OT: The Avalounge: Nerd Central 2.0

[Pokecheque]

Yeah that’s his only pop song that got big notoriety, but I feel like it’s a bit of a disservice to him by considering him a 1 hit wonder considering how good of a jazz artist he is.

Talent has NOTHING to do with whether or not a musician was a chartmaker or not. In fact, a lot of highly-regarded musical acts never really hit mainstream success because their sound is too ambitious. A lot of hits over the years are songs that appeal to the broadest base possible--meaning there's really not a lot that's special about it apart from being "catchy." They've interviewed successful pop songwriters and they know the formula behind writing a good pop hook.

He counts, it's not a disservice, especially because McFerrin would be the first to probably tell you he doesn't give a shit about making hits.

David Bowie's most lauded works are the "Berlin Trilogy" and also some of his most un-commercial work, especially "Lodger." I read in an article that he came out with all his weird shit knowing it wouldn't sell well because he wanted to screw over a producer he didn't like, and once his contract with said producer was up, he came out with "Just Dance," which of course was a gigantic hit.

Proof positive that absolutely horrid musicians can hit the big-time: Limp Bizkit. Again, talent is not really a determining factor here.

 

[henchman21]

Proof positive that absolutely horrid musicians can hit the big-time: Limp Bizkit. Again, talent is not really a determining factor here.

Woah... wait.. are you saying Fred Durst isn't talented?!?!

 

[UncleRisto]

Talent has NOTHING to do with whether or not a musician was a chartmaker or not. In fact, a lot of highly-regarded musical acts never really hit mainstream success because their sound is too ambitious. A lot of hits over the years are songs that appeal to the broadest base possible--meaning there's really not a lot that's special about it apart from being "catchy." They've interviewed successful pop songwriters and they know the formula behind writing a good pop hook.

Reminds me of this YouTube classic.



E: And also there's this better version.

 

[Pokecheque]

Woah... wait.. are you saying Fred Durst isn't talented?!?!

I know...hot take, right?

 

[henchman21]

I know...hot take, right?

Also the wrong take

 

[Pokecheque]

That reminds me of this seminal rock moment...

 

[UncleRisto]

That reminds me of this seminal rock moment...

I love the part where he goes "Let's go!" and hits a cymbal once.

 

[S E P H]

You will lose.

You said Led Zeppelin sucks. And if that is truly your opinion, you are welcome to it, everyone has their own tastes. But objectively, every single member of that band is considered top 15 all time for performers at their instrument. According to Rolling Stone (for a single source for all lists) Robert Plant is 15th for singers, John Paul Jones is 6th for bassists, Jimmy Page is 3rd for guitarists, and John Bonham is the best drummer of all time. As with any rankings lists, these are debatable. But dropping any of them out of a top 50 would be asinine.

Same goes for whoever put the Beatles. I will admit that I am not the biggest fan of theirs...but they are one of the greatest bands of all time (maybe #1).

I get the votes for KISS, even though I am a fan....they have a huge library and many songs are blech, but they have some great ones as well. And the reason they remain popular....fun. The have fun songs and put on a fun show.
The Eagles are a favorite of mine as well, and someone mistakenly listed them.
AC/DC and Motorhead too. And GnR, and so on.

Basically everyone is trashing the music of my youth and young adulthood. Including people that consider KPop the epitome of music. And some of the utter crap that has been linked in here....oof.

I absolutely get your emotions of wanting to defend bands you grew up with, people's childhood should be a precious memory and taking nothing from that. However, once you get older that a lot of things you liked as a child and teen aren't really necessary good once you develop into adulthood. Like you wouldn't watch Blue's Clues now by yourself nor would you dress like a Brony in public (except for attention). AC/DC is like Nick JR. television channel - it was solid when you were young and didn't realise that there are a million better bands out there.

They haven't aged well though, compared to INXS, Duran Duran, or The Fixx.

Led Zeppelin, I like them so much more than thousands of artists who play genres I would never listen to.

I like Zeppelin, but this is how I feel. I mean give me a random AC/DC song over anything by Miley Cyrus or Marshmellow.

