Hot Take/ Musical Confession Thread!

TenderLovingKiller® said:
Nah, the production on Toxic is amazing this is peak Britney IMO. It was a legit club banger outside the more teenybopper earlier work but before she had her mental break and step back from Superstardom. I am an unapologetic Rockist in a lot of ways but I can appreciate a killer jam and Toxic is legit.
Click to expand...
I have an older sister who bought this CD just for toxic. She played it everyday non-stop on a loop. FOR MONTHS. I will always fucking hate this song.
 
The Commish said:
😜 So...basically just like here & every Doves post. Ever.
Every. Single. One.
Click to expand...
People think Doves are important? I knew people were excited about the REs but I didn’t know it was like that.

I’d never heard them. With all the fanfare I thought they’d be awesome. I thought they were good upon first listening but I kept waiting for them to do something, ya know? They just ended up being boring. Easy pass
 
Count_Vader said:
Yes for their first two albums anyway. Not in my opinion. No, Nirvana was the only "grunge" act to use a solid punk foundation. Soundgarden and Alice In Chains being examples of notable grunge acts that were pretty distant from punk sonically
Click to expand...
Soundgarden and Alice In Chains' sound was more akin to metal.
 
I'll reiterate what I've often said about this subject in the past: "Grunge" is not a sound, it was a scene. The term was primarily used to describe a diverse group of musicians who shared a common cultural/musical background in a specific region but who also had diverse styles and influences. You cannot define a band as "grunge" because of their sound.
 
Count_Vader said:
Imo they were way more of a punk band, with alt rock stylings (especially their early stuff) Pearl Jam's first four albums are a standing refutation to your claim (As are Soundgarden).
Click to expand...

FIFY.
Those albums when properly ranked are: No Code > Vitology > Ten > Go Vs.
 
Last edited:
Dtknuckles said:
After listing to All Things Must Pass yesterday...It cemented my conclusion that extra tracks on albums are useless. I want it the way it was put out.
Click to expand...
As a general rule, I’m not that big on “bonus tracks” on a rerelease. If you want to do an unreleased/b sides collection, do that. But don’t tack them onto a record to entice folks to buy it all over again. If the artist rereleases a version MUCH later on that more closely resembles what they originally wanted to release but couldn’t because of label interference, that’s acceptable, but really, only that.
 
Chucktshoes said:
As a general rule, I’m not that big on “bonus tracks” on a rerelease. If you want to do an unreleased/b sides collection, do that. But don’t tack them onto a record to entice folks to buy it all over again. If the artist rereleases a version MUCH later on that more closely resembles what they originally wanted to release but couldn’t because of label interference, that’s acceptable, but really, only that.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. It's especially annoying in the streaming age where they're not delineated as bonus tracks necessarily. If I'm checking something out for the first time, I don't want to hear a rough demo of track three or a B-side immediately after the actual closing track.
 
BjorgenFjorgen said:
Absolutely. It's especially annoying in the streaming age where they're not delineated as bonus tracks necessarily. If I'm checking something out for the first time, I don't want to hear a rough demo of track three or a B-side immediately after the actual closing track.
Click to expand...
That’s not something I deal with since I don’t stream music, but it totally does just reinforce the death of the “album as a single work of art” mindset I’ve always loved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top