Music: Unpopular Music Opinions

[Pilky01]

Kelly Rowland was underrated.

 

[Shareefruck]

How into hip hop are you? Just curious.

I'm a bit bi-polar about it-- I don't exhaustively like the genre enough to rattle off the more obscure hip-hop artists like some people here do, but I do love a lot of the classics like Erik B. & Rakim, Madlib, MFDoom, Public Enemy, Tribe Called Quest, DJ Shadow, Nas, Kool Keith, Mobb Deep, Afrika Bambataa, and De La Soul. Guys like Kanye West, Eminem, and Kendrick Lamar don't sound very good to my ears.

That's kind of the way I am about most genres, actually.

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

I'm a bit bi-polar about it-- I don't exhaustively like the genre enough to rattle off the more obscure hip-hop artists like some people here do, but I do love a lot of the classics like Erik B. & Rakim, Madlib, MFDoom, Public Enemy, Tribe Called Quest, DJ Shadow, Nas, Kool Keith, Mobb Deep, Afrika Bambataa, and De La Soul. Guys like Kanye West, Eminem, and Kendrick Lamar don't sound very good to my ears.

That's kind of the way I am about most genres, actually.

Kendrick is very very different from Kanye and Eminem IMO; how much Kendrick have you listened to?

 

[Shareefruck]

Kendrick is very very different from Kanye and Eminem IMO; how much Kendrick have you listened to?

Oh yeah, I wasn't implying that they sounded similar (although there is this annoying lilting vocal thing that both Kanye and Kendrick does that annoys the living hell out of me)-- just that they're famous hip-hop artists that don't connect for me at all.

I've gotten into this recurring habit of revisiting To Pimp a Butterfly and Good Kid MAAD City at least once or twice every year (and counting), trying to see what everybody else sees in it and being frustrated by it instead. But I haven't tried any of his other albums because those ones didn't work for me.

I think it's possible that Kendrick Lamar will eventually click, because the type of hype he gets SOUNDS more reasonable, believable, worthwhile, and possibly up my alley, but I'm pretty sure I just outright find Kanye and Eminem's music bad.

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

Oh yeah, I wasn't implying that they sounded similar (although there is this annoying lilting vocal thing that both Kanye and Kendrick does that annoys the living hell out of me)-- just that they're famous hip-hop artists that don't connect for me at all.

I've gotten into this recurring habit of revisiting To Pimp a Butterfly and Good Kid MAAD City at least once or twice every year (and counting), trying to see what everybody else sees in it and being frustrated by it instead. But I haven't tried any of his other albums because those ones didn't work for me.

I think it's possible that Kendrick Lamar will eventually click, because the type of hype he gets SOUNDS more reasonable, believable, worthwhile, and possibly up my alley, but I'm pretty sure I just outright find Kanye and Eminem's music bad.

Fair play, I can't stand Eminem either. Kendrick's lyrics are very thematically rich and fascinating, which is a huge part of his appeal to me. Those two albums you mentioned are much better than DAMN. (which, although still very good, is a step down), and revisiting them is recommendable. What might be worth doing is listening with the lyrics in front of you, because there's an astonishing (and, honestly, unparalleled in mainstream hip hop IMO) amount of depth in the lyrical content. Also has some smart wordplay and other cool stuff, my personal fave being "all the critics say they miss when hip hop was rapping/ if that were the truth, Killer Mike'd be platinum". He's a very clever writer.

 

[Shareefruck]

Fair play, I can't stand Eminem either. Kendrick's lyrics are very thematically rich and fascinating, which is a huge part of his appeal to me. Those two albums you mentioned are much better than DAMN. (which, although still very good, is a step down), and revisiting them is recommendable. What might be worth doing is listening with the lyrics in front of you, because there's an astonishing (and, honestly, unparalleled in mainstream hip hop IMO) amount of depth in the lyrical content. Also has some smart wordplay and other cool stuff, my personal fave being "all the critics say they miss when hip hop was rapping/ if that were the truth, Killer Mike'd be platinum". He's a very clever writer.

