Controversial non-metal opinions

Well, to me, if a million people are vibing on it, then it has got to have merit. A million people aren't going to be getting something meaningful out of something that has no meaning. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily the best artist of that genre, since like you said there could be better bands they haven't heard.

I don't personally like any dance-oriented music. And I'll admit that I don't exactly have respect for dance-oriented music. But whose to say what primary objective 'good' music needs to have? There is skill involved in creating a kickass dance beat that's gonna get the whole floor grooving.

Honestly, the majority of my favorite bands are hugely mainstream. From Pink Floyd and Neil Young to Eminem and Pantera, and even bands like Burzum and Cryptopsy are among the most popular in their styles. It's not exactly dance music but I think the principle applies across the board. There may or may not be better bands in the underground, but all the bands at the top have a lot of quality. Great bands with enough exposure will become huge, and even if it's just the corporate masters dealing cards, if so many people like it then there must be something good about it. It's not like people who listen to The Backstreet Boys would literally listen to ANYTHING that gets fed to them. Some people would claim that they would, but that's bullshit. Pop fans are music fans just like anyone else, they listen to the stuff they like, the stuff that moves them and suits their desires.

The way I like to define good music, is music that has staying power in 10-20 years. Most people who listen to Pop music ditch it for the newer songs every few years, because you can only listen to catchy repetitive garbage so much. Quality bands sound good even 30 years after it was made, which is why there are still many fans of oldschool rock out there, but not so many disco fans around anymore (not to bash disco, just the mainstream disco scene is garbage from what I gather). Surviving the test of time proves to me that a music has a universal goodness to it, and isn't just a fad. I see lots of today's music dieing out, though I could be mistaken.
 
:lol:
Well, I dont have all the finickyness and personal quams I've seen listed here.... yet I have pissed people off the most and even got "the warning"........ :lol:

no big surprise

My only non controversial opinions, that became controversial are that I dont like crap vocals and stupid music or lack thereof. Which pertains to a few specific genres...... need I make mention of them ? :OMG:
 
John Lennon is no legend.

The Beatles's influence on music is close to zero, the only thing they influenced was other pop music and it didn't last long.

There may or may not be better bands in the underground, but all the bands at the top have a lot of quality. Great bands with enough exposure will become huge, and even if it's just the corporate masters dealing cards

I agree, pretty much every unsigned Prog band I have listened to sucked balls. The ones I love are the most popular ones like Pink Floyd, The Mars Volta and Dream Theater.

more opinions

The Beatles are nowhere near as talented as Pink Floyd, Yes, Black Sabbath, Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, or Emerson, Lake & Palmer.
 
John Lennon is no legend.

The Beatles's influence on music is close to zero, the only thing they influenced was other pop music and it didn't last long.



I agree, pretty much every unsigned Prog band I have listened to sucked balls. The ones I love are the most popular ones like Pink Floyd, The Mars Volta and Dream Theater.

more opinions

The Beatles are nowhere near as talented as Pink Floyd, Yes, Black Sabbath, Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, or Emerson, Lake & Palmer.

all this beatles hate is crap. not all they did was great,but some of it was so incredible beautiful.
 
John Lennon is a legend
John Mayer has his own thing going on
many great bands never got their feet on the ground
Select Nickleback songs kick ass
some of the best musicians never leave their bedrooms

I only lie to the police
 
This one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. This is basically the argumentum ad populum fallacy that JS Mill, among others, debunked hundreds of years ago. There is no logical connection between popularity and 'correctness' or 'truth'. And this is even more so in music.

I mean, there are surveys all the time showing just how stupid people are, ie a majority of people believe the Garden of Eden was a true story, that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 etc etc. Fact: most people are stupid --> most people have equally idiotic taste in music.

Haha. Spouting some unexplained academic reference doesn't help your point.

The problem with your argument is that taste is different from facts. 99% of the world could believe that George W Bush piloted one of the planes into the WTC and that doesn't effect the legitimacy of their opinion on music. Since everybody's opinion on art is equal, things that are popular are "objectively" of high quality. You're free to disagree if you want, but it's of solid logic. I think you're being childish to say "durp, dem peeps have idiotic taste in music." I don't like their taste any more than you do, but I'm not about to say my opinion on good music is worth more than theirs. I would never let anyone tell me my opinion on music is worthless, and if you're saying that certain people's opinions are more accurate than others, then you're letting that happen. Maybe it's some other group that you're not a part of that has the "right" opinions on music, and everything you like sucks. Surely you don't just believe that you have the one and only ultimate taste in music, in a totally objective sense?

I do like what somebody said about longevity though. I can definetly dig their idea, that if something still stays strong after decades then it is good, whereas worthless music dies away. But things that are big enough will always stay around, I think. I mean even the silliest trends like The Spice Girls, they are still HUGE. There are still tons of people who respect and listen to The Backstreet Boys. There might even still be a lot of people who listen to Vanilla Ice, I don't know. But I do agree that longevity is another good criteria.
 
Haha. Spouting some unexplained academic reference doesn't help your point.

