Been a while. Title of Music!

… and in what mood? What’s your favorite artist? I’ve become very curious about this kind of thing recently because I’ve noticed people’s taste in music tends to reflect their taste in other entertainment fields as well, not to mention their general personality and outlook, so I figured I’d find out what all y’all are interested in.

Me? I like pretty much everything. In fact, chances are I’ve got at least one artist I like from every genre (maybe not every sub-genre though :/).

See now, I’ll list it by mood first, then give my favorite (Red Hot Chili Peppers for life!).

Happy: Chili Peppers! Or Katamari Damacy soundtrack, Queen, Luke Kelly, The Wannadies (ignore the name, they have a lot of happy tunes <<) U2 or The Clash. Or FEEDER!

Sad/Apathetic: Coldplay, Alicia Keys, Some Disney songs <<

Angry: Uh…I guess the main one at the moment would be System of a Down. They’ve got some real personal anger songs that I can seem to connect with quite well when I’m angry. Ash as well, sometimes Nirvana, Metallica maybe. Rage Against the Machine at times too. Eminem would fit in here as well.

Weird: This is my primary state of being, and as such the most music I listen to. So obviously the Chili Pepers feature largely in it.
It also includes Presidents of the United States of America, Kaiser Chiefs. The Frames as well, Mic Christopher. BLUR would be failry prominent.
And let’s not forget the White Stripes, I don’t think they could fit in ANY other category.

Also, there are two bands that can be listened to in ANY of those moods: Red Hot Chili Peppers (Yes, I know I mentioned them in two of the moods <<) and Dragonforce! Dragonforce RULE!

Anyway, now onto my favorite band! This is the Chili’s. They just…rule.

One thing I REALLY like about them is that they haven’t remained the same throughout their entire career. I KNOW some people might call this selling out, but I think staying the same is the BIGGER cop out.

This is because music is a reflection of yourself (or should be <<), yes? And as you grow, you change, and therefore, your music should change accordingly. If you don’t, I think you’re selling out. And I haven’t seen this in ANY other band as clearly as I’ve seen (or heard if you prefer) in the Chilis. It’s such a clear reflection, that I honestly believe it to be a true one.

HOWEVER, despite their style changing, the same canNOT be said for the message WITHIN their songs. There are different messages, but they’re to be seen in every one of their albums. This for me, makes them the ULTIMATE non-sell out band: despite their style changing, the message they convey hasn’t, thus showing a steadiness of character.

Also, there’s the fact that they really ARE skilled musicians. I mean, just TRY and tell me that Flea isn’t an AWESOME bassist, or Anthony Keidis a charismatic and appropriate (for their style <<) singer. Not to mention that when he really SINGS, he can hit the notes. Try and tell me that Chad isn’t an excellent drummer, or that John isn’t a fantastic lead guitarist and vocalist (seriously, some of the notes he hits are just insane o.O) and I will outright call you a liar sir.

The music they make together, and the vocals all seem to affect me much more than any other band. (Overall, I mean, obviously not EVERY song does.) But yeah, the vocals always tend to have a…well, value. Seriously, whether it’s some deeper meaning, some comment on humanity, love, their relationship, their feelings their state of mind, there’s always something, it’s not just words for the sake of words. It’s…well, art.

And that concludes my essay on the Chilis. >>

You may or may not want to make out a similar one on your favorite bands, it’s up to you. But I would suggest you would, even if it’s simply to comment on my taste (or lack thereof) in music.

Just…try not to let it disintigrate into a flame war.

Lately I’ve been listening to Green Day, specifically American Idiot and Boulevard of Broken Dreams. Other than that, I’m still a Weid Al fan. I can’t wait for his new CD. That is if it’s he makes another one–he’s due (For the last few years, he’s made one every other year), but I haven’t heard anything.

I have to say Cher recently… specifically “Walkin’ In Memphis”; I love that song…
Otherwise, just the usual… Beatles, and Don Mclean… Breaking Benjamin and APC.
Queen is always nice.
I keep my passionate hatred of Green Day in mind.


Don’t mind if I do. I’m about to list a great deal of albums, as I find listening to the whole work, or at least having access to a hit’s original context vastly more rewarding than the popular method of only listening to singles. “Growers” are oftentimes the best parts of an album.

If you’re not willing to buy them, the P2P network Soulseek ( lends itself to the sharing of whole albums, though some others might. Of course, its not a crime to download single songs, and you can find the content of all these records, with their highlights marked and annotated, at

I’ve come of the opinion recently that New Order’s work from 1980 to around '88 is the only original pop music since the Beatles and the Velvet Underground, my two favorite bands. Every 5 years or so, it seems NO will toss off a catchy single, but otherwise the best bands around today are Of Montreal, The Arcade Fire, and The Strokes.

