bands you don't like but know you should

 ^ there is something missing, typical rock aggression..  I like it











Edited by Atavachron - February 23 2008 at 20:20

Perhaps what I really enjoy when they're with Collins although being popy I think I can pay more attention.

laplace wrote: Well, I don't like *much* of Genesis' work either (and I one-starred "Lamb" because I'm mean when I'm angry) but I thought Harold the Barrel was a good example of a song that stayed too quick to become pastoral and muzak-ish. Besides, don't you like ELP's goofy moments? ;)

I love those moments... but in contrast to the HEAVY aggressive moments like Tarkus... or Trilogy.. or Toccata (love the T's hahha)  It that it works perfectly.. which is exactly what  ELP was trying to do and what many people refuse to see.. it was about dynamic contrasts.. not filler ...or an urge to merely be clever or goofy.. but and extenstion of the notions of the days of vinyl when albums were meant to be taken as a whole. Those contrasts made tracks like the 3 T's there.. all the more powerful... much more so than further attempts to bludgeon the listener.  Take Balletto di Bronzo's YS.. what.. 30 odd minutes of non-stop beatting over the head...  could ELP have done that. .sure.. but the albums simply wouldn't have been as good.  Anyway.. just mentally masterbating.

laplace wrote: You can't glean any enjoyment from Harold the Barrel? =)

no.. tried it.. very hit and miss...  I like some specific songs....  and one album as a whole.. but some of the reviews I've read here.. I listen to albums and think to myself...  hundreds (seemingly hahha) of prog fans can't be wrong.. so it's got to be me I guess.   I posted here..  but I wouldn't say I dislike Genesis..  they just aren't my style.   Who was it.. Ryan noted in RPI the divide between the harder more aggressive groups and the more subtle .. light if you will ...prog groups.  Never took those groups either.  It is more a stylistic thing I guess. .and Genesis is just the poster boy for that style of prog.  Just not my thing I guess..

for me..  Genesis ..Genesis.. and Genesis again

they are good no doubt at what they do... elevator prog.... but I'll be damned.. they simply put me to sleep.

Seeing as how my tastes are often all over the place, I find it hard to think of something 'specific' that I should like, but actually don't.

In any case, one such artist is probably Kevin Ayers - despite being an avid Canterbury fan, the alleged brilliance of this man has so far managed to elude me. His music is not bad by any means, just not particularly fascinating either.

Also, I love Magma, but I find Koenjihyakkei mostly irritating (might be the keyboards). Should give them another try one day though.

Hercules wrote: Lofcaudio wrote: laplace wrote: Are there any bands that you *need* to like, but which constantly elude you?   Van Der Graaf Generator   I own Godbluff and Pawn Hearts and have listened to them both numerous times, yet fail to be satisfied with what I am hearing.  Hammill comes across as a histrionic vocalist who takes pleasure in dissonance.  I continue to be completely baffled by those of you extol the virtues of A Plague of Lighthouse Keepers and consider it to be one of the very best epics, when all I hear is a bunch of stilted sounds smashed together with lyrics that border on gibberish.  What am I missing here? Nothing. You've summed up exactly what I feel about them too. Hamill is the problem; shame, cos Hugh Banton is great.

Hammill is a case of love or hate. I hated his voice at first at first (the first album I heard of VdGG was "Godbluff"), but loved the rest, so I endured the voice. and suddenly it all made "click" for me, and I realized that the way Hammill sings is the ONLY way for this kind of lyrics with this kind of music, and now I simply love his voice and am amazed of what he does with it and how he expresses feelings with it. yes, he sometimes shouts, croaks, shrieks and whatever one can do with a voice, and it does not sound "nice", but then the things he sings about aren't nice either, and he perfectly displays all the states of the soul with his voice. these states are very often negative states, but how wrong it would be to express these negatives states with a so-called "beautiful" voice. realize that, and all will fall into place, and you will begin to love Hammill. if you don't grasp that concept, you don't have a chance with him.
to see what he can do with his voice in a "beautiful" way just listen to "House With No Door" from "H to He", which is just a sad song, and he neither shrieks nor does any of the other things people hate about him in that song. you will realize what a fantastic voice he has then



Edited by BaldJean - February 23 2008 at 16:15

I really can't get King Crimson. Everybody seem to like them and everybody (ok, almost) seem to consider Court of the Crimson King a milestone record but i can't find enything interesting in their music. First of all i can't stand Fripp's guitar tone and everything sound so cold and experimental. Also, i can't understand what a song like 'i talk to the wind' has to do in an album like In the Court of the Crimson King.

To think that you shuld like something because of your musical taste is to think that your musical taste is something that won't change or respond to very
defined paterns. For example: "I'll like anything that sounds like Jethro Tull", "I like a band from Italy, so I'll like all bands from Italy"; "I like moog, I'll like anything 
that has a moog on it". This is not considering some elements, like, for example, your reaction to the same 
stimuli, wich will decrease it's intensity after an eternity of exposure. Once a rock flute; cool. 
A hundreed rock flutes, boring. 

Edited by cuncuna - February 22 2008 at 18:41

Precision is a good thing.