 80s/early 90s that I like much more. For my tastes, the amount of praise they get is ridiculous given what the music is like.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 25, 2018 2:45:25 GMT
Nonsense. Iommi was undeniably great, but what did he do of note after Ozzy left? Two good albums with Dio and then years of mostly worthless crap. Post-Sabbath Ozzy had its ups-and-downs too, but on the whole was both better and more successful. Compared with VH who also had a decent run after DLR with Hagar. Not as good as the DLR era, but better than what Sabbath managed without Ozzy. At least VH (nor Ozzy) ever released something as embarrassing as Forbidden. Wait. You were praising the friggin Pixies and you're ragging on post-Dio Sabbath, Iommi's solo album, etc.? Yes. Are you seriously suggesting post-Dio Sabbath are better than Pixies? Edit: Reading your above replies, I see you're not much of a fan. Frankly, the Pixies are a band I shouldn't like given my typical tastes. I'm not a fan in general of most punk or punk-like music, but Pixies had a really unique combination of furiously abrasive and ridiculously catchy. I think Bowie nailed it when he called them a "psychotic Beatles." Plus, they had a pretty immense influence on 90s alternative rock and indie music; without them, Nirvana and Radiohead are very different bands. It's hard to imagine the 90s without the quiet/minimal verse to loud/maximal chorus structure that all those bands got from the Pixies (not that they were the first to do it, but they were certainly the most influential from that period).
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 25, 2018 3:28:57 GMT
Wait. You were praising the friggin Pixies and you're ragging on post-Dio Sabbath, Iommi's solo album, etc.? Yes. Are you seriously suggesting post-Dio Sabbath are better than Pixies? Edit: Reading your above replies, I see you're not much of a fan. Frankly, the Pixies are a band I shouldn't like given my typical tastes. I'm not a fan in general of most punk or punk-like music, but Pixies had a really unique combination of furiously abrasive and ridiculously catchy. I think Bowie nailed it when he called them a "psychotic Beatles." Plus, they had a pretty immense influence on 90s alternative rock and indie music; without them, Nirvana and Radiohead are very different bands. It's hard to imagine the 90s without the quiet/minimal verse to loud/maximal chorus structure that all those bands got from the Pixies (not that they were the first to do it, but they were certainly the most influential from that period). In my view, whether something is influential has nothing at all to do with whether it's any good. And the subsequent stuff can easily surpass the influencer. I like enough punk and indie. I just don't think the Pixies were very good songwriters/arrangers. They're usually boring to my ear, stuff is underdeveloped, often formulaic where the formula does nothing for me and it's sometimes annoying to me instead. It's hard for me to believe that they're not primarily respected simply because Kurt Cobain talked about liking them. I feel the same way about the Replacements by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 25, 2018 3:39:46 GMT
In my view, whether something is influential has nothing at all to do with whether it's any good. And the subsequent stuff can easily surpass the influencer. I like enough punk and indie. I just don't think the Pixies were very good songwriters/arrangers. They're usually boring to my ear, stuff is underdeveloped, often formulaic where the formula does nothing for me and it's sometimes annoying to me instead. It's hard for me to believe that they're not primarily respected simply because Kurt Cobain talked about liking them. I feel the same way about the Replacements by the way. To be fair to the Pixies, many musical artists other than Nirvana have cited them as a major influence, or as simply enjoying their albums. Then you have a band like Radiohead who are clear that both the Pixies and their sister band Throwing Muses inspired them a great deal in their working lives. David Bowie on the Pixies
What does it matter that anyone influenced anyone else though? That has nothing to do with whether a band is any good.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 25, 2018 4:06:26 GMT
