I half agree. It may be a matter of taste what type of thing you like, but within that type there are rules and standards. eg for a ridiculously extreme example, its obviously a fact that jimi hendrix is better than lenny kravitz, even lenny kravitz thinks that.
I might be missing the point of the thread, but…
When Gladiator came out, I read one review that called it the greatest action movie ever. Another review said the action scenes were “incompetent.” Since these two claims are mutually exclusive, one or the other must be wrong.
Re: SD - they were never my cup of tea, but I always thought it acceptable background music. Until that horrendously whining “Oh no its raining again…” became their biggest hit. That one song and all the airplay it got pushed me from tolerating to dislike.
Re Breaking Bad, I very much enjoyed the 1st season. The second, my wife stopped watching, saying it was just too ugly. The third season, I agreed with her.
Just realized I conflated ST w/ Supertramp. Nevermind. No opinion about SD other than to observ that it seemed as tho nearly EVERYONE had a copy of Aja back in the day. One on the short list of apparently required albums on college campus.
Well, this thread got taken over by the Steely Dan fanboys.
Listen, people, they ain’t the be all and end all. They have good stuff, they have bad stuff, just like everyone else. They aren’t this revolutionary force that reshaped 70s music.
But they are the best band in the subcategory “rock/70s/jazz-influenced/contemporary/mellow/bands that are Steely Dan”.
Nah, I know about 90% of the lyrics, but get the individual lines within the verses out of order. The “It’s your favorite foreign movie” line always makes her crack up, even when she’s been mightily annoyed by the rest of the song, me doo-doo-de-dooing my way through the horns, and dancing like a fat white guy.
But how does their hiring Michael McDonald for vocals not put this square in the middle of the mellow rock camp? He’s the true king of yacht rock.
I’d agree that the SD discussion deserves it’s own thread, other than it addresses my main complaint with the OP. There’s all kinds of stuff that’s objectively brilliant from my perspective, but it’s loony to expect that to actually transfer to some universal law about taste.
And anyway, I’m technically putting them in the “mellow rock” category, not “easy listening”. They’re not really any more hard edged than the Doobie Brothers soncially, so it seems to fit. I agree that their lyrical content is more adventurous than their mellow rock contemporaries, but it’s not really what I was discussing. Most people don’t get the lyrical idea for a song really quickly*; Steely Dan is asking them to listen to mellow rock looking for something that’s not usually there, and is vanishingly hard to find in that style (and isn’t always present in their work, either). The tonality/mood etc. turns them off, and they go elsewhere. To think that they are wrong when they think “ugh, Steely Dan”, is to believe that your tastes are somehow better or are absolute.
To put a finer point on it, people have stated that people’s opinions on food could be wrong in this thread. I’ve known people who declared they didn’t like chocolate or peanut butter, and my brain hit a circuit breaker trying to consider that possibility. I may have accused them of being alien-human hybrids, or genetic experiments (in fact, yep, words to that effect came right out of my mouth). But to say they are wrong, they’re reading the electro-chemical signals of their own brain incorrectly, and they actually like them - is more fanciful than those solutions.
Yeah, they’re the Diana Ross of that category. To be honest, they’re probably one of the only bands I’d classify as “mellow rock” that I’d defend lyrically. A band run by the “Manson and Starkweather” of mellow, jazzy rock, that does deliver on the creepy lyrical content.
*Personally, I very often like a song in spite of it’s lyrics. I can’t count the number of songs that I’ve hit the point of not being able to listen after finally figuring out the lyrics are an idiotic perspective on an idiotic subject. Conversely, I can’t count the number of songs that weren’t saved from their unappealing sound by clever, smart lyrics or the deep concept behind its composition.
Breaking Bad is indeed a fantastic show, but a major component of the plot is the disintegrating marriage between Walt and Skylar and if that turns people off enough to avoid it I get it.
Better call Saul is just as good and if people don’t like it something is wrong with them.
Oh, yeah - an OP like this always falls down because there are NO “physical laws.” It is always interesting to see where the lines get drawn. In this case it was Steely Dan.
