1) Ramones
2) '60s to early '70s Rolling Stones
3) Captain Beefheart
4) Everything that Pitchfork champions



Post Edited (08-01-08 16:14)

Ramones -- OK, that is reasonable.

'60s to early '70s Rolling Stones: Sorry, you dont like rock and roll very much. It is one of the more exciting of popular music.

Captain Beefheart: I think you would be in the vast majority on this one. Are you also against kicking puppies?

Everything that Pitchfork champions: Well, thats a pretty broad brush but I understand the sentiment. I generally enjoy records that Pitchfork rates 7.0 - 8. 0 much more than the dreck they champion at 8.0 or higher (Animal Collective, Panda Pitch, El Gucincho etc.) but this is just a rule of thumb.

The Jam: I do not believe it is possible to genuinely love (or strongly dislike) this bands music. The voice is too flat, the guitar tone is too clean, the lyrics are too uninspiring, the tempos are so average, the "anger" and "passion" are so theoretical. And yet, they are perfectly listenable. Sigh...

Elvis Costello: My ambivalence has been documented in previous threads.

Richard Thompson

Graham Parker (Squeezing Out Sparks exempted)

Boring white songwriter types 1975-1982. I guess you just get tired of being told certain people rock who dont rock.



Post Edited (08-01-08 17:40)

Hey erick, I'm with you on 2 & 4, but I love the Ramones like Life Itself.

Guess I'm one of the few Beefheart fans here. Took me awhile, but I love alot of his stuff. I deffo. agree with most of the above (tho I likes more SY then just "Daydream Nation", and love plenty o' reggae, mostly dub and ska.)

"Most critically acclaimed indie rock leaves me cold, frankly" - maybe because...it doesn't rock? One would think that to be a "rock" band, the ability to rock should be a minimum requirement. The Coldplay, Radiohead, Arcade Fire etc bands don't exactly strike me as stuff to crank up on a Sat. night and make a teenager jump around like a silly person, they way me and my friends used to do to the Clash, Black Flag, Devo, B52s, or the way previous generations could thrash themselves silly to Little Richard, The Who, Led Zep, etc.

No, my fave current rockers are hidden deep in the recesses of the underground...just like during the '80s...

Mr. Fab:

I do like the Beefheart album "Safe as Milk," but that's kind of an early and "safe" album for him--and not indicative.

I have seen Spoon held up as a paragon of mediocrity quite a few times. Not sure I undertand this. Kill The Moonlight is awesome, awesome, awesome.

Geez, two consecutive non-fans of Beggars through Exile. hmm......

That's my favorite era of the Stones.

I actually dig the single from Spoon's latest album - it's the kind of radio song that's irrestitble. And being in Austin, I've watched Britt work his tail off in several bands to get where he is today; I've got nothing but respect for him. But the music leaves me cold. Heresy in this town, along with my utter revulsion for all things Jerry Jeff Walker.

By "meh," I assume you mean the music doesn't really move you one way or the other, i.e., you don't violently despise it, either.

If that's the case, I don't get how you can be "meh" about the Ramones - they seem like a love-it-or-hate-it kinda band. But whatever. Some things hit you and some don't.

For me the "meh" category also includes artists whose worth I recognize in an analytical, clinical fashion, but whose music I've no desire to actually listen to. For me that list would include:

Captain Beefheart (I get why he's innovative and important, but I don't keep any of his music in my library)
Radiohead (except for OK Computer and In Rainbows)
Spoon
Bruce Springsteen
Rilo Kiley
Arcade Fire
most of the neo-New Wave crew of the last few years (Franz Ferdinand, Bloc Party, the Killers, etc.)
Common
Sonic Youth (except for Daydream Nation)
reggae

I don't out-and-out hate any of this stuff, and much of it I respect or appreciate from a detached perspective, but none of it hits me in the heart.

I like some of the stuff Pitchfork champions a lot (My Morning Jacket, Iron & Wine, Boris), but for the most part I agree with you. Most critically acclaimed indie rock leaves me cold, frankly.

That's exactly what I mean by "meh"--and the Ramones really DO fit that for me. They have that brill-building, teenager-y melodic bent to their tunes, which is certainly likable, but the whole package, for me...meh.

> Radiohead (except for...