The Beatles are really boring and every member is/was a complete arsepiece, so they're easy to not like

I would say that The Beatles are a good band, sure I hate their pop songs that are 2:03 long on average, but I also agree that their fame shouldn't even come close to what songs they made. They're more of a band where they hit it with the right sound at the right time. This isn't to deter who someone who actually likes their music such as RL, but a lot of their fans were chicks who dig them for their 60s looks.

Midnight Oil - Beds Are Burning
The Proclaimers - 500 miles
Crowded House - Don't Dream It's Over (they had some minor hits a decade later but lets ignore that)

Midnight Oil is most DEFINITELY not a one-hit wonder band. They got a ton of awesome songs such as...

- Dreamworld
- The Dead Heart
- My Country
- King of the Mountain
- Luritja Way

That I would recommend.

 

[UncleRisto]

Did you say INXS aged well?

I like Zeppelin, but this is how I feel. I mean give me a random AC/DC song over anything by Miley Cyrus or Marshmellow.

I don't know, the unofficial Adele remix is pretty solid.



I made another thread.

 

[Ceremony]

Talent has NOTHING to do with whether or not a musician was a chartmaker or not. In fact, a lot of highly-regarded musical acts never really hit mainstream success because their sound is too ambitious. A lot of hits over the years are songs that appeal to the broadest base possible--meaning there's really not a lot that's special about it apart from being "catchy." They've interviewed successful pop songwriters and they know the formula behind writing a good pop hook.

He counts, it's not a disservice, especially because McFerrin would be the first to probably tell you he doesn't give a **** about making hits.

David Bowie's most lauded works are the "Berlin Trilogy" and also some of his most un-commercial work, especially "Lodger." I read in an article that he came out with all his weird **** knowing it wouldn't sell well because he wanted to screw over a producer he didn't like, and once his contract with said producer was up, he came out with "Just Dance," which of course was a gigantic hit.

Proof positive that absolutely horrid musicians can hit the big-time: Limp Bizkit. Again, talent is not really a determining factor here.

So ahead of his time, that man

 

[Ceremony]

Midnight Oil - Beds Are Burning
The Proclaimers - 500 miles
Crowded House - Don't Dream It's Over (they had some minor hits a decade later but lets ignore that)

The Proclaimers are garbage and I've seen them live so I can confirm, but I'm not having this

 

[Pokecheque]

I would say that The Beatles are a good band, sure I hate their pop songs that are 2:03 long on average, but I also agree that their fame shouldn't even come close to what songs they made. They're more of a band where they hit it with the right sound at the right time. This isn't to deter who someone who actually likes their music such as RL, but a lot of their fans were chicks who dig them for their 60s looks.

Utterly ridiculous to imply they got lucky or that they got by on their looks. Plenty of musical acts who played catchy tunes and looked nice made (and still make) their way into pop culture stardom only to be forgotten just as quickly. Talent may not be a determining factor in who makes a hit, but the Beatles completely dominated music for a decade, and their legacy is still firmly ensconced nearly fifty years after they broke up. That takes actual talent. If it didn't, we'd be talking just as much about Gerry and the Pacemakers.

You can say the Beatles are not your cup of tea, and that's fine. No one said you needed to like them. But if you're gonna downplay their impact in pop culture and popular music, you're just plain wrong. Soooooooo many acts through the years since then have cited the Beatles as their inspiration, including some who couldn't have possibly been alive when they were still active.

The only injustice is that the Soul/R&B artists who inspired them never really got their just due. I remember watching on PBS, they did a special on John Lennon's record collection and visited some of the surviving artists who made those songs. It was really something.

People really don't understand what a rut popular music was in before the Beatles showed up. That was right around the time that three of the biggest acts at the time all died in a plane crash just five years earlier and the rest of the landscape were a bunch of boring teenybopper crooners and what not. The Beatles changed everything in 1964.

If we want to talk about an overrated icon, we should really have a good, long talk about Elvis Presley. No doubt whatsoever the guy was talented, good looking, and boundlessly charismatic. But he really wasn't that much of an innovator music-wise, and is wrongly credited as the guy who "invented" rock-n-roll.

 

[Bonzai12]

I don't even consider the Beatles or the Eagles as "rock"