Son of Swamp wrote:i was watching an "educational film" and it had a piece of music i thought was catchy... So i did some research and found it was a New Order song....
So, i watched a few videos... and i feel very bad about this... but i kinda like them... Hows that for Blasphemy (i also secretly enjoy Tears for fears...)
I'll go delete my account now
j/k
It's not blasphemy to like what you like. There's some great New Order stuff, no reason to feel bad about liking it. But now, Tears for Fears, I don't know.
I actually remember liking the first Tears for Fears album, The Hurting, quite a lot. Not quite sure f I want to dig up the vinyl and see if I still do though...
As for New Order, there was some good stuff there. Joy Division was even better. Ahhh college...
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved
Son of Swamp wrote:i was watching an "educational film" and it had a piece of music i thought was catchy... So i did some research and found it was a New Order song....
So, i watched a few videos... and i feel very bad about this... but i kinda like them... Hows that for Blasphemy (i also secretly enjoy Tears for fears...)
I'll go delete my account now
j/k
Nothing wrong with liking New Order. Some great stuff there. Total ear candy. Plus, a person can make a good argument that they were the most influencial band of the 1980's.
Tears for Fears, however. Well, we've all got our guilty pleasures. Mine are ABBA, The Partridge Family and the song, "Achy, Breaky, Heart"
I have nowhere else to go. There is no demand in the priesthood for elderly drug addicts
dime in the gutter wrote:pre crash skynyrd was far superior to the allman bros as a rock band and I love the allman bros.
ABB transcended rock, Skynrd didn't..... not that one is better than the other, but different. and I'm a big fan of both, just bigger ABB fan
not sure if i prefer one over the other...just think that as a rock band, skynyrd is a bit truer.
allmans had better players for certain...but, imo, they were always steeped in blues and jazz. amazing songs, fantastic records, legendary performances. flat our royalty.
skynyrd seemed more dangerous, angry, aggressive.....like they always had a huge chip on their shoulder. rvz is highly underrated as a songwriter. sly, subversive, antil-establishment, political, funny, social commentary.....and they were damn fine players in their own right.
dime in the gutter wrote:not sure if i prefer one over the other...just think that as a rock band, skynyrd is a bit truer.
allmans had better players for certain...but, imo, they were always steeped in blues and jazz. amazing songs, fantastic records, legendary performances. flat our royalty.
skynyrd seemed more dangerous, angry, aggressive.....like they always had a huge chip on their shoulder. rvz is highly underrated as a songwriter. sly, subversive, antil-establishment, political, funny, social commentary.....and they were damn fine players in their own right.
love em both.
just my opinion
it's all good
Son, this ain't a dream no more, it's the real thing
I hate the word Southern Rock. Leon Wilkerson said once in an interview that they were a band from the south that plays rock and roll, not a southern rock band.
Allman's versus Skynyrd? No reason you can't have both. My opinion? Skynyrd were better songwriters while Allmans were better musicians. But not by a huge margin in either direction. Skynyrd guys could flat out rock and the Allmans have some great songs in their portfolio.
I have nowhere else to go. There is no demand in the priesthood for elderly drug addicts
RevMatt wrote:Allman's versus Skynyrd? No reason you can't have both. My opinion? Skynyrd were better songwriters while Allmans were better musicians. But not by a huge margin in either direction. Skynyrd guys could flat out rock and the Allmans have some great songs in their portfolio.
>>>No reason you can't have both.
that said, gun to head, I'm 24/7 ABB
Son, this ain't a dream no more, it's the real thing
whatwouldcooleydo? wrote: so are you sayin' the Brothers ain't good ol' fashioned rock? Seems like there's an awful narrow definition of rock in these parts
shit man I can't say nothing! (in george lopez voice) I thought they transcended rock? Fuck I got a headache.
(I tried some Bass Pale Ale (cuz the indian behind the counter recommended it) horrible shit)
whatwouldcooleydo? wrote: so are you sayin' the Brothers ain't good ol' fashioned rock? Seems like there's an awful narrow definition of rock in these parts
shit man I can't say nothing! (in george lopez voice) I thought they transcended rock? Fuck I got a headache.
(I tried some Bass Pale Ale (cuz the indian behind the counter recommended it) horrible shit)
as the kids say, it's all good! Just talkin' shit between brothers, right?