The Bends

Radiohead (all of it. absolutely. period.)
Coldplay (ditto)

Frankly (and oddly enough) I agree with most of the above suggestions - down with Springsteen, Arcade Fire, Beefheart - sorry to say, but aside from Bongo Fury with Zappa, his were concept albums with no music IMO, same for The Residents. I did enjoy Spoon's Series of Sneaks, but it might have been the drugs I was on at the moment.

SY I do truly enjoy almost entirely (SY# releases excluded) which I understand is at odd with what I'm about to say about NYC bands. Television, Velvet Underground and much of the NY self-aggrandizing scene through the No Age era could never manage a complete album of worthy material - I mean, as much as everyone loved Lydia Lunch for getting her tits out, when you really get down to it, much better seen than heard - caveat* I do love Honeymoon in Red but clearly a Birthday Party album party that she crashed. Oh yeah, Robert Wyatt gives me gas. Dylan as well - sorry but poetry I would rather read than hear from the likes of either of them. Add The Streets (I'm so glad their 15 min. seem to be up - wankers), Nirvana (really, who can still listen to them today? - Mudhoney, CopShootCop or even TAD were all doing it better than Nirvana back then), etc, etc, etc.

The only thing I really EVER liked by Elvis Costello is a demo version of "Watching the Detectives" from a NME cassette back when - he's the type I always feel like punching in the face even before you add the insipid thick framed glasses - which somehow I forgave on Morrissey, yes I did like the Smiths in general.

I could never (under)stand Pitchfork when it started, but clearly that was a significant generation gap thing, my general superior tastes versus those of more generic consumeristic shitheads at least 10 years my junior - and it was somehow clear that it would turn into the juggernaut it is today - most people are retarded. But I guess when it comes to it, I'm right in there for wasting so much of my life collecting pop-culture moments and finding them meaningul.

Now the topic is ententially snarky, so I'm just playing along - I love music, have about 10K albums and hear 100-150 new slabs/month. None of that could have been possible without TP back in the day and MP3's these days. TP was a lot slower to expand my musical tastes, but definitely more thorough. =)

Oh and please throw Amy Winehouse on my pyre.

Cheers,

.M

I'm on record as being mystified as to how anyone could give a damn one way or another about anything Stephen Malkmus has recorded post-Slanted and Enchanted.

Several years back there was a brief furor over the band Wheat, who just always sounded pleasantly average to me. Nothing at all wrong with them, but I didn't see why critics were singing their praises.

I'm completely indifferent to the freak folk movement, other than the occasional CocoRosie song (although I have no idea how they have ever been attached to folk music of any kind) and Joanna Newsom's first album, which I liked, and her second, which I loathed - so of course it went on to garner all sorts of head-scratching praise.

Have never quite gotten the fuss over Slint or Chavez. Have given up trying with Slint, while I keep intending to double back on Chavez and see if I can figure out the appeal.

I have no idea what the fuss about Carlos Santana ever was. I guess he's a gifted guitarist, but he's never been involved with a single song I wanted to hear more than 10 seconds of.

And I agree about many of the observations about Pitchfork, but sometimes they get it absolutely right - today's appreciation of the 30th anniversary edition of Blondie's Parallel Lines, for instance.



Post Edited (08-01-08 20:45)

Nick Drake, The Band, Roxy Music,The Coral, Fleet Foxes, The Hold Steady, Whiskeytown... i should luv these guys... but I don't They all fall squarely in the meh canon.

That Blondie write is pretty swell on pitchfork. They also have a pretty decent write up on The Dead in the feature section.

And the Stones did very little wrong during their golden years. Maybe overexposure has led on to the state of meh.

VU's first four, The Dolls first two, Suicide s/t are all incredible NY albums. Everybody has an opinion, but to not atleast understand their greatness escapes me.

My Morning Jacket
Mercury Rev
You Am I
The Smiths



It probably doesn't qualify in terms of something I "really should be into" but in my mid-teens every man and his dog in my neck of the punk woods was nuts about Discharge and I couldn't stand them. Mind you I could say that about a heap of that No Future early '80s UK punk.

Someone I mentioned in the Canada Day thread - Broken Social Scene, et al. For all the hosannas tossed their way, I just hear some admittedly good but not especially remarkable pop music, which it seems to take half the entire population of Canada to churn out.

However, I also will admit that it's a case where the hype has turned me off to such an extent that I really have only ever listened to them with one ear. It may be that if I bothered to pay attention I might hear what causes so many other people to wet their pants in euphoria.

