There is also a lot of dross EasyListening – James Last ? Perry Como ? Jim Reeves ? no thanks
The sort of stuff you would hear on the Light Programme before The Beatles changed everything.
Dylan?
Great piece from Bill Drummond: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2007/oct/02/folk
But in 2000, I still suffered from a persistent belief that those three Dylan albums were not only the greatest albums ever made, but in 200 years' time they would be considered the high-water mark of rock'n'roll as an art form. There is nothing worse than a middle-aged man thinking the music of his youth is somehow vastly superior to what is being made and played today. I did the only honourable thing: I took the albums to Oxfam.
Bob and Woody were revolutionary for a select group of rebellious middle class white people in the 60s (the Boomers) who had spare cash to buy their records. that’s absolutely as far as they go music wise. I’d say given the current state of popular music, Grandmaster Flash has had more influence than Bob has ever had.
the Beastie Boys got dragged in as they have a ban on their music being used commercially. So in that respect as least they have the backbone that Bob doesn’t, eh...
The following fill me with rage
Lady Gaga (Turn it off she writes songs by getting a dictionary and picking words at random)
Robbie Williams (Cant stand the bloke)
Abba (Cheesy irritating nonsense)
Michael Bublee (just covers other songs and does nothing original)
Overrated
Foo fighters - (All their songs sound the same)
The Doors - (I don't get what makes them so good?)
.
There is also a lot of dross EasyListening – James Last ? Perry Como ? Jim Reeves ? no thanks
Good prompt, just been listening to a bit of Gentleman Jim Reeves (probably have him more as country than easy listening tbh)
+1 on Robbie Williams and the doors - proper turn the radio off music.
Bob and Woody were revolutionary for a select group of rebellious middle class white people in the 60s (the Boomers) who had spare cash to buy their records.
That is a highly reductive interpretation that shows your prejudices.
So in that respect as least they have the backbone that Bob doesn’t, eh…
Eh (as in?), indeed!
That is a highly reductive interpretation that shows your prejudices.
given this is a thread about critically lauded musical acts you can’t stand, I would hate to be unclear...
Eh (as in?), indeed
Bob (the revolutionary) has sold out, the Beastie Boys have not
I love how so many people are vehemently trying to justify why they don't like certain artists/bands. There is loads of music I can't stand but it is all personal.... nothing to do with quality. I hate Amy Winehouse personally just because I do. Same reason I hate blueberries... just doesn't work for my tastes
Same reason I hate blueberries… just doesn’t work for my tastes
A dislike of blueberries is so deeply foolish, I don't know where to start..
Same reason I hate blueberries
heathen
“Grandad”
There’s another one crossed off. I’m going to get a line soon.
are you going to get a hooker to go with it?
Is “the Beatles changed everything” not on your bingo card DD?
No, too obvious.
There is nothing worse than a middle-aged man thinking the music of his youth is somehow vastly superior to what is being made and played today.
Agree with this, but a middle-aged man forcing himself to abandon the music he loved in his youth (and for years afterwards) because he feels it is no longer 'cool' is sadder still.
Bob (the revolutionary) has sold out, the Beastie Boys have not
Bob never was a revolutionary. He never claimed (or wanted) to be. It was his songwriting that was. He can’t fit your punk rock ideals 10-20 years before they existed. He was an activist for a while though (before it all got a bit mental).
The beastie boys were dicks. Fortunately they realised this (and apologised). One of the reasons I like them. But they ain’t no CRASS, Minor Threat (or Fugazi)... ****ing corporate sell out whores... 🤪
I'm not sure that Gen X-ers tend to be as boorish and blinkered about the music of their youth being "best" in the way that baby boomers often are.
In my late teenage years/early 20s I was mad about My Bloody Valentine and similar acts - as well as some amazing dance music being produced and played out in the clubs I went to.
Hip-hop was coming of age at the same time, with Public Enemy, NWA and the aforementioned Beasties.
That was longer ago from now than the Beatles were from then (if that makes sense), but maybe because that was the start of a subculture that's still going strong - it feels much less remote and the music of my youth doesn't feel so distinct from current stuff.
Or am I just being smug about "my music" being so influential?
That was longer ago from now than the Beatles were from then (if that makes sense), but maybe because that was the start of a subculture that’s still going strong – it feels much less remote and the music of my youth doesn’t feel so distinct from current stuff.
This never ceases to knock me sideways.
This never ceases to knock me sideways.
Haha, but did the 60s stuff just feel so old-fashioned because I was so young?
Are there any 20-year-olds in who could comment on whether Slam's Positive Energy or Hardfloor - Acperience sound really dated to them now?
