Brandon Cruz-fronted Dead Kennedys is way superior to Biafra's.



psych!

indeed, music is so contrived, i prefer to listen to the music that naturaly arises from chance ambient sounds in my environment

I had my inner-ears removed - now I hear the environment the real way, like Beethoven: by feeling it. I particularly like tube stations for this reason.

Oh, and you speaking people really miss out on songs that are signed - that's the real way to understand lyrics.

I am a tree, so fuck off, you twat.

I liked this post. There are parts I disagree with, but generally it's the right idea. I particularly liked:


And:


This last bit particularly. I started listening to John Peel in about 1994 or so, and I remember him playing about a million bands that were near-identical to the Stripes - pared down garage/blues/pop sung by white guys with really, really thin voices. I thought all of them were shite, and it utterly mystifies me as to why the Stripes are popular. I remember watching them on some channel 4 programme with my Mum who couldn't stop laughing at how bad his singing was. She had tears streaming down her eyes by the end of it, it was a beautiful moment. "People don't take this seriously, do they?" "Yes Mum, they're very popular." Cue more laughter. And my Mum's got a great taste in music. Winner.

I'm the fucking sun you noob. rac[unt]ist.

i listen to music by forcing objects (e.g. a broom and some door keys) in through one ear hole and then out the other side, my inner ears are so developed that they calculate the musical properties of whatever objects and then feed that information to my brain which uses said info to create the ultimate sound equations, and no one else will ever hear them!

Tough shit, Mr Sun. I, The Big Bang, threw your sorry self near this planet so that you could illuminate this bunch of turds. You owe me your very own existence.

Yeah, whatever. Didn't you know I, the sun (or sol to my friends) am a Christian and therefore don't believe in you? Look at Earth - there's still monkeys around. If monkeys still exist, how can the big bang possibly be true, eh?

Glice beat me to it.

If Led Zeppelin have strong defaults (the sexism, the weak lyrics and the pompousness) they still rock (there's a strong cohesion between the band members and their music is well crafted and varied).

That may not true for the early Neil Young but surely not for the Neil Young of On the beach and Tonight's the night.

Hello, I'm Mrs Theory! Problems?

I don't think that too many people here don't like the Pixies.

my potentially unpopular musical opinions:

free improvisation is probably the greatest, most sophisticated and artistically supreme form of music. (and i'm not just talking about western free improv i.e anything from 1970s bailey/parker/bennick onward, i mean improvisation in all cultures and time periods, from korean sanjo to outer hebridean gaelic psalm singing to contemporary free improv, free jazz and electronic noise acts)
gamelan music is fantastic.
the pixies make brilliant rock music. my favourite album is "come on pilgrim" & the peel sessions are great.
talking about musicians being "talented" or "untalented" when discussing the musical/artistic worth of music is superflous. why is a concert pianist labelled as "talented" by the fierce majority of listeners for accurately following sheets of music that have been played in the same way for 300 years, when a saxophonist playing solo, freely improvised music utilising bizarre, high-pitched, warbling, atonal and previously unheard of sounds is labelled as "untalented" by the same critics? having more or less "talent" (if talent even exists) bears no correlation to the value or quality of the music in the slightest, and the whole concept of "talent" is completely man made.

once you've been to a few free improv gigs you'll see those "previously unheard sounds" are only previously unheard if you didn't go to any free improv gigs before, i.e. there are are only so many squeaky scratchy noises that eddie prevost and his lackeys can ellicit from their instruments before they all start to sound the same.

however, generally, i know what you're saying, if someone has mastery over their chosen instrument and a degree of imagination the sky is the limit.

yeah, i understand, but that is on a completely different scale to the pianist playing a baroque piece on the piano, where the 300 year old harmony has become so ingrained in the human consciousness that you can hum the next chord change a bar before it happens.
now, i'm not saying that that is entirely a bad thing, but when discussing predictability, free improv is in a completely different ball park.

I concur; free improv can be the very worst of boring, lifeless, stoic bollocks. It can also be life-affirmingly brilliant, but not terribly often.

pure and simple ignorance on yr part my friend, and I do not mean that as an insult, just as a statement of your lack of knowledge on this musical issue.

If you were to hear 20 recordings of beethoven's Violin concerto you would hear 20 different interpretations of the sheet music you assume they all follow by rote.
A concert violinist that can play this music as if it was just written, bringing vibrancy and showing nuances that others had not explored is something to be treasured, and is most aassuredly BRILLIANT and TALENTED.