Originally posted by Tempe Brennan
This album was mentioned after someone quoted my post - obviously I was going to assume the person directed their comments at me
It was directed at you saying that people say Kylie's offering was the best of 2007. Bardock replied by saying that In Rainbows by Radiohead, Neon Bible by Arcade Fire and Icky Thump by The White Stripes were all released in 2007, the same year as Kylie's album. You then misunderstood the point of his post, twice.
I got a lot of respect for Silverchair. They were like 14 when Frogstomp came out. I'm not a great fan of their last album but I'll appreciate it as there is no boundaries to it. It's experimental beyond belief.
However, Nickleback can cock off!
Anything released by charity shops bands like Franz Ferdinand, Kaiser Chiefs, Arctic Monkeys!
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I think that album is brilliant, but that's me.-AC
I agree. I think Era Vulgaris was a great step foward for QOTSA. It along with Fear of a Blank Planet by Porcupine tree, Neon Bible by Arcade fire, Snakes and Arrows by Rush, Zeitgeist by Smashing Pumpkins, Anonymous by Tomahawk, Doomsday Afternoon by Phideaux, Icky Thump by The White Stripes and In Rainbows by Radiohead made 2007 one hell of a year for music!
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Anything by The Beatles, Machine Head, U2, Coldplay or Pink Floyd.Baring in mind, this is for overrated albums, not albums you just don't understand and therefore consider overrated.
-AC
But how do you know if people "understand" an album? By that logic, you must "understand" all Beatles, Machine Head, U2, Coldplay or Pink Floyd made.
Dosn't that strike you as a little... i dunno, bold a claim?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Because it's obvious when there's something more to a band than just writing a catchy song.-AC
I understand that, but it wasn't really what I was asking.
I'm still not sure how you judge whether or not someone "understands" and album. Every person takes something different from a song/album, whether its what the artist intended or not, so how do you differentiate between someone who "understands" and someone who doesn't? Isn't it all down to the individual interpretation?
Originally posted by tabby999
I understand that, but it wasn't really what I was asking.I'm still not sure how you judge whether or not someone "understands" and album. Every person takes something different from a song/album, whether its what the artist intended or not, so how do you differentiate between someone who "understands" and someone who doesn't? Isn't it all down to the individual interpretation?
It's not about what they get out of it, really.
It's just the way certain people express opinions on certain bands. People saying bands like Radiohead, Tool and Fantomas are just bands with nothing there to "get", are people who do not understand those bands.
-AC
But just because a band has a message (or like Radiohead, Tool and Fantomas, many messages) doesn't mean people have to like it, yeah?
As we both know (and have argued about many times) I'm no Tool fan. I understand that they do have intelligent messages through their music, but it doesn't mean I "have" to like them. If the sound a band makes doesn't engage the listener, they're not going to find the messages because they don't want to listen to the band repeatedly to find them.
Does that make sense?
For the record; I don't think you were attacking me, Tabby.
Originally posted by tabby999
But just because a band has a message (or like Radiohead, Tool and Fantomas, many messages) doesn't mean people have to like it, yeah?
A) Of course not.
B) It's not necessarily messages.
You can't have a conversation with a stupid person about the nature and concept of infinity, and the same applies to music. You can't expect certain people to grasp what bands are doing, and they don't HAVE to in order to enjoy it, but the fact is they still may not totally grasp it. There's such a thing as musical intelligence.
Originally posted by tabby999
As we both know (and have argued about many times) I'm no Tool fan. I understand that they do have intelligent messages through their music, but it doesn't mean I "have" to like them. If the sound a band makes doesn't engage the listener, they're not going to find the messages because they don't want to listen to the band repeatedly to find them.Does that make sense?
I believe in all seriousness that it's better to get what you want out of music, not what someone else says, but that's why it's NOT about messages, it's just...that intangible I suppose. I'll admit it's hard to prove really, but the best analogy I can give is what I said before.
People can find space and time amazing, but not have what it takes to have an in-depth discussion or understanding of it. The same applies to music.
-AC