Agree with this, but a middle-aged man forcing himself to abandon the music he loved in his youth (and for years afterwards) because he feels it is no longer ‘cool’ is sadder still.
Bill Drummond's words not mine. He relapsed and bought Dylan's greatest hits (found it in his hand getting back in the car at a motorway services) and had to chuck it out of the car window. My reading is he did this because he liked it too much, it's now comfort zone stuff and no longer challenging, and he likes a challenge. Me, I like Dylan. What can you do?
(And Dylan was challenging in its day. I must rewatch Coen brothers' inside llewyn davis. Fantastic film with a great performance from Justin Timberlake...)
He never claimed (or wanted) to be
if you handily skip over the Evangelical Christian phase, when he absolutely did, but hey, who hasn’t declared themselves a Prophet of the Lord every now and again. I guess that’ll be the “mental” bit, right?
I’ll give you this, Bob Dylan absolutely pioneered the faux intellectual arrogant “misunderstood artist” trope that so many have followed. If anything; that’s his legacy
I'm really struggling to see the point of people trying to tell others they are wrong about the artists they don't like, but hey, this is STW.
Chakaping I know some folk in their early 20s who love stuff like Hardfloor and Slam.
Are there any 20-year-olds in who could comment on whether Slam’s Positive Energy or Hardfloor – Acperience sound really dated to them now?
I think not nearly so much. There hasn't been a 'musical revolution' in the way that Acid/House/Techno/Jungle were in the years since.
Releases from artists like Bicep, Four Tet wouldn't have sounded out of place back then and are big now. We've got an 19 year old godson and we share a surprising amount of music in common.
I’m really struggling to see the point of people trying to tell others they are wrong about the artists they don’t like
As I said at the top of page 3: It's pointless. Seems to have become the theme of this thread though.
I'm enjoying myself though, so that counts for something, right?
I’m enjoying myself though,
I'd rather people didn't.
"I was born like this I had no choice, I was born with the gift of a golden voice" - The Late, great Leonard Cohen, not taking himself so seriously ....
if you handily skip over the Evangelical Christian phase, when he absolutely did, but hey, who hasn’t declared themselves a Prophet of the Lord every now and again.
I’m happy to to be honest. Especially as you’re conveniently moving the goal post as there is nothing particularly ‘revolutionary’ about a Jew declaring themselves a prophet (there’s a 6,000 year tradition, in fact there’s a whole book about it if you care for some research...).
I really find your obvious intense hatred of the man weird and wonder at just what flames this.
You keep forgetting to acknowledge his nobel prize for some reason, surely that’s a legacy less bitter people are going to go with?
Can't believe Genensis haven't been mentioned yet and only a meagre votes for Phil Collins.
Also on my 'can't stand list' are Blur, KISS, Smiths / Morrissey, Leonard Cohen, The Who
There hasn’t been a ‘musical revolution’ in the way that Acid/House/Techno/Jungle were in the years since.
I suppose that's true if you ignore grunge, R&B, brit pop and the rest of it. My dad said something similar about the music I liked 🙂
I can't think of any critically-lauded artists I really can't stand. Apart from Pink Floyd, they're shite.
I really find your obvious intense hatred of the man weird and wonder at just what flames this.
Story: He once refused to go into a restaurant as the maitre'D didn't instantly recognise him....
You keep forgetting to acknowledge his nobel prize for some reason, surely that’s a legacy less bitter people are going to go with?
Ah the Nobel, sorry, yes, Refused to go as there would be a live audience...(that weren't there just to see him), so went in private, Wouldn't give a speech, (which you have to do to get the prize money) but did write an essay just before the deadline, so that they had to give him the money in the end. Speaks volumes about the man dontcha' think?...what did Irvine Walsh say...[checks notes] ah yes; "this is an ill conceived nostalgia award wrenched from the rancid prostates of senile, gibbering hippies" although he does declare himself a fan, so y'know, praise indeed....
For the record I don't have an intense hatred of the man, but honestly never has there been an artist who believes his own hype quite as much as Bob... but you seem to be intent on trying (as others have have said) to persuade me that I'm wrong...so you know, I'm just throwing brick bats...You're the one trying to head them into your own net.
Nickc none of your criticisms seem to be based on his song writing ability which is what he is "critically lauded" for, certainly aint his singing ability. You seem keen to play the man not the music.
Thanks A_A i was literally just about to type pretty much exactly your post... play the ball, not the man.
For someone who professes indifference you know more about the ****er than I do, you seem obsessed with him.
And, yes, he’s a dick. I believe there’s phrases such as feet of clay and never meet your heroes would cover most of it. And?
Irrespective of his reaction to it, he’s the only songwriter to be given one, maybes try addressing that (after all it was you who was after some ‘proof’).