I don't think I'm able to get past the way the music sounds in order to appreciate the lyrics. That's the thing. And I've never been one to appreciate music for just lyrics alone.

But yeah, I'll keep giving it a shot.

 

[tacogeoff]

Damn. was Kendrick's worst album and still a 9/10.

Most of us will probably never live to see a hip-hop artist as good as Kendrick.

That's pretty subjective. Maybe if you were born in the mid 2000s and have not explored the past of hip-hop, your statement would hold some weight.

 

[Mikeaveli]

Damn. was Kendrick's worst album and still a 9/10.

Most of us will probably never live to see a hip-hop artist as good as Kendrick.

Is overrating Kendrick that unpopular at this point?

 

[Arizonan God]

Is overrating Kendrick that unpopular at this point?

Well the fact that most people would say I'm overrating him makes it so, I believe.

 

[Mach85]

Fair play, I can't stand Eminem either. Kendrick's lyrics are very thematically rich and fascinating, which is a huge part of his appeal to me. Those two albums you mentioned are much better than DAMN. (which, although still very good, is a step down), and revisiting them is recommendable. What might be worth doing is listening with the lyrics in front of you, because there's an astonishing (and, honestly, unparalleled in mainstream hip hop IMO) amount of depth in the lyrical content. Also has some smart wordplay and other cool stuff, my personal fave being "all the critics say they miss when hip hop was rapping/ if that were the truth, Killer Mike'd be platinum". He's a very clever writer.

Why do you find that line particularly deep and clever?

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

Why do you find that line particularly deep and clever?

That line isn't an example of depth or cleverness, it's an example of "cool stuff" - an awesome shoutout of a rapper who doesn't get nearly as much credit as he deserves.

 

[Mach85]

That line isn't an example of depth or cleverness, it's an example of "cool stuff" - an awesome shoutout of a rapper who doesn't get nearly as much credit as he deserves.

Gotcha.

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

Gotcha.

Yep, my sentence structure was a lil confusing, that's my bad.

 

[Mach85]

Yep, my sentence structure was a lil confusing, that's my bad.

No, no worries at all. I'm familiar with most of Kendrick's work so I was just curious if there was some hidden meaning there in that line I'd been missing all this time

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I have a difficult time calling Kendrick Lamar overrated even if his two more recent studio albums don't do much for me. His first two albums I find are legitimate all-time great hip-hop albums and having not 1 but 2 of those is already a big enough achievement. I find it unfair and borderline arrogant to expect any artist to be as consistently great as their best output. It's unrealistic.

 

[Lotusflower]

music wasn't good until del tha funkee homosapien's 1991 release "i wish my brother george was here"

My mans.

There are a 100 MC's/rappers I would take over Bob Dylan in regards to creativity, emotional weight, and visceral impact when it comes to lyrics.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Kendrick Lamar is so bad he made a horrible Taylor Swift song even worse.

 

[Shareefruck]

I have a difficult time calling Kendrick Lamar overrated even if his two more recent studio albums don't do much for me. His first two albums I find are legitimate all-time great hip-hop albums and having not 1 but 2 of those is already a big enough achievement. I find it unfair and borderline arrogant to expect any artist to be as consistently great as their best output. It's unrealistic.

Abso-****ing-lutely.

Personally, I've always hated when fans say something like "Yeah, _____ was great, but they haven't done anything good since and has been awful for years!" as if that means that people should have a negative view of them on balance now. I don't know if it's entitlement or what, but that attitude bothers the hell out of me.

One great album is PLENTY, and anything more is gravy, IMO. I don't have any less respect for an artist if that's all they can muster in their career. I think even the best artists only tend to have a peak of a few short years anyways.

And for the most part, peak is what I care about most, rather than consistency, when it comes to how good I think something is.

