|
Post by Chucklehead,baby!!! on Aug 2, 2007 22:01:58 GMT -5
anything by pearl jam(having vedder not give out the lyrics makes it worse) So, I guess you missed the lyric books in almost every single Pearl Jam CD. Jed Shaffer ~And even the first two had the bulk of the lyrics, minus a song or two. if im mistaken,then my bad. but i saw a pop up video once and they said somethin about if someone wanted to cover a PJ song they'd just have to sing it out cuz he didnt put lyrics out.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Pigwell on Aug 2, 2007 22:04:45 GMT -5
I'm looking at my booklet for Ten right now, and the lyrics are inscribed all over in odd places. But they're there for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by Chucklehead,baby!!! on Aug 2, 2007 22:06:52 GMT -5
I;m looking at my booklet for Ten right now, and the lyrics are inscribed all over in odd places. But they're there for the most part. ok, i stand corrected then.
|
|
|
Post by amsiraK on Aug 2, 2007 22:12:07 GMT -5
It's not good enough a reason. I think AC/DC singing about Tolkein would rock. Because it would still be about nailing women in some way. LOL Five albums I can't take that people love? Anything By the following: Jimi Hendrix The Beatles Led Zeppelin Nirvana The Rolling Stones Now, this isn't because I dislike those bands (as others have said in this thread), but it's because I hate, I hate, I HATE that they're kneejerk answers to the question "Who's the best of all time?" Anytime there's a list... there they are at the top. Anytime there's a discussion... someone yanks them out and the bobbleheads nod without even considering that other musicians ever existed. Anytime I turn the radio to the classic rock station... dun-dun-DAH! dun-dun-DAH! Foxy! All good musicians. All definitely worthy of praise. But not at the near god-like levels they get. IMO, natch. ;D
|
|
Action Bathturd
Don Corleone
This is the greatest moment in the history of our sport.
Posts: 1,606
|
Post by Action Bathturd on Aug 2, 2007 22:17:59 GMT -5
I thought of six. I always have to break the rules, ya know. 1) Beck - "Odelay". For crying out loud, what is so "brilliant" about some marble-mouthed idiot with random lyrics mumbling over a drum machine and a tape loop? Can someone clue me in as to how a Bob Dylan-wannabe can blather on about nothing, and somehow get 100 million critics treating him like he's a musical Jesus? 2) Metallica - "Kill 'Em All". Metallica in the 80's ruled. This is just a fact of life. And as they refined their game in the eighties, the riffs got tighter, the singing got better and the lyrics got smarter. But if all you heard was this abortion of a debut album, you'd never know it. Hetfield sounds like a 7 year old, the sound is atrocious, and the lyrics are so inane, they make Trixter sound like Pink Floyd. Every song amounts to "We're Metallica, we're here to rock you!" Well, that's fantastic, guys. But you'll have to try harder then this generic Motley Crue record. 3) Slayer - "Reign In Blood". Yeah, I went there. Slayer is without a doubt the heaviest band that doesn't have a Cookie Monster singer. Their catalog is filled with classics. But this mess I just don't. Having none of the style of later albums like "Seasons In The Abyss" or "Diabolus In Musica", they blitz through 10 underwhelming songs--in both lyrics and songwriting--in a half an hour, as if they have somewhere else to be. Speed doesn't mean good, boys. 4) Led Zeppelin - "Led Zeppelin IV" (aka, ZOSO). This isn't so much half-baked like Metallica, or unfocused like Slayer. This just SUCKS. Page is VASTLY overrated as a guitarist, and Plant? As Andrew Dice Clay said in The Adventures Of Ford Fairlane, "I've heard cats f*** with more harmony." One atrocious, cheap blues-rock ripoff after another. You can't be an art band and have a song like "The Lemon Song", guys. There's a reason AC/DC doesn't do songs about Tolkein. 5) Justin Timberlake, "Futuresexy/Lovesounds". Memo to Justin: to be the next Michael Jackson requires one thing--an amazing amount of talent. There's a reason "Thriller" sold like it did. You do not have a "Thriller" in you. You'll be lucky if you have a "HIStory" in you. You're a generic white boy singing generic music that'll be forgotten as quickly as Miss Cleo and the MASK toys. Take your version of sexy back under whatever rock you crawled out from, and stay there. 6) Notorious BIG, "Life After Death". I'm sorry, I can't understand a damn word you're saying, Jabba. Quit rapping in Huttese, or stop going down on Puffy long enough to form a cohesive sentence. Oh, wait, you're a fat sack of crap who peddles crack to children? This criminal, this unintelligible Neanderthal, is the next big thing in rap? May hip-hop rest in peace then. Jed Shaffer ~To back up the other two who said it, The Chronic was a masterpiece. You sound very familiar.
|
|
|
Post by Super Nimieboo on Aug 2, 2007 22:22:11 GMT -5
Nevermind- Anything by Pearl Jam - Let's not declare these "master works" of a generation. The significance people attach to it is pompous and the antithesis of grunge.