One of the greatest philosophers of the last 200 years is an "unexplained academic reference"?

I'm not saying that I'm the ultimate authority on what music has artistic merit, but I still fail to see how there is any correlation between popularity and quality. Most people hear nothing other than what they are force-fed on commercial radio, maybe 2% of the entire music spectrum. So yes, most people have no valid opinion on what constitutes artistically meritorious music.

Look at metal for example. What are the most commercially successful (ie popular) metal bands? Slipknot, Cradle of Filth, crappy metalcore bands, Pantera, Trivium, CoB, etc etc. In no way are they even close to being the best metal bands, let alone moderately good ones.
 
One of the greatest philosophers of the last 200 years is an "unexplained academic reference"?

I'm not saying that I'm the ultimate authority on what music has artistic merit, but I still fail to see how there is any correlation between popularity and quality. Most people hear nothing other than what they are force-fed on commercial radio, maybe 2% of the entire music spectrum. So yes, most people have no valid opinion on what constitutes artistically meritorious music.

Look at metal for example. What are the most commercially successful (ie popular) metal bands? Slipknot, Cradle of Filth, crappy metalcore bands, Pantera, Trivium, CoB, etc etc. In no way are they even close to being the best metal bands, let alone moderately good ones.

Gonna fall of deaf ears, he likes a lot of popular metal bands.
 
One of the greatest philosophers of the last 200 years is an "unexplained academic reference"?

I'm not saying that I'm the ultimate authority on what music has artistic merit, but I still fail to see how there is any correlation between popularity and quality. Most people hear nothing other than what they are force-fed on commercial radio, maybe 2% of the entire music spectrum. So yes, most people have no valid opinion on what constitutes artistically meritorious music.

Look at metal for example. What are the most commercially successful (ie popular) metal bands? Slipknot, Cradle of Filth, crappy metalcore bands, Pantera, Trivium, CoB, etc etc. In no way are they even close to being the best metal bands, let alone moderately good ones.

I can dig it except that I refuse to rate myself as better than people on an objective scale. Maybe there are brainless pop fans out there, but Perhaps some pop content could be cut out from the picture, but most of the rest bands are propelled by serious music listeners. Do you agree that, even if they are only 2%, the opinions of the intelligent music listeners are equal to each others?

Gonna fall of deaf ears, he likes a lot of popular metal bands.

Yeah, nobody on this board listens to Metallica, Slayer, Megadeth, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Motorhead, Opeth...
 
I can dig it except that I refuse to rate myself as better than people on an objective scale. Maybe there are brainless pop fans out there, but Perhaps some pop content could be cut out from the picture, but most of the rest bands are propelled by serious music listeners. Do you agree that, even if they are only 2%, the opinions of the intelligent music listeners are equal to each others?

Depends, a lot of people like to just cut pop out of the picture, but lots of people listen to different %s of music. Some people only listen to classic rock or indie rock and claim it's the best music without having really listened to anything outside of that. I generally respect the opinion of anyone who's willing to try new stuff though.


Yeah, nobody on this board listens to Metallica, Slayer, Megadeth, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Motorhead, Opeth...

You can't really lump popular old bands into the same category as new metal bands, since the old ones were pioneers of the genre, where as the new ones haven't provided anything new really. Hence why people also respect Venom, Death, and Morbid Angel even though they are less known than stuff like Metallica and Slayer. As for Opeth I think there's a solid amount of like and disslike for them.
 
John Lennon is no legend.

The Beatles's influence on music is close to zero, the only thing they influenced was other pop music and it didn't last long.

lol that's completely untrue...I'm not a huge fan of the Beatles either, but saying their influence on music was close to zero? That's just ignorance.
You obviously haven't heard the massive amount of Beatles clones in indie rock and pop rock (Polyphonic Spree for one and Jet) and they have probably one of the longest lasting legacies in the history of rock n roll...hell, their legacy is still going strong, it's nearly impossible to come from a developed country and never hear a Beatles song in your life.
And John Lennon isn't a legend? Come on man, where do you come up with this stuff?

On a completely different note, I'm glad to see a few John Mayer fans on here :D...most of the metal listeners I know are completely ignorant of his skill and the quality of his music, just cuz it's pop and they don't wanna come close to it...the Trio is especially awesome I find.
 
So I'm going to post a few love and hate's in classic rock. I'm sure a few are controversial but fuck you wankers i don't care.

I love: The Allman Brothers, Floyd, Zeppelin, The Doors, Beatles, Sabbath, Deep Purple, King Crimson, Yes, Cream, Blind Faith, Robin Trower, Camel, Moody Blues, UFO, Rolling Stones

Hates: Rush (except for Temple of Syrinx because Geddy barely sings)
Elton John
Billy Joel
Queen
Supertramp
The Who
Dio era Sabbath
Ac\Dc
Aerosmith
...basically anything gay
 
I don't really hate The Beatles, just how overrated they are. We all know what we think on this subject so lets not go through the stupid shit again.

Another controversial opinion:

Most Rock vocalists suck.