Yes. Are you seriously suggesting post-Dio Sabbath are better than Pixies? Edit: Reading your above replies, I see you're not much of a fan. Frankly, the Pixies are a band I shouldn't like given my typical tastes. I'm not a fan in general of most punk or punk-like music, but Pixies had a really unique combination of furiously abrasive and ridiculously catchy. I think Bowie nailed it when he called them a "psychotic Beatles." Plus, they had a pretty immense influence on 90s alternative rock and indie music; without them, Nirvana and Radiohead are very different bands. It's hard to imagine the 90s without the quiet/minimal verse to loud/maximal chorus structure that all those bands got from the Pixies (not that they were the first to do it, but they were certainly the most influential from that period). In my view, whether something is influential has nothing at all to do with whether it's any good. And the subsequent stuff can easily surpass the influencer. I like enough punk and indie. I just don't think the Pixies were very good songwriters/arrangers. They're usually boring to my ear, stuff is underdeveloped, often formulaic where the formula does nothing for me and it's sometimes annoying to me instead. It's hard for me to believe that they're not primarily respected simply because Kurt Cobain talked about liking them. I feel the same way about the Replacements by the way. I agree stuff can surpass the influencer, but I do think influence is one legitimate way of measuring goodness/greatness, since influence is one of the biggest factors that shape how art evolves. Also, Cobain was hardly their only admirer: Radiohead and Bowie both lavished praise on them; Bowie was the one that made The Beatles comparison. I can understand Pixies being boring from a certain perspective. They share the same raw, simplistic approach to songwriting as punk that I've typically found boring because it was just a few dull ideas repeated ad nauseam; but I love their sensibility when it comes to melody and hooks, their off-kilter sense of humor, their occasional inclusion of surf music and other older genres (something like Here Comes Your Man sounds like it could've been released in the 50s), and their ability to find a lot of tonal variations and textures within a rather limited technical palette. They were pretty un-formulaic given the time period: who else was doing what they were doing when they were doing it? As for being underdeveloped... well, yeah, but isn't a lack of development a staple of punk music? The idea is just to paste a few simple ideas together and hope it makes an impact. It's polar opposite approach of prog where developing ideas is the name of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 25, 2018 14:07:33 GMT
In my view, whether something is influential has nothing at all to do with whether it's any good. And the subsequent stuff can easily surpass the influencer. I like enough punk and indie. I just don't think the Pixies were very good songwriters/arrangers. They're usually boring to my ear, stuff is underdeveloped, often formulaic where the formula does nothing for me and it's sometimes annoying to me instead. It's hard for me to believe that they're not primarily respected simply because Kurt Cobain talked about liking them. I feel the same way about the Replacements by the way. I agree stuff can surpass the influencer, but I do think influence is one legitimate way of measuring goodness/greatness, since influence is one of the biggest factors that shape how art evolves. Also, Cobain was hardly their only admirer: Radiohead and Bowie both lavished praise on them; Bowie was the one that made The Beatles comparison. I can understand Pixies being boring from a certain perspective. They share the same raw, simplistic approach to songwriting as punk that I've typically found boring because it was just a few dull ideas repeated ad nauseam; but I love their sensibility when it comes to melody and hooks, their off-kilter sense of humor, their occasional inclusion of surf music and other older genres (something like Here Comes Your Man sounds like it could've been released in the 50s), and their ability to find a lot of tonal variations and textures within a rather limited technical palette. They were pretty un-formulaic given the time period: who else was doing what they were doing when they were doing it? As for being underdeveloped... well, yeah, but isn't a lack of development a staple of punk music? The idea is just to paste a few simple ideas together and hope it makes an impact. It's polar opposite approach of prog where developing ideas is the name of the game. Influence just has nothing to do with whether anything is any good. I didn't say anything at all resembling Cobain being the only one to plug the Pixies. Re the formula comment I wasn't talking about what anyone else was doing. I was talking about the Pixies. They had a formula. I wasn't saying that I dislike simple stuff, punk, formulas etc. categorically.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 26, 2018 2:38:02 GMT