Here's the big one for me Back in Black- AC/DC I LOVE me some AC/DC but I think the ultimate AC/DC albums were the ones with Bon, they were a lot less processed and a lot more real.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Aug 2, 2007 22:22:32 GMT -5
Uh, the man has had more than one hit. And, while I don't consider the man ugly in any way, I fail to see why looks are so important for a musician. Rarely do I hear a song and think "wonder what that guy looks like."
|
|
|
Post by Mister Pigwell on Aug 2, 2007 22:23:30 GMT -5
Uh, the man has had more than one hit. And, while I don't consider the man ugly in any way, I fail to see why looks are so important for a musician. Rarely do I hear a song and think "wonder what that guy looks like." Of course stuff like that is important. KISS made a living off of it.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Aug 2, 2007 22:24:23 GMT -5
Uh, the man has had more than one hit. And, while I don't consider the man ugly in any way, I fail to see why looks are so important for a musician. Rarely do I hear a song and think "wonder what that guy looks like." That seems to be an important criteria more than ever these days. And people wonder why so much new music sucks.
|
|
|
Post by Super Nimieboo on Aug 2, 2007 22:27:20 GMT -5
Uh, the man has had more than one hit. And, while I don't consider the man ugly in any way, I fail to see why looks are so important for a musician. Rarely do I hear a song and think "wonder what that guy looks like." That seems to be an important criteria more than ever these days. And people wonder why so much new music sucks. And with the women, it's almost even worse. Looks being more important been around a lot longer with female musicians, I think. Janis Joplin would never get to bring her voice to the world, nowadays. You don't need to sing, or even dance all you need is to look hot scantily clad.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Aug 2, 2007 22:29:04 GMT -5
It's sad but true. Someone like Aretha Franklin could never have a mainstream music career nowadays, she would be considered too fat. There was a thread about Amy Winehouse recently, and some people were talking crap because they think she's ugly as if that has anything to do with music.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Aug 2, 2007 22:29:54 GMT -5
Well, I didn't mean to say that a band or a musician's look is unimportant. Certainly, there are bands that have imagery tied to their music, as Kiss does. (I'll remind you that, in the 80s, Kiss removed the makeup, and were quite heinous looking, but still had hits.) But, like, Simon and Garfunkel were fairly average lookin' dudes.
I just don't see why someone would dismiss a talented musician based on the grounds that he's not attractive.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Aug 2, 2007 22:30:57 GMT -5
It's sad but true. Someone like Aretha Franklin could never have a mainstream music career nowadays, she would be considered too fat. There was a thread about Amy Winehouse recently, and some people were talking crap because they think she's ugly as if that has anything to do with music. I find Amy Winehouse totally hot. And she's a good singer.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Aug 2, 2007 22:31:45 GMT -5
It's frightening how many people would. Like I said, people wonder why so much of the new music that comes out today sucks. There's a big part of your answer right there.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Pigwell on Aug 2, 2007 22:32:23 GMT -5
Well, I didn't mean to say that a band or a musician's look is unimportant. Certainly, there are bands that have imagery tied to their music, as Kiss does. (I'll remind you that, in the 80s, Kiss removed the makeup, and were quite heinous looking, but still had hits.) But, like, Simon and Garfunkel were fairly average lookin' dudes. I just don't see why someone would dismiss a talented musician based on the grounds that he's not attractive. I don;t either it doesn't make sense to me don;t think im trying to disagree on this one, just that's how it is in our society. 50 years ago if tv and computer tech was how it is now, I'd say it would have been the same back then.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Aug 2, 2007 22:33:33 GMT -5
I don't wanna sound like some kind of old fogey, but sometimes I think people have a point when they talk about how MTV ruined music.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Pigwell on Aug 2, 2007 22:34:12 GMT -5
To show that this was a foreseen evil LONG before any else called it.
"Video Killed the Radio Star"
We should have taken that as a warning from these time traveling genius nomads!
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Aug 2, 2007 22:34:57 GMT -5
That song was strangely prescient. Unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by amsiraK on Aug 2, 2007 22:35:30 GMT -5
Well, I didn't mean to say that a band or a musician's look is unimportant. Certainly, there are bands that have imagery tied to their music, as Kiss does. (I'll remind you that, in the 80s, Kiss removed the makeup, and were quite heinous looking, but still had hits.) But, like, Simon and Garfunkel were fairly average lookin' dudes. I just don't see why someone would dismiss a talented musician based on the grounds that he's not attractive. And Art Garfunkel was kinda funky lookin', actually. With a hellaciously sweet voice.
|
|
|
Post by Chucklehead,baby!!! on Aug 2, 2007 22:41:06 GMT -5
Uh, the man has had more than one hit. And, while I don't consider the man ugly in any way, I fail to see why looks are so important for a musician. Rarely do I hear a song and think "wonder what that guy looks like." Of course stuff like that is important. KISS made a living off of it. u gotta go otu there and give an image. ugly or not,ya gotta give them a reason to look at u.
|
|