Of Montreal’s Satanic Panic in the Attic and The Sunlandic Twins
The Arcade Fire’s Funeral
and The Strokes’ Is This It? and Room on Fire
I’ve also been a fan of Interpol’s Turn On the Bright Lights and Antics, which I think is horribly unappreciated

I’m generally not competent to judge contemporary pop, for I don’t like anything new, but these four bands do it for me, especially The Arcade Fire, whose next album I eagerly await.

Weezer technically exists, but they haven’t produced anything of real merit in a decade.

If you’ll give older bands a listen, you can do no wrong with the Beatles and Velvet Underground, though I’m aware of a dreadfully unfortunate Shakespearesque tendancy among modern youth to regard the Beatles as “boring” or something. A Hard Day’s Night, Rubber Soul, and Abbey Road should be a good intro to serious Beatles listening, all loaded with hits and a good cross-section of their development. Their singles as contained in the Past Masters compilations are also lovely by themselves. Also loaded with hits is The Velvet Underground’s Loaded, my favorite record ever, though their two self-titled albums are about as good.

After those two, rock and roll died (with the exception of Neil Young) until 1975 when Bruce Springsteen released Born to Run, which may or may not be the best record ever made (as distinct from my favorite). What more can be said about Born to Run that hasn’t already been said about breakfast.

After Springsteen (chronologically), my favorite bands have been the divine Television (Marquee Moon), the Clash, whose London Calling is one of Born to Run’s few rivals, and Joy Division, the predecessor of New Order. Both their records, Unknown Pleasures and Closer are miraculous, and are, for better or worse, the most direct ancestors to the New Wave and Gothism of the 80s, 90s, and today. Also, for pure fucking intensity (and a seemingly out of place lyricism), The Misfits of the 70s are worth a mention.

Before the murk and chaos of the modern age descended, the 80s provided us The Smiths (The Smiths and The Queen is Dead). The Cure was also active and produced a couple nice songs, but seemed to have ripped off New Order too much to be considered original. Also, I think it would be appropriate to mention the Talking Heads, though I’ve only ever really liked one song of theirs, “Naive Melody (This Must be the Place).” Paul Simon’s Graceland is also a wonderful album of the 80s. Finally, The Pixies made the most recent music which I would induct into my canon of pop, the last really untouchably great rock and roll I think. All their records, but especially Surfer Rosa and Doolittle are tremendous.

If I might additionally attack the first poster, a fan of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, I will point out that they define “inoffensive”. I haven’t really heard anything from them that’s built too far from “Under the Bridge”, though I’ll admit their California album of a few years ago was rather pleasing.

Then you clearly haven’t listened to most of the album that “Under The Bridge” is on (that’s Blood Sugar Sex Majik in case youdon’t know). Most of that album is VERY different from that song. I’ll admit that some of their songs are similar to it; but so what, they’re the same frickin’ band and the songs are most definitly NOT the same, no matter how similar.

I’d also advise you to listen to pretty much every album before Blood Sugar Sex Majik and see if you can still say that all their songs are the same.

And it’s Californication. -.-

And I fail to see how been “inoffensive” in the sense of not having songs full of curse-words is bad? I can only assume that’s what you meant, since the topics of many of their songs (eg. sex is in at least one song in every album. Heck, he simulates orgasm at the end of Love Trilogy) can be quite offensive to a lot of people (though not so much anymore but oh well). :stuck_out_tongue:

Edit: I’d also like to point out that Califonication was released AFTER Blood Sugar Sex Majik. <<

I’ve only really been listening to Matthew Good lately.

I don’t really know what to say about him. His music is just so much richer and cleaner than anything I’ve ever heard before. It’s more complex, but not just for the sake of being complex. He really knows how to take advantage of different scales and instruments to make his music thick and interesting without making it noisy or awkward. He’s also great with sampled sounds. Sometimes he’ll mic the street outside the studio and use street ambience in his songs, and I love it.

He doesn’t work for a label, so he can get away with making better music than most people are used to hearing. The down side is that few people have heard of him, and a lot of the ones who have (at least on these forums last time I brought him up) think he’s something he isn’t, or bash him out of ignorance, or are just too lame to appreciate him and put him on the same level as musical platitudes like Green Day.