And now, my GRATUITOUS LUCINDA WILLIAMS SLAM OF THE WEEK:

ESSENCE is her only album of the last ten years that I even feel positive enough about to only say "meh" in regards to, but I defy anyone to listen to the chorus of the title song and not think of "Green Eggs and Ham."



Post Edited (08-02-08 09:54)

As a tribute to the TP community, my beautiful significant other and I went to a festival in Greenfield, MA, a couple of weeks back. The headliner was Lucinda Williams. (My going is not the tribute part.) I watched Los Straitjackets and Mavis Staples and left before Lucinda Williams. (That's the tribute.) I knew it was time to flee when the ex-hippies in flower-patterned shirts and mandals started pulling in in their Saabs and Volvos. It was like the universe was speaking to me, and it was saying: Avoid the music of Lucinda Williams and her jive-ass hippie, baby boomer, Starbucks-drinkin' fans.



Post Edited (08-02-08 14:48)

Erik, too bad about the Ramones, but since you dig Blotto & the Red Sox, well 2 out of 3 ain't bad!

I forgot about Malkmus. Hell, I don't even care for Slanted & Enchanted. But that's more in the "loath Pavement and all their hellish influence" kind of thing, rather than "meh."

I'll keep it focused on stuff I "should' like given my other tastes, so that would exclude stuff like the Arcade Fire - I don't get them, I read about them before I heard them, knew I wasn't going to like them anyway.......but just to comment on a couple things first :

1. The Rolling Stones from 64-72 (and especially 68-72) are Godlike to me. It is literally frightening how much I've played the Beggars Banquet-Exile records in my life : I mean I listen to something off those every couple weeks at least still.

2. I could see the Ramones being a "meh" band to some people. I love their first 3 records - but they are kind of a one note schtick. I think you'd have to be a little hard-hearted not to LIKE the early Ramones records, but I can see it not getting past that to the "Love" stage.........I have always said the Heartbreakers "LAMF" is a better record than anything the Ramones ever made, working within a somewhat similar aesthetic approach.

For me it's usually the "sub-Replacements" stuff I am "Meh" about, because you get that "oh if you like the Replacements, you'll love...." thing a lot.

You Am I - They're fine, a couple good records, but Westerberg throwaways are often of equal quality much less him at peak form.

The Hold Steady - I like their new record, but.......I can only take this band in small doses. Too verbose, too Springsteenish in the details.........more than 4 songs in a row induces a headache in me. That voice, that endless stream of consciousness babbling. He "sings" more on this new record so the annoyance factor is less.

Wilco (after Summerteeth) - He's just gotten less interesting as a songwriter to me. More ambitious (like Yankee Hotel Foxtrot) but less you know, actual good songs and stuff like that. "Sky Blue Sky" was elevator music with the depth of a Hallmark card. A pox on the house of the man who first told Jeff Tweedy he was an artiste.

Considering its highly venerated status, I'm a modern-day Hermey on the island of misfit toys when it comes to Astral Weeks. I'm completely underwhelmed by it every time I listen to it which is several times a year in the hopes that something will finally click or sink in. It hasn't.

The White Stripes
Nearly all Motown
Sonic Youth (although I've met a couple of them on occasion and they're very nice people I don't want to listen to their records).

Loved Beefheart since I first heard TMR, though. First time through the first side I knew "Hey, this is for me".

Vampire Weekend - who cares? Sub-par African pop. Great band? Nope. The critics are wrong as usual. Talking Heads did this way better.

Coldplay - I am so tired of whiny male vocalists.

Panic At The Disco - Saw them on SNL. They left no impression on me whatsoever.

My Chemical Romance - Heartache, Alienation, Dysfunction. Addiction. Next!!

Radiohead - I've got too many things to do to bother getting into them.

In Summary. Look, rock was perfected ages ago. It's time to stop rocking and start accounting! Put on your glasses. Math rocks!

prob all of mine are ones that have been stated before.

sonic youth-always apprecaited them and if i was a critic i would review every one of their albums very favorably.
my not being too into them is part of my limitations in my listening that i prefer things that are more pop derivitive.

radiohead- great musicianship but doesnt hit me in the corazon/
appreciate them have most of the albums but dont listen to them much.

so many new bands
. my chemical romance,coldplay, panic at the disco,arcade fire etc.-dont feel that their music is bad and i find them much more listenable than bands from 1999 like lymp bisquit creed 3 doors down whos music sounds dated 6 months after it came out but a total indifferenence/

most punk bands that arent pop derivitive- black flag and a few others are ones that stand out that i like but most to be is not listenable but is appreciated.

bands like primus,faith no more etc

from everybodys posts and not hearing these bands anymore thus they are not overplayed i have developed a small interest in bands like rush and even for a few songs here and there by bands like journey, styx etc

Green Day never did anything for me. And why should they? I don't know them personally!

