Most overrated band?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=40385
Printed Date: November 27 2024 at 14:51
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Most overrated band?
Posted By: activetopics
Subject: Most overrated band?
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 22:19
| Red hot chili peppers and probably Metallica are my two top choices. |
Replies:
Posted By: moreitsythanyou
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 22:24
|
Really, I couldn't agree more. I'd put Nirvana and Aerosmith up there too. All four have dwelled in mediocrity throughout their careers and became very celebrated for it. I don't get it. -------------  <font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 22:26
here we go again 
dude... ever heard of the search function? We must have had this discussion at least 10 times this month alone. (OK, I exaggerate, but not by much).
|
Posted By: moreitsythanyou
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 22:27
Be easy on him, he's new  ------------- <font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR] |
Posted By: activetopics
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 22:30
| yea i'm new lol just testin' to see the time it took to get some replies....kinda figured this was heavily discussed. |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 22:36
My bad... I didn't notice you were a newbie and I should have. My apologies. Welcome to the Archives! We're not a bad lot really, I promise!
|
activetopics wrote:Posted By: Turion
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 22:36
|
I would have to say Genesis for me! And metallica IS kinda overrated, but those four first albums of them are pure genius and MUST be worshipped as so. ------------- ?: ( |
Posted By: activetopics
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 22:37
| yes, let me rephrase; modern metallica is overrated. |
Posted By: aspinosa
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 22:38
| Rush and Jethro Tull is a bit overrated in this site. |
Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 00:38
| Everyone. |
Posted By: ProgBagel
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 00:41
|
I think the Red Hot Chili Peppers is the biggest piece of garbage ever created. I slowly watched as the schools big shot raved about them and one by one everyone slowly converted. It seemed like people just liked them to fit in.
Oh and try this on a Chili Pepper fan, happens everytime. 'Hey' 'Hey' 'The Red Hot Chili Peppers suck' 'No!! Flea is like the best bassist' ..I don't even consider him decent.. |
Posted By: kazansky
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 00:46
|
*insert a famous-band-you-dislike's name here*
dude...  ------------- The devil we blame our atrocities on is really just each one of us. |
Posted By: proggy
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 00:52
| Gentle Giant |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 01:05
|
Threads about overrated bands are overrated. ------------- 
|
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 01:56
|
yeah i'd go for Metallica but there fans would never want to except that and in 5 years to come i'll say artic monkeys ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 02:15
|
All the mentioned bands actually released some great albums ... for example Blood Sugar Sex Magik is one of my favorite non-prog albums, Aerosmith - Pump is great too, as are the already mentioned early Metallica albums.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 02:18
|
"overrated" is an offensive and elitist term implying that your opinion (and thus pinning everything down to personal taste) is superior to the many who think highly of a particular subject. So here we have a thread aiming to prove 'my taste is superior to yours' ....'nuh uh mine is better'. I just hope intelligent conversation is "overrated"
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 02:26
Good, glad to see we're all on the same page. Now...Yes. ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 02:27
|
^^ actually the word "overrated" is a contradiction in terms, since the ratings speak for themselves. Unless there is a flaw in the calculation of the average rating the albums are always neither "underrated" nor "overrated". So what people usually mean by it is that in their not at all humble opinion many of the people which rated the album were wrong. I think it's ok ... we can't all agree on everything. But the more ratings an album has and the longer it has been in the database, the more likely it is that those who claim that it's over/underrated are wrong ... they might simply have unusual tastes/opinions or different criteria for rating music.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 02:39
|
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 02:45
|
KENNY G!!! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm 
|
Posted By: martinprog77
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 03:20
|
the rolling stones ------------- Nothing can last there are no second chances. Never give a day away. Always live for today. |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 08:06
An intelligent observation, Mike, but you left something out or overlooked it. It is also important WHO does the rating. Would anyone who is no expert on ice-skating be in an ice-skating jury? Would anyone who is not an expert physicist be let into the jury for the Nobel Prize of physics? Yet the majority of prog rock listeners are no experts on musical theory, including me (Jean by the way knows a lot about it). So perhaps we do overrate some artists. -------------  BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: dwill123
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 08:26
| Rush |
Posted By: Bastille Dude
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 11:09
|
I could list a trillion bands I don't like, does that make their popularity overrated? And if so, what does it matter? Lame topic. ------------- DEATH TO FALSE PROG! |
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 11:35
However, I wonder if the aim of rock music (and related styles) is to reach audiences that aren't necessarily experts within music...thus to be an afficianado of rock, one must only find enjoyment in the art, and possibly have some listening experience (therefor, one's listening experience would qualify at least as much as one's knowledge of musical theory). I'm not sure if physics is an accurate comparison to rock music, as it is a purposely simplified branch of art to appeal to a wider range; so it's all just apples and oranges.