I agree stuff can surpass the influencer, but I do think influence is one legitimate way of measuring goodness/greatness, since influence is one of the biggest factors that shape how art evolves. Also, Cobain was hardly their only admirer: Radiohead and Bowie both lavished praise on them; Bowie was the one that made The Beatles comparison. I can understand Pixies being boring from a certain perspective. They share the same raw, simplistic approach to songwriting as punk that I've typically found boring because it was just a few dull ideas repeated ad nauseam; but I love their sensibility when it comes to melody and hooks, their off-kilter sense of humor, their occasional inclusion of surf music and other older genres (something like Here Comes Your Man sounds like it could've been released in the 50s), and their ability to find a lot of tonal variations and textures within a rather limited technical palette. They were pretty un-formulaic given the time period: who else was doing what they were doing when they were doing it? As for being underdeveloped... well, yeah, but isn't a lack of development a staple of punk music? The idea is just to paste a few simple ideas together and hope it makes an impact. It's polar opposite approach of prog where developing ideas is the name of the game. Influence just has nothing to do with whether anything is any good. I didn't say anything at all resembling Cobain being the only one to plug the Pixies. Re the formula comment I wasn't talking about what anyone else was doing. I was talking about the Pixies. They had a formula. I wasn't saying that I dislike simple stuff, punk, formulas etc. categorically. So if what's good is subjective (which I'm pretty sure you believe; as do I), then why isn't influence as valid a standard for judging goodness as any other? You said: "It's hard for me to believe that they're not primarily respected simply because Kurt Cobain talked about liking them. " Why would Cobain's opinion matter more than Bowie's or Radiohead's (or Bono's)? It seems a bit silly, in general, to think most people like a band just because someone else liked them anyway. Generally I hear "formulaic" as a criticism of bands who followed someone else's formula, not who invented their own; but I'll bite anyway: what was the formula? I know you weren't saying that. I don't know what about my post made you think I was suggesting you said that. I was talking about my own tastes.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 26, 2018 12:23:05 GMT
So if what's good is subjective (which I'm pretty sure you believe; as do I), then why isn't influence as valid a standard for judging goodness as any other? Obviously, I'm giving my opinion that whether something is good has nothing to do with influence. Because of the stature that Cobain has, which was most strongly impacted by his suicide, where he's basically seen as a martyr. In a recent thread about the Russian involvement with the U.S. election, suzi said (to another poster, not me), "So you don't believe that people buy into the things they hear on the news, or on the internet?" I responded, "Whenever one suggests that there's anyone who doesn't just think for themselves, as if they existed in a vacuum, everyone has a cow and seems to suggest that social influence is just a myth. I've had that happen a ton of times on various boards." I'd have to listen to them again to detail it. I know I detailed it on the old music board when we were going through the Rolling Stone magazine top 500 albums . . . but I didn't save that, and it was a couple years ago now.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 27, 2018 2:35:50 GMT
So if what's good is subjective (which I'm pretty sure you believe; as do I), then why isn't influence as valid a standard for judging goodness as any other? Obviously, I'm giving my opinion that whether something is good has nothing to do with influence. Fair enough. Because of the stature that Cobain has, which was most strongly impacted by his suicide, where he's basically seen as a martyr. I'm not sure I agree Cobain's stature is any greater than Bowie's or Radiohead's or Bono's. They're all legends. In a recent thread about the Russian involvement with the U.S. election, suzi said (to another poster, not me), "So you don't believe that people buy into the things they hear on the news, or on the internet?" I responded, "Whenever one suggests that there's anyone who doesn't just think for themselves, as if they existed in a vacuum, everyone has a cow and seems to suggest that social influence is just a myth. I've had that happen a ton of times on various boards." I'm not suggesting social influence is a myth, but affect is different from effect. Look at Cobain's list of his top 50 albums. Right below Pixies is The Breeders. They're respected to an extent, but nowhere near the level Pixies are. So why didn't Cobain's praise of them have the same affect? Clearly there's more to it than that. I'd have to listen to them again to detail it. I know I detailed it on the old music board when we were going through the Rolling Stone magazine top 500 albums . . . but I didn't save that, and it was a couple years ago now. If it's too much trouble you don't have to bother. The only "formula" I really hear with them is the soft verse/loud chorus dynamic, but they have plenty of songs that don't do that.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Feb 27, 2018 21:35:53 GMT
I am a huge fan of both david lee roth and Ozzy. Ofcourse technically they're not great vocalists but great performers. Ozzy has had a tremendously successful solo career from 1981-up until the 2000's. Up until the present he can draw pretty well at any arena. David Lee roth had a few albums that bombed in the 90's as well as the last one in '03. But I"m sure he did ok
|
|