Disagreement with the masses

Bruce Springsteen - he's okay to listen to, but his music is too common. Some lyrics are good though.

Metallica - I find James Hetfield's voice annoying, it's got a very limited scale. The sound of the band isn't sophisticated enough

Whitney Houston - too cheesy, and not my kind of repertoire anyway. In the same class with Micheal Bolton.

Elvis Presley - never been a fan of him, too sweet and sentimental. The beginning of his career was interesting though (I appreciated it afterwards), but at that time I was still in diapers.

Oasis - a very average band that gained popularity mainly due to bad behaviour on and off stage

Fieldgate, Oasis got where they got to through ripping off the sound of better bands(roses, charltans, ride, soup dragons, carpets, even early blur and marketing it well.

But still overated and a really boring live band.

That said, noel has a talent for getting loadsa songs outa the same chord progresions. And His B-sides such as half the world away are really good.

I used to love Oasis. Owned everything they ever released, had copies of all rare tracks and live recordings. Now I can barely stand to listen to them. It's the lyrics more than anything, they are absolutely nonsense.

I own the one Oasis album (What's the Story Morning Glory) and never really saw a need to acquire a second one. I put it into the category of whiny mid-90's pop-rock* that I think twenty years from now everyone will agree was a bad idea all around.

*not a unified movement or sound--just that from here it seemed like there was a lot of music in the mid-90's with annoyingly whiny vocals and a profound lack of imagination. It's like between 1993 and 1998, everyone in music just took a holiday from good sense.

Oddly, though, I do like the Smashing Pumpkins. Can't explain it really, since I do NOT like Billy Corgan's voice.

--M.

Funny--I was reading your post #25 mrpenney, and the term "whiny mid-90s pop-rock" immediately made me flash on Smashing Pumpkins. I was going to ask whether you included them in the category but then you answered that yourself. I take it your answer is "yes and no," or "yes, but..." which is basically mine. I don't listen to them too much anymore, other than a few songs.

Never liked Oasis. Not a Springsteen fan.

John Mayer. Why is he the spokesman of my generation? Why?
HA! Yeah but there’s something quite funny about the line in one of his latest songs “I don’t remember you looking any better but then again I don’t remember you”. That appeals to my sense of humour which has a nice dollop of bitterness.

immediately made me flash on Smashing Pumpkins. I was going to ask whether you included them in the category but then you answered that yourself. I take it your answer is "yes and no," or "yes, but..." which is basically mine.

Yep. Specifically, "yes, but... there's something that they get right that sort of makes up for it for me." And if I had to put a finger on it, that "something" would be some quality songwriting much of the time, and better-than-average musicianship, such that between the two, more often than not there's something there.

Another way of putting it--they were trying to be popped-up Nirvana rather than grunged-up Counting Crows, which makes all the difference in the world.

--M.

Edited by: mrpenney

Smashing Pumpkins are excellent. :)

Queen got mentioned here somewhere. I think their early stuff up until and including A Night at the Opera is brilliant. Then they went completely ga-ga, Flash Gordon takes the biscuit. As for Supertramp, I've always enjoyed Crisis, Breakfast, Crime and Quitet Moments - stellar keyboard sound. In moderation, of course. That goes for Genesis and Queen as well, needless to say.