 

[Trap Jesus]

I sort of get the Kendrick hype after his latest albums, particularly TPAB, but thought he was insanely overrated after GKMC. It was as if right away people were calling him one of the best of all time with just S80 and GKMC under his belt, which seemed odd to me.

Anyways, I don't buy into it at all, even after his most recent albums. His voice and the vocal effects he uses is just straight up off-putting to me.

 

[Shareefruck]

I sort of get the Kendrick hype after his latest albums, particularly TPAB, but thought he was insanely overrated after GKMC. It was as if right away people were calling him one of the best of all time with just S80 and GKMC under his belt, which seemed odd to me.

Anyways, I don't buy into it at all, even after his most recent albums. His voice and the vocal effects he uses is just straight up off-putting to me.

I agree with this.

 

[Ben Matlock]

Elvis Costello >>> Elvis Presley
The Byrds >>> The Beatles
Kiss >>> Queen

 

[TheAngryHank]

Elvis Costello >>> Elvis Presley
The Byrds >>> The Beatles
Kiss >>> Queen

Good to see Costello get some love, i don't however agree with your other two.

 

[Hippasus]

I still haven't been able to get behind Metal as a genre, personally.

I realize that's a cliche thing to say that seems to be easily dismissable as ignorant, but while I love a lot of genres that are outside of most comfort zones and difficult to get into (I mean, if I can get into stuff like Free Jazz, Avant Garde Minimalism, and Beefheart, Metal should be easy, shouldn't it? Hell, I probably even have a better time with pure noise-rock like Merzbow for crying out loud.), but I still haven't managed to find anything that works for me.

I can concede that it can involve technically impressive and inventive talent, but I don't really care about those things in isolation-- the premise itself seems fundamentally broken to my ears. To me, aggressive music works best when it's raw, primitive, messy, and irreverent-- the way punk or hardcore is, for instance. Metal has this garrish machismo, theatrical melodrama, and technical grand-standing to it that seems anti-thetical to what makes noisy aggressive music work best, to my ears. It's not the typical criticism-- I love abrasive noises, I just can't get on board with most of the qualities that make Metal Metal and the things that separate it from punk and hardcore.

Is that anything like Death Metal? If so, I'll probably have the same reservations. Something about that stuff just has this Garrish and showy "look at me!" quality to it that doesn't feel very organic or genuine, to my ears.

Grindcore is sort of like a hybrid between hardcore / crust punk and death metal. Black metal has a punk aesthetic with the raw production values as well. There's always going to be better and worse bands or artists. The really good ones may just be hard or even impossible to find for some people, depending on the personal tastes of the latter.

That is exactly how I hear Free Jazz (like Coltrane). Obviously I don't understand Jazz much, because what I said is crazy to people who get it. I actually called my mother about this who is a jazz fan and studied music theory in College and she thinks I'm ****ed in the head saying that.

It's almost like you're making music into something ethical. Like, 'it is better for the artist or performer to behave in such-and-such a way and that makes the music better'.

First, I can't comprehend thinking that jazz sounds garish and cheesy... like... at all. I mean, the common negative reputation would be for it to be considered pretentious and stand-off-ish, which is the polar opposite of that. Unless you're talking about smooth jazz or something, then I can see it.

Showy, I can possibly see with the more normal styles of jazz, but free jazz? No ****ing way. Free jazz can be criticized for being narcissistic, alienating, and self-indulgent, but nobody plays free jazz to show off their bravado and technique or to put up a front for an audience-- it's closer to communicating a mentality of "**** what everyone else thinks, I'm letting loose, becoming unhinged, and letting my raw, expressive instincts guide me."

In that sense, I would associate free jazz to being the punk music of regular jazz..... It's raw, uncontrolled, and irreverent, which would be completely anti-thetical to being showy and melodramatic.

While I love Jazz Fusion, I think you can far more reasonably make a case for Jazz Fusion being overly showy and grand-standing.