I used to have a live version of Blowin’ in the wind that was the best comedy record I’ve ever owned. He sounded like somebody doing an impression of Kermit the Frog doing an intentionally bad impression of Bob Dylan. It was amazing in its terribleness.
Blood on the tracks is a phenomenal album though. The man was a great lyricist then the 80’s happened. Not just to him, to nearly everyone.
Not sure it merits the levels of debate in here considering the thread title. New thread anyone? To be fair a lot of critics are full of shit (film industry is the same).I like reading reviews on Pitchfork purely for laughs. The best by far is either when somebody dies and suddenly receives acclaim that they never had in life, or when an album is reappraised years later (most likely after someone dies).
never has there been an artist who believes his own hype quite as much as Bob…
His book Chronicles is a good read and doesn't convey that to me, more someone trying to stay sane as the world goes mad around him.
I used to have a live version of Blowin’ in the wind that was the best comedy record I’ve ever owned.
There's somethin' happening here and you don't know what it is,
Do you, Mr Funkmasterp? 🙂
(Sorry - line used in 50% of fan responses to critical critics each time Dylan releases another album of honking dirges. Always wanted an excuse and thought I'd get in before someone else. Also, the Nobel committee obviously never saw Hearts of Fire. Or any of his film oevre...)
I suppose that’s true if you ignore grunge, R&B, brit pop and the rest of it. My dad said something similar about the music I liked
Well, Grunge predated rave so ignored that and R&B/Britpop felt less of a change than a addition/continuation. I think genre's stopped fading out at that point in the way they maybe had before.
Bill Drummond’s words not mine. He relapsed and bought Dylan’s greatest hits (found it in his hand getting back in the car at a motorway services) and had to chuck it out of the car window. My reading is he did this because he liked it too much, it’s now comfort zone stuff and no longer challenging, and he likes a challenge.
No, I understood that. It seems odd that he couldn't find room for the challenge and the familiar.
Here’s a good one for another thread: great bands where the lead singer can’t actually sing. I’ll start with
Flaming Lips
Stone Roses
The Fall
Idles
Stiff Little Fingers
Ramones
I think not nearly so much. There hasn’t been a ‘musical revolution’ in the way that Acid/House/Techno/Jungle were in the years since.
Releases from artists like Bicep, Four Tet wouldn’t have sounded out of place back then and are big now.
Yeah, I kind-of thought the same.
Interestingly I remember seeing Mr Four Tet play a small Krautrock club in London 20 years ago, in one of his previous incarnations.
He's probably a similar age to me, which I mention because artists can clearly do some of their best work much later in their careers than in the past, when bands peaked in their 20s and broke up or went rubbish. Especially in the arena of faceless electronic noise.
PS. Britpop was just indie guitar music, but more blatantly derivative of the 1960s. Grunge was just indie guitar music, but less subtle and with more flannel shirts.
Well, Grunge predated rave so ignored that and R&B/Britpop felt less of a change than a addition/continuation. I think genre’s stopped fading out at that point in the way they maybe had before.
Nirvana broke through in 1991, the Second Summer of Love was 1988. And if you think "genre" died out around then you really need to open your eyes, grandad. With Spotify and Youtube and the rest the whole thing's fractured in a way you dad never imagined: http://everynoise.com/
Here’s a good one for another thread: great bands where the lead singer can’t actually sing. I’ll start with
Flaming Lips
Stone Roses
The Fall
Idles
Stiff Little Fingers
Ramones
Pogues
I just wonder how many times IHN has said to himself, “ah lads, I said universally lauded...” 😀
Nickc none of your criticisms seem to be based on his song writing ability
Metalheart's the one who keeps bringing up the Nobel...Songwriting...what d'you want me to say? Copied Guthrie, stumbled into electrified music 20 years too late, wrote songs that were too long, can't sing, plays rudimentary guitar, hasn't developed musically since, well ever really...probably can't now. Somewhere in the 80's became a Bob Dylan tribute act with added "baby Jesus"...
As I said, for a certain age demographic this stuff is groundbreaking (white middle class baby boomers, like y'know...Bob himself) , for the next generation it becomes the MOR mum/dad crap that you push against. give me a choice between Bob or...well just about anyone else...it's never going to be Bob. It just doesn't float my boat. There's a genre of male musicians for whom songs appear only in the Key of D minor, and are very serious...Bob is the genesis of that,. Same as Van Morrison, boring middle aged men singing about how hard their lives are while they roll about in millions... mleh, give me a break
Here’s a good one for another thread: great bands where the lead singer can’t actually sing. I’ll start with
Flaming Lips
Stone Roses
The Fall
Idles
Stiff Little Fingers
RamonesPogues
The Dead Kennedies
