Your Musical Hot-Takes/Unpopular Opinions

Nobody wants this to be true but it is true and the truth hurts.

 

They also knew when to quit (or rather Mark Knopfler knew it was the right time for him).

Thus preserving the standard and reputation of their work.

EG.

 

I actually do want it to be true, because I don’t have any of them newer than that, and I don’t want to have been missing out. I think I’m safe, or at least safe enough not to worry about it too much.

 

It's been a common rumor for decades. He was known to be dabbling in heroin around that time, and a motorcycle accident would be a good cover story for an enforced cold turkey stay.

 

Never heard it myself but I've heard good things about it. Finally giving the Stones a go, starting from the beginning, so eventually I'll get to it and see how it goes.

 

I really like Steel Wheels but Voodoo Lounge not so much.

EG.

 

Ha !
You don't have to worry about a thing.

 

I mean, it’s not like I’ve heard none of the material in question. There’s a reason I haven’t bought any of it...

 

John Lennon was artistically lost without Paul McCartney as a partner and then as a musical contrast.
Led Zeppelin III is the best of their first four; Led Zeppelin IV was less successful in taking chances and is the least of those.
Queen were a singles band that never made a good album.
Wish You Were Here, Animals, and The Wall are all artistically greater albums than Dark Side of the Moon.
The Strawbs had the songs to be prog rock superstars on par with Genesis and Pink Floyd and were better, for longer, than Yes.
Magic is Bruce Springsteen's best album since The River and his late-career masterpiece.
Some guitarists, like Jerry Garcia, are great simply because they coined a sound that nobody else could reproduce, regardless of technique.
The 60s saw the most innovation in rock but the 70s and 90s made better rock due to better developed influences and craftsmanship.
Indie is what will ensure that rock maintains a foothold in at least one more generation, even if it won't be the most popular genre again.
Blues rock combines the least creative instincts of its component genres.

 

My hot take:

“I’m Only Sleeping” is the best song on Revolver, by a good margin.

 

As far as all those post-Tattoo You albums were from their peak, all that '80s, they're all still better than '80's Emotional Rescue!

 

Loving the first two.

 

Agree on Zep except that I don't love Presence (see my post).

I loved Bella Donna but thought that was a last gasp. Nicks was awful when I saw her and spent more time on costume changes than on performing her songs well.

 

Good point.

 

Here's one for you: Clockwork Angels is a better album than Moving Pictures.

 

I liked 'Some Girls ' well enough when it came out. Not a great album but the group seemed focused and energized and ready to groove into the 80s.
The first thing I heard from ' Emotional Rescue ' was the title track and I thought it was great.
Then came the album. ...

 

100%

I love DSOTM, but they really honed their craft as far as conceiving and executing concepts over the following albums (The Wall being a pinnacle of that, even if I am more likely to want to listen to WYWH most of the time).

 

I keep trying with Clockwork Angels but it still hasn't clicked so it's lounging towards the bottom of my Rush pile at the moment.

I regard Grace Under Pressure as their masterpiece.

 

I'm afraid we have rather different tastes when it comes to Rush. I'm pretty sure I gave away Grace not long after its release. I like "Kid Gloves", flat out love "Enemy Within", and don't really like anything else on it.

I do think you need to be on board with their new-millenium sound to enjoy CA.

 

I do not agree, but whatever. Based on this, I am going to make my own unpopular opinion:

• The idea that an album is somehow artistically better, that it makes the artist more important and accomplished compared to an artist who released "just" a bunch of singles, is stupid.(*)

(*) Albums that are supposed to be treated as a single big work like The Wall or The Music for the Masses are different.

On another hand, there is an opinion that the reason the first wave of rock'n'roll was petering out was because artists would come with a hit or two and then would go. The Beatles saved rock'n'roll because they released a complete album, and then another seven or eight albums after it. This allowed fans (young impressionable girls) to focus on just one band for their idolatry instead of switching from one one-hit wonder to another. But then again, would it be different if the Beatles were releasing one successful single after another instead of printing them on a single album? I guess, it is more about the sheer output of a single band/artist, than packaging this output into somewhat artificial "albums". Although from 1960s distribution perspective it makes sense to buy just one vinyl record instead of four or five.

 

"Losing It" and "Chemistry" easily smoke any other Rush's 80's and 90's music.

 

I prefer The Rolling Stones’ albums from 1989 onward over any of their pre-1968 albums. And Voodoo Lounge is a top 10 Stones album.

Dismissing an artist who doesn’t write their own material is ridiculous, and is no different than disregarding someone for bringing in outside producers, sound engineers, or session musicians. It’s foolish to judge the quality of music based on whose names appear (or don’t appear) in the liner notes.

The Ramones had no bad albums.

Pearl Jam has no bad albums. Their output in the last 10-15 years may be a little on the generic side, but I still wouldn’t call it bad.

All Things Must Pass is the only solo Beatle album to come anywhere near the quality of the Beatles.

Every iteration of Fleetwood Mac is good, at least up through 1987.

 

Well, we're gonna part ways on that one. Clockwork Angels is an excellent album, but as great as it is, you can't beat perfection.

 

I don't know if this really applies to the thread title, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway:
Someone said above that "Exile" has filler and now Rubber Soul.
How do you know it has filler? There is a difference between filler and "songs you don't like". It's a lazy term and not accurate.
"Paranoid" is filler. The band needed an additional 3-4 minutes to "fill" the album's running time.
I'm accused of nitpicking a lot, but this gets on my nerves.

 

I've long held that album listening and listening to a series of unrelated songs is simply a different musical experience. I have no opinion on whether album listening is artistically or aesthetically "better", or on the reverse. I do know that I enjoy album listening far more.