I do think many people could benefit from taking heed of you statement, as I don't think rating and writing reviews are skills to be abused by any means. I believe one should exercise good judgement and make an honest attempt at objectivity (if that's even possible). For example, I refrain from reviewing much of the space rock/kraut movement because I haven't had time to fully explore the music, thus it would be rather self-indulgent and dis-honest to dole out a bunch of 2-star reviews (or even 5-star for that manner).
Cheers
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 14:21
I used to think just like this, but now I think differently. Let's remember that music is an art and not an exact science (though it has elements of science, that's why not everybody can create or perform it, and that's why there have been music-erudits and just music-afficionados).... I think an expert in music theory can be conclusive as to how complicated or how revolutionary a piece of music can be, but not how "good" it can be, for even if that person knows everything about music theory, he doesn't hold the absolute truth in regars to how each heart and mind will react to a piece of music. If thta WAS the case, it would be so boring: it would mean that, eventually, if we all study music, we would all end up liking the same music! Not even with the highest authorities in music theory (usually orchestra directors) there is consensus: some like BAch, some like Beethoven, Mozart, some even prefer more "obscure" masters like Ives, Webern, etc....
If a physicist does ONE thing wrong in his studies, his whole theories will fall to the ground and be easily disproved... hence the need of actual masters of physics to judge a SCIENCE.... Only expert jurors may know what the hell a jump is called or how a particular move is done in ice-skating. That sport is performed mostly for two things: the enjoyment of the athlete and for the judging of experts.... There's no "feelings" or "subjective reactions" that can be eliccit by ice-skating.. There are no subjective feeling towards a physics theory...
Let the scientists judge science... let the sport-experts judge sports... let the heart and the mind judge art.... I'm sure most artists would DIE before saying that judges, WHO USUALLY CAN CRITIC EVERYTHING BUT CAN'T CREATE A SINGLE NOTE OR PAINT A SINGLE LINE, hold the absolute truth. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 19:00
 |
Posted By: Zargus
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 19:00
the so called big 7 progbands. There are many smaller bands and artist that deserves yust as much atention and talk as this ones get all the time.  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: July 30 2007 at 19:05
|
arm bands are obviously the most overrated of all bands, what do we need bands on our arms for, they dont do anything, even head bands are better because they keeps sweat off the brow ------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: reality
Date Posted: July 31 2007 at 15:50
Actually Ice skating like all performance sports is very subjective and relys on so called "expert" opinions from judges who are trained to recognize elements that have been pre-established as good. Music through hundreds of years of experiment (and intense psychological and pre-psychological study) have established rules of how the mind reacts when it relates to sound. These studys are pretty accurate and exact (just ask 20th century composers when they decided not to end on the tonic note - what a disaster!) It is these set of rules which determine what is "good" and what is not so good in music (but do not worry the realm within these rules is so diverse that the well of inspiration is unlikely to run dry). What you like in music though can be from a different source than what the rules dictate your suppose to like. Your brain is a comparative machine, it can link two seemingly different objects or activitys with one emotional bind. This is why someone in 2007 can still listen to a Flock of Seagulls song, even if it is not their current taste. The brain links that song with the same emotional response that they had while hanging out with their friends in the eightys. But this linking goes further than just "nostalgia", it is used in are everyday life. You can convince yourself to like almost anything, as long as the object is tied to a desired emotional response. That desired response might be the elation that comes with listening to "complex" music that others do not get, or "weird" music that turns the mainstream off. It also may be what is associated with the music culture that creates the emotional link. Most musical movements are about much more than music. Here are three quik examples. 1 Classical era - had an obsession with formalism and order not only in music but in politics, art, literature, language, economics, education and every other value in society. emotional links could have been started in any one of these venues and applied to music. 2 Romanticism - Highly emotional evocative music with sweeping instability and change - not only in music but in politics, art, literature, language, economics, education and every other value in society. Have you ever noticed that most national anthems are written in a romantic style? This was because "nationalism" was a huge part of the romantic culture. People were being grouped into ethnic "nationality's" and historys were being written all with an emotional fervor and pride of where one came from, hence emotional music. New political ideas and a drawing away from conservatism to liberal thought, hence sweeping instability and change in the music. 