MUSIC: the official thread.

Maybe....but this would all be weightier if you had a higher opinion of anything that's come out in the last 40 years ::

 

That's ridiculous... Last 40??? 1973??? That's insane

In the 90s-00s I thought Soundgarden were great, I enjoyed Alice In Chains at times, I liked Beck (his being a scientologist has really made it hard for me to hear him the same way), I loved that one record by QOTSA, I liked D'Angelo, Erykah Badu, Rafael Saadiq, lots of jazz music no one here's ever heard of anyway


A lot of my less than overwhelming enthusiasm for 1980s onward popular music is down more to sonic concerns than cultural/artistic aesthetics

I don't like the sound of digitally recorded/mixed/mastered recordings... Cold, synthetic, lacking dynamics... That's my biggest beef with recent recordings and it was my biggest beef with 1980s recordings growing up... Even Soundgarden, to use an example, a band I really liked, I'm sure their records would have been far more enjoyable to me recorded/mixed/mastered straight analog.

The difference is profound.

You mistake a purely auditory quibble with some sort of misplaced nostalgia

 

Also, I could certainly make the same remark regarding you with anything pre-1977 or anything played well or lasting longer than 3 minutes that could be danced to without the aid of amphetamines

 

Synths are great Cdogg. Plz don't menace me.....

 

Synths recorded analog can potentially be great

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/nrdl4ijru8o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

You always leave Kurt and co. out McDogg. It's not on :nono:. The LAST truly great mainstream band.

Anyway, Radiohead are excellent.

 

Nirvana is a band for teenagers.

 

They are a great band full stop. No group has come close to making the same sort of cultural impact since Nirvana.

 

Oasis made a bigger one in Britain. What a genius band they were.

 

Not on a global scale. I wouldn't say Oasis made a bigger impact in Britain than Nirvana did either, you are forgetting quite how colossal their impact was.

Nirvana didn't do anything new as such, but they were real, and they made great music. Very consistent in quality.

 

Nirvana>Oasis

all day

And I have no interest in either

 

They're both pretty crap. I'm not sure who I'd rather hear a song of.....probably Nirvana but it depends on the song.

 

Nirvana rocked a little bit, had some bite... Oasis were a bunch of nancys with their whiny bullshit... music for frat boys in a sensitive mood...

 

Oasis were absolutely awful.

 

no doubt

 

Nirvana was cool.

 

Oasis had little impact in America. They came and went and are mostly forgotten. Nirvana, for some reason, are still thought highly of. But to be honest, both groups were pretty terrible.

TFK

 

Cobain was something of a Lennon-McCartney hybrid

 

you need to settle down

 

:laughing:

 

Not a direct comparison obviously in terms of talent, achievements or influence, but I am right.

 

::

 

I'll give him this - Cobain>McCartney.

 

::

 

:hammert:

 

:fist:::

 

Brother hut..you need to calm down