I tend to try to think of answers that are less about my favorites vs. what I would currently bet would last a test of time. Upthread, I mention Aretha Franklin - one may not find her vocals/songs to their taste, but she is commonly discussed as one of the most respected vocalists of the modern era. Arguing a position against that is an uphill fight at this point.
So, to me, “If someone disliked Aretha, then their opinion is wrong.” is a way of saying “if someone says that Aretha isn’t one of the most-respected vocalists of the modern era, I suspect they haven’t invested the time to listen and understand her context.” which sounds way too geeky 
I’m not an opera fan per se but I do like some of it. The aria that I think fits this thread is Nessun Dorma. If you don’t like that then you are just wrong.
That’s why I haven’t watched it yet. I know it’s something I will have to be in the mood for. I’ll probably watch it all once I get started but I haven’t pushed myself to that point yet.
I agree with that.
In terms of more modern kid’s animation that also appeals to adults - I’d add Gravity Falls.
So you’re saying you can listen to this and not objectively have to admit that’s some kickass guitar playing? I get it’s maybe not your style or whatever, but that absolutely is a person fully in charge of his craft.
Simplistic meaning like, all things with saxes are jazzy, all songs in some tempo are indistinguishable?
So you were around then and were more into hard rock? What was the hard rock heirarchy for you in 1975? Loud fast rules? Didn’t exist yet. Devil Horns? OK Kiss and Sabbath maybe. Coven? You don’t sound like you were there. Good for you. I’d love to be young again.
What are you saying was “raucous” country in the 70s. You know country is known for being like 20 years behind rock in rocking. You mean Willie Waylon and Kris? Hank Jr? Donna Fargo? Convoy?
It’s not an insult to be a radio consultant. There are honorable ones. You have to admit you are speaking programatically.
Being a bad radio consultant would be an insult, though, and that can of worms opened up in the 70s didn’t it? Hmm.
I’m going to shut up soon but: My point about SD is that those songs are unique melodic masterpieces, regardless of the loudness and tempo wars going on now or then or in your mind. They cannot be made again, especially by any hard rock band, and you can’t hear those songs without tolerating that 'mellowness," if that’s what you want to call it. If you don’t need to know, that’s cool. But they had more knowledge in their finger than the whole scene today and even if they were cold fish as players, the songs would still be irreplaceable. And that’s where the “quality” of it comes in. Not in the tempo, guitar tone or volume. Ask any musician.
Seriously? No, thinking there is a cut-off for good music being produced is nothing like noticing similarities in music. One is noticing something that actually exists, the other is yet another take on the “kids today” canard.
Well, any of those are more raucous than Steely Dan. Loretta Lynn had more rocking songs in the 60’s than most of their output. What’s their excuse for being behind country?
As to whether they were immediately muzak, Pete Christlieb’s experience would indicate that they were pretty much piped in from the ceiling immedieately:
On top of it all, you seem to indicate you’re having an argument with me about my taste. You’re not, it’s pretty clear in my first post that I’m talking about a hypothetical person. If you like mellow rock, it’s nothing to be defensive about. Get over it.
Bugs Bunny is an arrogant asshole who always wins, liking him is like being a Yankees fan. If a person doesn’t entertain notions of their darker side and doesn’t identify on some level with Daffy Duck they are in denial.
Then something must be wrong with me. :rolleyes:
Sorry, I missed this yesterday.
Yep, it’s interesting where, and over what, the lines can be drawn over (and how sometimes people react if they believe you’ve dissed their heroes). If anything, I’m astonished that what I think is a completely obvious statement (Essentially: Steely Dan is widely considered mellow rock, and some people rightfully have no interest in that whole area of music.) gets me into an argument.
I’ve asked the “Steely Dan: mellow rock or not?” question of several people over the last few days. Nobody has answered that they’re not, and a DJ friend who works in many styles thought I had to be asking some other question. I had to explain it more clearly. In his mind, to answer that they weren’t was kind of like saying the earth was a plane.
Now we can argue back and forth about where they stand against their contemporaries on the fuzzy scale of mellow to harsh. It’s far less subjective than like to dislike, and it can be interesting when it’s done without insults and recriminations. But, at the end of the day, if its not mellow rock to the hypothetical you, for whatever reason; and I can’t convince you otherwise: I must accept that you live in a much more mellow world than I do, and move on.