"If you're making millions at punk rock, you're not doing it right." - Johnny Rotten.

I was always meh on Spoon until Underdog and Cherrybomb. Good Stuff.

All of recorded jazz. (with the exception of Ellington)

Ted Leo + Pharmacists. I think in principle I'd like his stuff a lot, based on influences and credibility, but when I hear it, meh.

I was thinking of a thread that was something like "who are the most acclaimed/credible act you don't own any CDs by" as I was wondering why I don't have a single Sonic Youth release.
I don't feel so guilty now.

"who are the most acclaimed/credible act you don't own any CDs/albums by"

Janis Joplin. Have just never been a fan of white blues mamas.

Anything involving Morrissey.

I've tried, more than once, but both the Smiths and Mozz solo still leave me with "meh" galore.

I dig the hell out of Johnny Marr's guitar work and tunesmithery, but can't stand Morrissey. So the Smiths kind of sit outside both the "meh" and the "viscious hatred" categories for me.

Wow - quite a lot! It would be interesting to see if there is any artist out there that everyone feels is great or terrible. David Bowie or the VU for the former and most likely Lucinda Williams for the latter (after Reno's venom who will admit anything otherwise?)

Sadly, I have to agree with the Ramones, they just always sound the same to me. I do like the Ramones as a group and find most of their stories entertaining, just don't need the music.

I never got into the Coen brothers' movies.

I never owned any Beatles albums. My mom had Meet The Beatles, and I listened to that, but that's about it. The same goes for the Stones. If it's a classic group that gets a lot of airplay, I figure why go out and buy the album. However, I'd be interested in hearing some obscure cuts, so someday, when I have a lot of time on my hands, I'll purchase some Stones or Beatles.

Hoip,

I approach a lot of classic rock the same way. Why buy it when it's on the radio every day?

Recently, however, I've been on a Beatles spree (partly because my kids love them). I had special resistance to Revolver because I'm a contrary (or maybe just deluded) cuss and rarely agree with mass opinion on what is and isn't brilliant.

What do you know? Revolver really is as good as its press! There were several great songs I'd never--or at least rarely--heard, and it's good from start to finish.

Speaking of, I just obtained this recently - bootleg, so I hope folks don't mind the 'indirect' link - it is really one of the most solid Stones releases I've ever heard - definitely gives Hot Rocks a run for the money IMO.

Otherwise, I'll chime in on being pretty 'meh' on the Stones as well - though my favorite period is the first heavy coke days circa Some Girls ... Tattoo You

I never got The Melvins, or Tad.

Just remembered John Wesley Harding, someone who sounded exactly like a lot of people I worship, but who just irritated me.

He just always seemed like he was the biggest fan of his own wit, and he had the unfortunate ability to take a great two minute song and make it last four. So I would always spend the last half of a John Wesley Harding song saying "I know, I know, I got the point three minutes ago, shut the hell up now."

"And Your Bird Can Sing" is the most underappreciated "obscure" Beatles cut - In my opinion it's easily their most amazing song that never got released as a single.

On the beatles thing: I was the same (Meh) way about them,;. Then a couple of years agoI decided I ought to have some in my collection, and bought a copy of the 'Blue Box' set from Australia. All of their lp's on good vinyl (but in rather thin sleeves) in one fell swoop, $150. I gotta say, their mid-period stuff (Help, Rubber Soul, Revolver) is pretty amazing.

And I second the comment on 'And Your Bird Can Sing'. I discovered that one from the Matthew Sweet/Susannah Hoff album. Killer pop somg that Lennon wanted to disown as disposable. That goes to show what a pop genius the guy was it that is a throwaway song. It's not on the US Revolover but is on the UK release. I'm sure it's not too hard to find on cd.

TB

Beatles are good, And Your Bird Can Sing is a cool song, Stones have some good songs...

Can we start a thread for people who just discovered that sex is pretty fun?

sex is overrated, but "dig a pony" is a cool song.