The debate about 'over the top' in rock music.

I see there is a strong contingent of people who profess to only listen to the likes of Radiohead, Pink Floyd, Aphex Twin, Tool, Talk Talk. They justification is that most of that music is complex, layered, multiple time signatures, weird instrumentation and opaque lyrics. They tend to deride bands like Queen, Muse, The Mars Volta, Led Zeppelin as 'over the top', 'cock rock' and just unintelligent despite those bands having extremely complex music at times.

My question to the denizens here, do you listen to both groups of bands or are you a snob in the direction of 'intelligent rock'?

 

I like many of the bands you listed, but at the same time, I sometimes roll my eyes when I hear music fans overemphasize technical aspects of rock music. If technicality is so important to these people, why do they lower themselves to listen to rock music anyway? Why not jazz or classical instead?

 

I love any kind of Rock. The only music that's 'over the top' to me is the auto-tune and mumble stuff like Trap that looks like it doesn't go away so quickly.
It sounds all the same to me (gee, I sound like my parents).

 

Whom are you guys talking about?

There is time and a place for simple rock, and a time for something a little more sophisticated. I like Kiss at times, but others times only Close to the Edge will do. Still others it's a bit of classical. It's really all about mood.

The only place that a lot of rock really fails is lyrically. I mean, it's cringeworthy to listen to the likes of Christine 16 no matter how much you're in the mood for some simple rock. Still, that's an individual call.

I will say, as I got older, I grew to prefer something with a little more thought than "Put your hand in my pocket, grab on to my rocket."

 

I tend to think of people who over-sing.

Main offenders: Bono (worst by far), Springsteen, George Michael (great voice, didn't always like what he did with it), Whitney Houston (great voice, NEVER liked what she did with it), Mariah Carey.

 

The only oversingers on your list are the two females.

 

Most people I know appreciate both Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. I appreciate music for what it is. I don't care what it isn't. Do it well, I'll probably like it.

 

Where are you seeing all of this?

 

I don’t group all of these acts under the same facile banner. Led Zeppelin and Muse seem completely different to me, although I’ve seen both live and enjoyed them.

Everyone likes Queen, whether they admit it or not. From junior schoolers to cranky “fist generation” classic rock fans.

 

Quite true. I'll never own anything by Queen, but I don't change the station when Crazy Little Thing comes on

 

It's a difficult question in some ways.
I find as I've aged, some bands I used to
listen to frequently which may be label
,,cock-rock,, I have more or less moved
away from. I still like hearing some of
Led Zeppelin's more cerebral pieces as
well as some of their heavy blues-style
pieces but I am more likely to enjoy a
custom playlist of very select songs by
them than I am to pull an album of theirs
and sit thru it, A/B side and no
distractions. Part of the challenge in this
is with the idea of labels - I don't mean
record labels - even categorising
,,intelligent,, vs. ,,carnal,, is problematic.
There's plenty of stuff [ through which
the artist ] tries to be cerebral but is
contrived or forced and comes off as
pretentious or just plain boring. Then
there is stuff that is purely carnal which
comes off unconvincing or over-confident
and just plain egomaniacal. Some of the great
rock masterpieces give listeners the best of these
two worlds in an authentic and convincing way.
I guess that the records I like best display
prowess and finesse, have attitude while avoiding
platitude. The lyrics may serve a narrative purpose
or they may serve a purely tonal purpose or
something in between, though I tend to
embrace sounds and overtones in music
and regard meaningful lyrics as of
lesser importance. Regardless of the
artist's intent, I more often than
not disregard lyrical meaning,
instead placing significance of value
on the impressionistic efficacy of the
sounds produced. This approach seems
to eliminate getting caught up in substantive
meanings that lie outside those which are
purely aural-aesthetic.

 

OP is an obvious straw man. Like what you like and stop caring about other people’s tastes

 

Girl
you really got me goin'
You got me so I don't know what I'm doin' now
Yeah
you really got me now
You got me so I can't sleep at night

It's rock and roll. It's all good.

 

How do you compare that to Weird Fishes/Arpeggi?

 

I have met only a few people that fit into what the OP seems to be referring to. Most people just want to hear music that they enjoy. I love Led Zeppelin and Motley Crue. I also love Tool and Radiohead.

 

I just like music.

 

I don't care about the "top" or anything being over it, I just like what sounds good

 

I love Radiohead. I love the kinks. I can’t stand Tool. Not sure what that means for your premise

 

Sparks, Queen and Kiss are in my list of favourite bands, Queen occupying a middle ground between art and cock rock. I don't care if it's artsy or bombastic, as long as it sounds good I'm in.

 

I never found any TRUE Rock over the top...

 

yup, that's what it's all about the love of music that brings us all together here, there and everywhere...ageless.

 

I thought "cock rock" referred to macho classic rock bands like Led Zeppelin and Guns n Roses.

Queen is pretty much the opposite of that.

 

Who are these non-existent people of whom you speak, and why did you decide to make them up?

 

Hair Metal bands of the 80's?? Quite Riot..Great White..Twisted Sister etc...seemed like cheap, tourist trinkets, that you buy in Daytona Beach or Gatlinburg...lol.

 

There are people who have a superior attitude towards music. But I don't bother with them. One reason why I quit Facebook years ago.