No, actually, I revere the Beatles. I just don’t think they’re the Greatest Band in the Universe (that’s Booker T. and the MG’s, for the record). And there’s ALWAYS something in their production that makes me think, “Man, I wish they’d have done that differently.” And it’s not even the use of tape - even today, almost every professional producer worth his salt uses tape to record, and digital to edit. Digital is great for editing, but sounds like crap for recording.
I dunno. Maybe if we’re ever hanging out, we can throw on Sgt. Pepper or something, and I can point out what I mean.
But for reference’s sake, my idea of a PERFECT album, in terms of production, from the same era, is Arthur, or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire, by the Kinks. Everything is just absolutely 100% dead on in that record.
I have to give the OP an A for style, but there should be a rule that whenever someone goes on a rant about how awful a band is, they should have to post their top 5 favorite bands so we get a chance to see what their taste is like.
You know, I can’t agree with the OP. U2 wasn’t bad… the first 10,000 times I was forced to listen to them. The second 10,000 times wasn’t so marvelous. Now I’d rather set my hair on fire and put it out with a sledgehammer.
I’m sorry, but what are the U2 equivalents to OK Computer and Kid A? And which guy in U2 is the one with hair hanging in his eyes while he repeatedly keeps plugging up weird electronic equipment in crazy ways to make unique sounds?
Also, no matter how many times I hear it, this will never, ever get old. This, either.
U2 had a short career of decent stuff, followed by twenty years of mediocrity. Coldplay was never good, and are rip-off artists, besides. Radiohead has genuine talent. Their huge success has always surprised me, as I think a lot of their stuff is too complex to be readily accessible by casual listeners. Hell, sometimes it takes me a dozen listens to like a Radiohead song, but when I finally do, I fuckin’ love it.
e: I just listened to Fake Plastic Trees three times in a row. I never do that with songs that I’ve known for 14 years.
Why would I care about my opinion? I’m just some guy who seems to think some other guy’s favourite band sux, as if that means anything beyond my own trivial, unimportant, overinflated sense of my own taste. I used to be 17, now I’m not.
I have no great feelings about U2 either way, but I don’t like Bono.
I get sick of him and “Sir” fucking Bob appearing on tv to tell us to save the world while they drive home in stretch limos and put another few million in the bank.
Let’s face it Live Aid certainly didn’t do Bono or Geldof’s careers any harm.
I’m not sure I completely understand your response, but you don’t know what his favorite band is. That’s kinda where I was going with that. I wasn’t really serious.
That said, it’s fun to make fun of music you hate sometimes, and I understand how it can be frustrating when someone you view as utterly talentless is packing arenas, while a band you feel is far more deserving can barely fill a club.
Unfortunately that’s the way it is with music, a number of bands I like never get any airplay on the radio, but musically, IMHO, blow away any of the crap that gets in the charts. Not much point in getting wound up over it, as long as they keep releasing albums and touring it’s ok.
Oh fer cryin out loud. I guess if I have to explain it in excruciating detail I’ve failed, huh?
The OP is the usual subjective worthless opinionated dime-a-dozen “your favourite band sux” rant from somone who’s opinion means little to me. My post was essentially just a right back atcha “your favourite band sux” directed at the OP. You pointed out (quite logically) that since my post was generic I could be referring to my own favourite band. I responded to the effect that since my own post was also a subjective worthless opinionated dime-a-dozen “your favourite band sux” rant from somone who’s opinion means little, why would I care?
See how that works? It was supposed to be kind of humorous and clever. It failed, apparently.