So, very freaky. I’m glad I didn’t pick a food as my example. At least I didn’t have to re-eat food I wasn’t crazy about to remember exactly why.
But if they had already heard a good bit of her work, and still didn’t like her, what can you say then? To keep people from misunderstanding, I am going to state it plainly in this sentence: This is not a position that I hold. If they declare that the vocoder is the only way they like to hear the human voice in song, what’s our response?
Heck, I’ve seen people on this board declare that they didn’t really get music outside of it being included in other works. My brain hits another circuit breaker trying to imagine their world. But, I kind of have to accept that music doesn’t “work” on their brain, similar to how chocolate didn’t work on my friend’s brain, or cocaine doesn’t work on mine (it works just fine on my peripheral nervous system. ugh). Jackson Pollock, Howlin’ Wolf, and Stanley Kubrick don’t work on everyone’s brain like they do on mine, either.
.
Yep, that’s my point - as is yours. Steely Dan doesn’t pass that test - you are a rigorous listener and think differently. Cool. Aretha is likely to do better, but not as good as, say, Bach or Beethoven - arguing against their inclusion in the Western Canon would be uphill indeed.
As for Steely Dan and “mellow rock” - there are lots of examples of mellower rock that are generally considered worthy of deep respect - e.g., Joni Mitchell, Neil Young’s strummy stuff, etc. There is something to good mellow rock that has an artistry and rock intimacy and danger. I see that in Steely Dan and respect that many folks don’t.
I come out of the science fiction world which has an almost identical contingent of purists who disdain soft science fiction or literary science fiction or any of a number of subgenres that is not purist hard science fiction. Their world is hermetically sealed in both directions. (You didn’t like Niven & Pournelle’s The Big Fascist Rock? How dare you?)
I’ve been reading some 1950s SF for an article I’m writing and have been fairly stunned that the science in them is sheer gibberish down to the sentence level. These are works everybody in the field would consider then and now to be hard science fiction, but they have no science. They use science-y words in every sentence but are actually what today we would call comic books featuring superheroes who have magical powers supposedly derived from science and with even less characterization than the typical Marvel comic. (And that’s small indeed.)
Steely Dan was in another category from mellow rock throughout the 1970s. I was there. I remember every album coming out. I remember mellow rock. I liked a lot of it, because I’m a sucker for melody and their melodies were often beautiful. Steely Dan? I remember them for guitar solos. (I don’t want to digress too much, but the Doobie Brothers were considered hard rock at the beginning. Not Zeppelin level, but still, closer to southern rock bands than California ones. They mellowed out later.)
Maybe younger people have changed the fundamental definitions as metal and hair bands began to conquer American rock. A lot won’t consider the Beatles to be rock. Any teens who lived through the Beatles finds that incomprehensible. Any parents of teens who lived through the Beatles finds that doubly incomprehensible. For them, there’s no difference between the Beatles and Meshuggah.
We’re all purists about some things in some ways. The OP got that right. No two people will have all the same answers.
I agree with what you’re saying, and even the Hardest of Hard SF typically gets a few stock mulligans in order to move the story along. (FTL is not merely physically impossible, it’s logically impossible. Its very existence is a chronological paradox with no resolution. If you admit it into your Universe in any way useful for getting from this star to the next, physics as an epistemological system breaks down because the time evolution of dynamical systems is now nonsensical.) So, my admittedly idiosyncratic definition of Hard SF is that it has internal laws (assumed to be like reality unless stated otherwise) to which it is completely faithful, and the story centers around solving problems by applications of those laws. That is, the story can involve action and drama and romance, and should, but there’s a core to it which is a fair-play mystery, which an alert reader could potentially solve before the author reveals the solution. (And if you come up with a better solution, answers on a General Products hull full of tasps addressed to… )
(And I suppose even FTL can be a part of Hard SF if the author is very careful to not actually realize what they’ve introduced into their Universe, and makes sure the audience doesn’t realize it, either.)
The closest I get to the sentiment of the OP is with classical music, and right now Mozart is on my mind, so I’ll go with “Eine kleine Nachtmusik” and say that if you don’t like that, you an important part of world culture and can kiss my ass.