3 Late 60's - early 70's - rebellion, experimentation, technology, freedom, selfishness, indulgence, hope and hopelessness. All these things were a wellspring for music to draw on and be tied too. Why does someone salivate (yes a Pavlov's dog allusion - not to be taken literally) when they hear the muddy production of an early Genesis record? The reason is the emotional link: bad production of a Genesis record = emotional satisfaction from the aforementioned list of attributes of said culture. The point is something that could be considered 'undesirable" (bad production) is a likable thing because it linked and even fronted by a desirable emotional response. Bottom line is we may like music for reasons beyond music theory and even beyond music itself. These external factors is what turns the objective "good or bad" into the subjective "like or dislike". There may be simple or complex reasons why you like or dislike (beyond music theory) ranging from the lead singer was a jerk to you at a concert (or he was really nice to you) to nostalgia (direct or indirect) to cultural or societal inclusion (before you say anything this website and the internet itself is a subset of society at whole, so a cultural or societal inclusion can be a natural acceptance of music to receive acceptance or emotional inclusion through shared experience of peers. This does not apply to all but is pretty common usually in the negative - dislike something - way). So music theory is the internal linking of how your brain works to certain sounds, it is broad and diverse yet follows specific rules and is discernible and objective to what works (good) and what does not work (bad) - it is kind of like nature. External linking (like nurture and very subjective) can fill in the gaps with music that comparable does not work within music theory's application of what is good, and create positive brain functions (which means you like it) from external sources. What is more satisfying? Well first of all the two are usually always present together although at different levels. It can depend on how open or cluttered your mind is or if you have an emotional agenda to tend to or not and at what level does that threaten objectivity. Internal is usually very deep and can address meaning and basic foundations of your humanity. It can include joy, love, beauty, empathy, altruism and fun or on the other hand it can include loss, sadness, hatred, fear and many other things. It is considered good because it changes you whether you desire it or not. External (for this discussion why we like or dislike music based on outside prejudice ) can be based on a deep imported linking but is usually superficial as it comes from the outside. This again does not come from the music itself but comes from an external emotional link that has been imported into your memory and is opened and served for a purpose other than the music listening experience (it has its own agenda). This is just a correlation job for the brain is not a hardwired perspective changing event, it is actually quick and shallow. This is what it means when people say music is "universal" rather than the limited "genre music". Beethoven's 5th is considered "universal", while your brain can use external linking and probably will, the piece does not need it as it tugs deeply (through the use of music theory) at the human soul and speaks directly to the hardwired center of your brain. Music theory though is just theory and not law. Who knows how much more we can add from studying music's connection with who we are and how we were made.It is the best judge we have to determine what is good music and bad. If it is good we generally like it unless there is external prejudice, or if it is bad we generally do not like it unless there is external prejudice. It can make an average song into an amazing one, a lame sickly song into something moving, or a dud into a hit. Music theory is the direct connection between music and you, external linking is used for hundreds of different tasks and is not always appropriate, it is also just one explanation why someone would like something musically bad and how outside prejudice can affect our objectivity and rob us from enjoying the purity of music designed directly with the inner workings of are being. |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: July 31 2007 at 16:42
Who overrates him? You're parents? Some housewifes? Some highly praised (not neseccerely here) bands/artists that annoys, or just bores the hell out of me: The Flaming Lips, Neil Young, Van Morrison, Joseph Haydn and The Ramones (they are more praised than any progband everywhere else). ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: July 31 2007 at 16:50
very good post Reality... Though I don't agree 100% with it (it makes too much of a PAvlov Dog out of any music fan) but it's a very interesting opinion...-------------
|
Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: July 31 2007 at 23:10
------------- 
|
Posted By: Gog/Magog
Date Posted: August 01 2007 at 08:18
|
The Beatles -------------  |
Posted By: reality
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 12:15