I'm hopelessly illiterate about the theory and technical side of it. But if I can speak in broad generalizations, I sort of instinctively see it like this.

Punk and Free Jazz are essentially taking the spirit of rock/jazz and stripping the music of everything that makes it palletable for most audiences, sort of embracing a nihilistic/raw/loose energy that's liberating, and happily flipping off the people who are left confused by it and want it to take itself more seriously.

Metal and Fusion (and sometimes prog rock) are sort of taking the fattest slabs of rock/jazz and laying it on as thick as humanly possible, hoping to impress and please in the most heavy and grandiose way possible.

These two things are at completely polar opposite ends of the spectrum, IMO.

I can understand anyone disliking either camps for various reasons, but I think calling free-jazz-era Coltrane grandiose, grandstanding, show-boating, and laying it on too thick makes about as much sense as calling John Lydon grandiose and grandstanding, show-boating, and laying it on too thick. I'm sure there are some jazz fans who will disagree with me, but my impression is that Free Jazz isn't really intended to be much of a highfalutin or meaningful thing, it's a very raw, primal, and instinctive thing, IMO. And when experimental rock bands (like Beefheart) borrow from it, that seems to be how they use those elements as well.

If you were making the argument that jazz groups like Mahavishnu Orchestra or the Weather Report were garish and laid it on too thick, I could get on board with that, though.

Free jazz often uses themes, motifs, or reference points. Such can be a little melody, note, key, unusual percussive sounds, etc. I think both the playing of such reference points and the intentionally playing outside of the standard, traditional modes (namely, in between the playing of these reference points) takes a high-level of training, development, and influence that is unlike a lot of punk music and music influenced by that sort of punk aesthetic. A lot of this I got from a Youtube video I saw last weekend. I can link it later if anyone is interested.

Metal to me is a collision of two forces: the American interpretation and the European interpretation. Americans brought metal around as very hard rock, with the history of it being rooted in blues music. Therefore you openly embrace the concept that it is "devil's music" and tell menacing, evil stories to goad reactions from the church-going people.

British artists introduce fantasy elements from Tolkien and other fantasy writers hitting their stride in Europe. Their interest is not so much in the devil's music but in the retelling of stories believed to be sanitised or otherwise tell stories which are gritty and tell of great stamina.

The folks in Scandinavia kind of combine it. They want to get reactions from church-going people and they want to re-tell old sagas unsanitised. So around and around they go.

But it seems to me that if you don't have a bone with church-going people or not particularly inspired by their reactions, then I can understand how you might have a hard time getting in the swing of metal. Without that feeling, you might as well listen to punk, hum along to the blues, and do other sundry things you could be doing. Not that there are other strains of metal that do not have these features, but then it feels. . . empty.

I don't think the folkloric and mythological emphasis in metal is that much to goad Christianity and-or Abrahamic monotheism. That makes it more reactive. I think that music can be fundamentally active as well by trying to create a space and voice for a longing and love for the past.

In addition to hardcore and-or crust punk, I think only black metal is not so much blues-based. There are a lot of traces of two-beat (for example, blast beats), punk aesthetic, folk, and classical and even Christian music influence in black metal. Gorgoroth, Graveland, and Profanatica / Havohej have classical and Christian sounding themes and style of delivery at times. The vocals can reveal this perhaps more explicitly than the (other) instruments. In terms of emphasis on power chords and riffs, the punk influence may not display much structural similarity with blues music. However, the personal and feeling-heavy emphasis of the playing of the music is similar to the blues and rock. Black metal is perhaps also similar to the blues in its focus on individual expression. But whereas black metal zones in on metaphysical concepts, history, and the past, punk zones in more on social and political dimensions of individual experience in the present and future. Overall, at least in terms of music structure / dynamics, I think most metal, including death metal and grindcore, has a strong blues influence by way of rock. However, I think it is more obvious in the case of thrash and speed metal that there is a blues and rock influence. I can feel this in the grooves, swings, breakdowns, and even a general sort of danceability to the music.