Bass is pretty weak, but you stepped out, and any day you step out is a good day
Son, this ain't a dream no more, it's the real thing
whatwouldcooleydo? wrote: so are you sayin' the Brothers ain't good ol' fashioned rock? Seems like there's an awful narrow definition of rock in these parts
shit man I can't say nothing! (in george lopez voice) I thought they transcended rock?
talkin' myself, and you, in circles: the way I rolls
Son, this ain't a dream no more, it's the real thing
Son of Swamp wrote:i was watching an "educational film" and it had a piece of music i thought was catchy... So i did some research and found it was a New Order song....
So, i watched a few videos... and i feel very bad about this... but i kinda like them... Hows that for Blasphemy (i also secretly enjoy Tears for fears...)
I'll go delete my account now
j/k
There is nothing wrong with New Order! Power Corruption & Lies and Low-life still rank as some of my favorite albums. And I also liked TFF The Hurting but do not have it anymore.
Looks like a bunch of little whiny fucksticks to me
Nirvana sucked. I'm not sure I know of a "grunge" band I liked less.
The Afghan Whigs may have been the best band of the 90's.
Van Halen got better when Roth exited for Haggar.
Son Volt is superior to Wilco.
Radiohead is boring and puts me to sleep. They might as well be Dishwalla as far as I'm concerned.
I haven't smoked pot in well over ten years, and it's about the same amount of time that I haven't been able to stand the Doors.
I would harp on the Beatles too, but somebody earlier nailed the crux of that argument. The Beatles were a pop band, and were very innovative in that manner. But comparing them to a rock band near that time? The Stones, The Who, Zep, and Black Sabbath? The Beatles sucked as a rock band. (Ok, so I harped on the Beatles anyway, sue me).
And just so I'm not all negative, FWIW, I think THS rocks.
sg207 wrote:The Afghan Whigs may have been the best band of the 90's.
Van Halen got better when Roth exited for Haggar.
Haggar > Roth is a complete mystery to me, i gotta hand it to ya there, sg. Roth is/was not a great singer but he was a great frontman, imo. Haggar was neither.
I'll take Gentlemen as a legit "Exhibit A" for your Afghan Whigs assertion, but what's Exhibit B? I have 2 other albums of theirs, but i just had to look up the names and never listen to either. I'll try to listen to those 2 soon (listening to gentlemen now) in light of your comment, but still, it doesn't seem to be an immediately obvious conclusion.
All opinions and commentary in my posts are solely my own and are made in my personal capacity.
sg207 wrote:The Afghan Whigs may have been the best band of the 90's.
Van Halen got better when Roth exited for Haggar.
Haggar > Roth is a complete mystery to me, i gotta hand it to ya there, sg. Roth is/was not a great singer but he was a great frontman, imo. Haggar was neither.
I'll take Gentlemen as a legit "Exhibit A" for your Afghan Whigs assertion, but what's Exhibit B? I have 2 other albums of theirs, but i just had to look up the names and never listen to either. I'll try to listen to those 2 soon (listening to gentlemen now) in light of your comment, but still, it doesn't seem to be an immediately obvious conclusion.
Gator McKlusky wrote:True blasphemy SG! Sammy Hagar sucks--plain and simple. There should be no argument there. Bland and boring is what Van Hagar was.
Aha! It all becomes clear, sg. The band's from Cincinnati!!!
Listening to 1965 right now, and dang, i gotta say, half way thru it's every bit as good as Gentlemen, in some ways even more enjoyable (i'm a sucker for horns/r&b arrangements). I didn't remember it that way at all - at a minimum, thanks for unearthing this one for me!!
All opinions and commentary in my posts are solely my own and are made in my personal capacity.
Gator McKlusky wrote:True blasphemy SG! Sammy Hagar sucks--plain and simple. There should be no argument there. Bland and boring is what Van Hagar was.
agree 100%, he's lowest common denominator stuff
Son, this ain't a dream no more, it's the real thing
Son of Swamp wrote:never really cared for much of Eric Clapton...
He has pretty much sucked since 1975. Before that though he was something.
I'll give him until 1982, no more.
That's funny considering that's the year SoS was born. As far as the Beatles go, I ain't as touchy as I was In high school. I once kicked a naked hot chick outta my van for dis'in the Beatles. Yeah, I'm a little late to this thread. I'm only to the 3rd page. I did buy potato hole cause of the Truckers but I really dig it.
and that pussy Alec Baldwin blew that girl away, and speaking of pussy Steve got it all!
Sammy Hagar sucks--plain and simple. There should be no argument there. Bland and boring is what Van Hagar was.