Jealous? The Beatles have constructed more definable masterpieces (objectively speaking - read my post) than anyone else on this site. You take the categorys such as tone, pacing, note placement, instrument and vocal arrangements, lyrical integration and lyrical depth etc, The Beatles fulfill these requirements nearly perfect (not on all songs) but a large number of them, while being communicative enough to lead along the mainstream. The quality of their music has never been appropriately questioned, only badmouthed in recent years by a small minority of uninformed people put off by their well deserved popularity. My point is not until recent years when opinion(without base) has overrun fact as the measure of truth, the Beatles "quality" was rarely questioned and always put down when the facts were laid out. Research how Robert Fripp talks about them or how Phil Collins raves about Ringo's unorthodox style of drumming. They are on more critics top ten lists, musicians influence list (from Prog to Rap), fan polls (compiled consistently for over forty years) and top sales lists, than any other artist/band in history. Almost every respected songwriters guild has objectively chosen a Beatles song as "best pop/rock song ever written". These song writers guilds are comprised of the best/most effective songwriters of the past half century. I could go on and on just laying out the facts of why they were (are) so great. I could write volumes diagramming songs and pointing out examples of flawless structure complete with reference to commendation by various learned musical experts. So vast are the allusions in the song "A Day in the Life" that I could use it for my doctorate thesis in comparative lit. Beatles scholarship is so abundant in the PH.D field that it deems it unnecessary for me to write it out when so many others have put it on the web already. The most astonishing testament to the Beatles quality of music is its relevance and endurance. In fifty years (if the world lasts that long) nobody will have ever heard of Gentle Giant or ELP (much like most of the world now) but The Beatles songs and name will still be entrenched in popular conscience, both as relevant as the day they were created. The reason for this is twofold: 1.as the twentieth century gets smaller and more condescend with the passage of time the historical record has been singling out The Beatles as its representative. 2. The regeneration of Beatles fans from all walks of life and station all over the world is unparalleled, consistent for forty years and not based on trend or fad. If you are of that small minority (which you are welcome to be - we will like you either way) do you have any facts that prove objectively that The Beatles are overrated? Or is it just that you do not personally like them? Welcome your thoughts! |
Posted By: SoundsofSeasons
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 21:28
If they are they would still be extremely highly regarded at minimum. Were talking about 2 of the top 10 prog bands of all time. ------------- 1 Chronicles 13:7-9 Then David and all Israel played music before God with all their might, with singing, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on cymbals, and with trumpets. |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 23:57
|
Easily: Eagles Billy Joel Coldplay James Taylor Paul Simon |
Posted By: meinmatrix
Date Posted: August 03 2007 at 03:20
Metallica. If it was today, i would probably buy only 1-2 albums from them. The songs are so much "the same old" from every release they put out. Kinda sad really.  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: August 03 2007 at 09:45
An unexpected but very intelligent reply! |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: August 03 2007 at 09:52
Stupid, negative, woefully OVERDONE topic.
WTF is "overrated?"  Get over it, grow up, and accept the fact that with music, it's all a matter of personal taste. Why condemn the tastes of many others, just because they differ from yours?  ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: August 03 2007 at 11:49
 the topic starter is a friend of mine, he's just trying to get a rise out of people...you'll notice he made the "overrated movies" thread as well-------------
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: August 03 2007 at 13:30
I see -- I've been away, and wasn't "in" on the joke.
 The "O" word itself bugs me (as you can tell). It's flung about far too frequently here, as your friend knows. Well, he got a "rise" out of me, at least! ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: August 03 2007 at 13:37
|
equivocating about personal taste on a forum that doesn't exist for any other reason is almost as overrated as deep purple
------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: August 03 2007 at 13:45
 Well, I've always thought the forum's primary purpose was to discuss & promote progressive rock -- not to smugly condemn the tastes of others (which the "overrated" word does, by definition).I like much classic Purple, BTW, but have never "rated" them for anyone. ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: August 03 2007 at 14:05
my friends and I have a running joke with "overrated"-------------
|
Posted By: reality
Date Posted: August 03 2007 at 14:28
I think a serious discussion on the merits of music does not have involve taste at all. I do not care for Gentile Giant but I can appreciate their music and the talent involved. I think we can have a generally objective discussion if we set the right parameters. Tone down the biased opinions and back up your statements with facts, do some research and share your findings. In the world humans know almost nothing, but we setup standards or benchmarks based on agreed knowledge to create structure, order and fact. Music has the same benchmarks based on years of experimentation and psychological study (see my previous post). These studies have determined what music works with the brain (what it likes) or what does not work (what it does not like) and at what levels does the brain react to either. This application of music theory is very broad and diverse but is strictly put into these two camps. There are certain musical