I'm not even quite sure what you mean by 'organic' in this context. Can you elaborate?

I'll explain a little bit about the ethos of metal as I see it - simply because I'm not sure you're grasping the point of it. It's not simply about being loud or abrasive or angry and it's not designed to be 'emotional' or 'relatable' or 'charming' or anything of that sort - that's generally outside of the scope. Nobody is ever going to hear it and form an immediate emotional bond with it - not likely possible. The perspective of metal has always been based on mythos/history/the metaphysical. That's why the subject matter it deals with is so esoteric; that's why it's about demons, angels, forces of nature, war, death and things of that nature instead of politics, society, emotions and what not. It's hyper-reality examined through an fantastical/surreal lens; it's about finding beauty in the darkness, order in chaos.

Metal is probably the one area that removes itself from the ennui that musicians in other areas - far more knowledgable, intelligent, comprehending musicians for the most part - are inevitably having to fight off. It is the only arena left where belief in the silliest of fantasies is still possible. It's an irony and cynicism free zone - that's refreshing to me. 'Cleverness' is antithetical to the cause.

If that's 'inorganic' then I guess I can't argue, but I find the dichotomy of a genre where the supposed juvenile belief in fantasy and in the spirit of ages long gone juxtaposes with the ferocity of savage music to be a thrilling one, and an experience that can't be replicated elsewhere. The spirit is almost akin to that of Romantic-era composers.

There. That's enough intellectualizing something that shouldn't be intellectualized in the first place. If you feel it you feel it, and if you don't you don't. If it hasn't hit you by now it never will.

Ah, probably not commonly. That doesn't make it any less true in my mind, and it's not just me either. Hippasus, Augscura, MrJonas, covenannt on this board all sort of get it on the same wavelength as I do more or less. Not that my word is law or anything - they all have their own nuanced perspectives and opinions which have helped me figure out things about the underpinnings of the music we share as a love.

I don't judge or begrudge anybody for the reasons they enjoy something, even if I think they're wrong or missing the point.



I'm not so sure that 'primitivism' was an end goal of death metal - probably more of a happy accident in some cases. Its origins are simply from kids who liked Discharge, early/mid period Slayer and Possessed a whole lot and just sort of mashed them together - what resulted was often primitive and raw, but perhaps only due to limitations in playing technique, recording, etc. I don't see any conflict between the themes and the sound.

As death metal developed it changed. If I had to sum it up - in a broad and general sense (and speaking strictly about the good stuff) - it would be a type of radical structuralism. It involved the stripping away of the influence of blues and rock from metal's origins and the creation of a musical language unique to itself. Songs are comprised of riffs which are strung together to create longer phrases that interact with one another, themes are developed and altered in a manner almost akin to a ultra crude form of symphony. In a sense it's liberated from the traditional structures of rock but has created its own orthodoxy which it adheres to. Somebody mentioned in this earlier that there isn't really any other type of music that relies of riffing to the extent that metal does - that's a good observation. Metal has generally less focus on rhythm, grooves, vocals, bass and the like. It is, at its core - guitar based music.

That said - there are very many types of metal, each with their own end goals and techniques for achieving them. Thrash was very punk influenced and somewhat more... humanizing maybe? Black metal takes a much more ambient type approach, heavy on layering and textures rather than structure. Traditional metal is often similar to rock and roll and of little interest to me.



I don't know why the reaction is that it's 'silly'. If anything it filters out the silliness of the sleaze and 'rock star as Sex God' narrative of banal garbage like The Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, etc. But I suppose we'll never agree on this.

Regardless, I would agree that you aren't likely to find anything in metal to your taste - when I see the way you talk about the music you love (calling it playful and charming and the like) I know instinctively that it's not going to be anything you like. It's just not that sort of thing.

If there is a feeling or emotion here - perhaps 'existential dread' might be a way to summarize it.

And a quick point about showboating - I'm not sure specifically what aspects strike this chord in you but I think it is a misinterpretation. That said I don't know how to prove that to you.

Maybe. Then again, the first Black Sabbath album is steeped in blues. Early Judas Priest and Motorhead had quite a lot of 'boogie-woogie' in their sound and they were European, and highly impactful on the development of metal. Even early Iron Maiden and Diamondhead have a slight touch of that punk energy and blues swagger. So I'm not sure I agree.

What bands are thinking of here specifically?

I'm not even sure who I'd consider the first American metal band. Pentagram? Sir Lord Baltimore perhaps? You're getting pretty late into the 70's before any semblance of a movement cropped up. Seems like they would have been heavily informed by the British bands by that time.



I guess the Tolkien stuff is a reference to Led Zeppelin, right? Were they the first band to crib directly from his material? Honestly, I don't like them and I'm skeptical about how much long-lived influence they had on the genre. Surely by the time NWOBHM came along their influence would have been about obsolete.



Fair point I think. Certainly in America when metal (and hardcore too) were hitting warp speed in their evolution the political climate at the time probably shaped the development of the genres. Reagan Conservatism, the Christian Right and Tipper Gore's PMRC were probably at their peak of power at that time and they provoked a strong reaction against those sort of values. Actually I think this is sort of the reason why punk/hardcore withered on the vine and died - it attached itself too strongly to the zeitgeist of that time; thus dating itself and quickly becoming irrelevant.

In Scandinavia I guess Lutheranism would been a dominant influence on cultural life, so I can see a backlash there as well. This is also likely ground zero for the outright Romanticism of the genre - bands began using the artwork of established, respected artists to help convey their message. Think of the iconic works of Norwegian folk artist Theodor Kittelsen. The apocalyptic woodcuts of Gustave Dore. The nature-worship of Caspar David Friedrich. John Martin and JMW Turner's fantastical and quasi religious works. The dystopian horror of Zdzisław Beksiński. All now ubiquitous parts of the visual imagery of metal.

I guess the question is: is this anti-religious dogma just contrarianism or a true tenet of the genre?

Tolkien was a big influence for the second wave of black metal. Burzum, Summoning, and Gorgoroth are three that stand-out in that regard off the top of my head. Especially Summoning. There is a modular or interlocking quality to riffs and phrases that allows both free jazz, with its technical improvisation, and metal with its focus on themes and-or motifs to create a sort of narrative and ambient structure. The anti-religious sentiment in a lot of death, especially black metal, and even on the part of doom metal is like a focus on symbolism, concepts, themes, and motifs. In this there is also a sort of suspension of skepticism and disbelief about the supernatural and such things. The focus on concepts or motifs is also similar to free jazz and ambient music like Arktau Eos, which you posted on here some time ago. The album Mirrion is what I had in mind regarding the latter artist(s). 'Existential dread' is an apt phrase, in my opinion. There is a lot of coming back to the theme of individual death in death and black metal. This is an obvious sense in which the music is deeply metaphysically engaged. Like another poster said here, one thing that a lot lesser, newer bands may be lacking is that more personal, and perhaps original, inspiration. Even though, as you pointed out in the past, there is intentional composition in metal that is not in most of jazz, I suspect that even in metal a lot of the composition and-or music creation initially occurs or is written in an improvisational manner.

 

[WIP CALLER]

The Grateful Dead are the greatest American rock band of all time and revolutionized live music.

Another unpopular opinion is that I prefer listening to recorded live music over studio albums. I judge bands by how they sound and perform live over their studio work. To me, it is more impressive to perform an incredible and different live show night in and night out than it is to have multiple great studio albums. being able to play a song 50 different ways sounds better to me than a hit single that you play the same way every time.

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

The Grateful Dead are the greatest American rock band of all time and revolutionized live music.

The latter is true, the former is not.