combinations that universally light up the brain and send it surging with activity, while other combinations of sounds slow it down or can even do damage by inducing the brain to release negative chemicals. These functions which are our deepest root to music can be offset by outside prejudices (again see my first post one page back). The point is (without getting into the whole thing again) that there are certain criteria we can use to evaluate music (good or bad) without resorting to taste. This is especially true since we all have at least a base of shared musical trust. An example is the band Nickleback. It does not matter if you love them or hate them (which being on a Progressive rock website there might be a general consensuses) "I think they sound like a product rather than trying to be original". The reason I say this? "Their songs tend to be the same tempo with the same pre-established hooks and their vocals seem to follow the trend of other mainstream bands. I personally can not tell one song from another and do not get much brain stimulation when I listen to them. With this mainstream approach they have received nine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_Awards - Juno Awards and were nominated for two more in 2007". If good music is defined in applied music theory as intellectual or cognitive stimulation than Nickleback with their generic and safe sound are not musically effective. But than again some people do not want a deep enriching musical experience than Nickleback is your average Canadian product band at work. Product bands are designed to work in the superficial areas of your brain, always hanging out in the midterm memory but never strong enough to make it into the longterm memory. This allows the record company to sell you songs with a similar theme as the structure of the previous offering dissolves before it gets emotional ingrained in your memory. They use extreme outside prejudice (as in advertisements, promotions etc) to convince that quick thinking part of the brain to like what it hears. Reasonings for being overrated (like them or not) 1. In twenty years, despite selling 25 million records will Nickleback even be remembered? 2. If the sales culture and extreme outside prejudice was not around and the mass audience had been pre-exposed to more original music, would Nickleback still be popular? 3. Do they hold up in pre established musical categories (such as tone, pacing, instrumental and vocal arrangement, lyrical integration, lyrical depth, verity of sounds, technique, originality, authenticity, appropriate creativity, communicative beyond the basic interpretive level) as much as the masters do? 4. can they be easily replaced? These are four basic parameters that someone can objectively reason if something is overrated (the term perhaps meaning something given much more success or praise than it should by an examination of facts or an analyzation of a recognized comparable or historical example). Each band can be weighed on their own and have different circumstances that may change the questions. |
Posted By: SolariS
Date Posted: August 04 2007 at 12:05
posts about overrated threads are overrated.
-------------  
|
Posted By: Leningrad
Date Posted: August 04 2007 at 12:21
You're overrated.
But so am I.
 |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 04 2007 at 18:10
post regarding posts regarding threads regarding overrated threads, bands or anything, well, they're actually underrated.
-------------
|
Posted By: purplepiper
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 00:17
|
led zeppelin. way too overated! They're alright, but come on! we have people these days that wear led zeppelin t-shirts and don't even know who they are!!! absurdity! ------------- for those about to prog, we salute you. |
Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 00:28
self acknowledging posts are overrated -------------
|
Posted By: fungusucantkill
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 15:00
|
Music is overrated. and i vote on it time and time again. -------------  
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 22:59
Posts about self acknowledging posts are even more overrated -------------
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: September 26 2007 at 22:13
|
pink floyd and pnk floyd and pink floyd and led zep |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: September 27 2007 at 23:17
| RUSH |
Posted By: bluetailfly
Date Posted: September 27 2007 at 23:23
I see Rush as over-berated. ------------- "The red polygon's only desire / is to get to the blue triangle." |
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: September 27 2007 at 23:26
I dont like Rush nearly as much anymore, certainly influential though.
but... I do find Alex Lifeson extremely overated. ------------- 
|
Posted By: bluetailfly
Date Posted: September 27 2007 at 23:29
Well, he's better than Magma's guitarist, IF they have one... ------------- "The red polygon's only desire / is to get to the blue triangle." |
Posted By: Nanook
Date Posted: September 29 2007 at 21:53
|
"Jethro Tull is a bit overrated in this site."
Gasp! Blasphemy!! Just kidding, although I love their work. I'd have to say U2 or REM since we're in Non-Prog Music. How about Springsteen? Grunting his way through another disc from what I hear lately. In prog, probably Rush. Something about his voice is like nails on a blackboard. Good musicianship, though, on all of their parts. Neil Young's voice gets to me after a while, too. I haven't listened to any of that Zuehl stuff, or postrock, so I can't draw any comparisons. ------------- Bring me my broadsword, and clear understanding. |