In general, he makes soft, soothing, stand-alone songs that work in any situation for almost any mood. His compositions are very solid and his lyrics are dripping with meaning. For him, every note and every word is essential to his message, and if they aren’t, he drops them. His music is simplified in a way that supercharges it’s meaning and emotional effect on the listener. He caters to every little detail in his compositions, and it’s been a very long time since I’ve heard music as thoroughly refined as his. I HIGHLY recommend it.

Other than Matthew Good, I’ve been listening to a lot of solo amateur acoustic guitar songs. It just feels good to hear real music, played by a real person, that hasn’t been electronically modified.

I’ve also been listening to a lot of Led Zeppelin’s softer material. Going to California, Battle of Evermore, The Rain Song, Ramble On, and Over the Hills and Far Away. Aside from Kashmir, I hate most of their harder stuff. They’re just not as good when they’re playing songs like Black Dog. They can’t make them work.

If you’ll give older bands a listen, you can do no wrong with the Beatles and Velvet Underground, though I’m aware of a dreadfully unfortunate Shakespearesque tendancy among modern youth to regard the Beatles as “boring” or something.
I’m aware of something far more annoying. The tendency of people to like bands because they’re old, even if they’re not very good, because they’re seen as classic and tasteful. The beatles have a few good songs such as Imagine and Blackbird, but most of what they wrote and played was noisy and depressingly happy. They had a habit of using augmented and diminished chords all over the place and consequently there are only a few Beatles songs I can listen to without feeling sick or depressed.

Dear people, you need to learn to expand your sensibility. The Beatles represent the lively reaction against what was perceived as the dull intellectual music of the authorities. Modern bands represent our disenchantment with the reactionary happiness of Beatles-era music. Given that, Hades, it is silly to say that the Beatles have only “a few good songs such as Imagine and Blackbird.” What you really mean is that the Beatles only wrote a few songs characterized by the morose disenchantment so prevalent in your own life, while the rest are characterized by a cheerfulness that you don’t understand.

And Silhouette, if you think the Beatles and Velvet Underground were the last two original bands, you need more exposure to popular music. Here is a limited version of the “canon:”

-AC/DC – Shook Me All Night Long, Thunderstruck
-The Beatles – Too much to list
-Bob Dylan – Like a Rolling Stone, Hurricane
-Boston – More than a Feeling, Peace of Mind
-The Byrds – Mr. Tambourine Man, Turn Turn Turn
-Chuck Berry – Johnny B. Goode, Earth Angel
-Don McLean – American Pie
-The Doors – Break on Through, Touch Me
-Elvis Presley – Falling in Love with You
-Eric Clapton – Layla, White Room
-Fifth Dimension – Aquarius ~ Let the Sun Shine
-Green Day – Basket Case, Boulevard of Broken Dreams, Holiday
-Guns N’ Roses – November Rain, Welcome to the Jungle
-Kansas – Carry on Wayward Son, Dust in the Wind, Song for America
-Linda Ronstadt – Different Drum
-Muse – Butterflies and Hurricanes
-Ozzy Osbourne – Crazy Train
-Pink Floyd – Comfortably Numb, Hey You
-The Righteous Brothers – Unchained Melody
-The Rolling Stones – Brown Sugar, Get Off My Cloud, Like a Rolling Stone (cover), Paint It Black, Satisfaction, Sympathy for the Devil, You Can’t Always Get What You Want
-Scorpions – Dust in the Wind (cover), Send Me an Angel
-Styx – Come Sail Away, Mr. Roboto
-Survivor – Eye of the Tiger, Burning Heart
-The Who – Baba O’Riley, Behind Blue Eyes, Pinball Wizard, See Me Feel Me, We’re Not Gonna Take It, Won’t Get Fooled Again

And I’ve barely even touched the nineties, and nothing at all east of Britain. There are several Japanese bands that deserve to be on this list. For instance, take a look at X Japan, whose music I would argue is more complex, thoughtful and passionate than that of the Beatles, if much less diverse.

I’ve been listening to a cocktail of music, including but not limited to:
Tenacious D
Sublime (Not just their self-titled album either :O)
The Beatles
Daft Punk
and others i can’t think of right now

A very lofty claim, but I’ve listened to them before, so I can semi-support this.
X-Japan is quite a good band, albeit I wouldn’t compare them to the Beatles due to too many differences in style, composition, etc.

What you really mean is that the Beatles only wrote a few songs characterized by the morose disenchantment so prevalent in your own life, while the rest are characterized by a cheerfulness that you don’t understand.
No, that’s really not what I meant at all. Stop presuming to know anything about anyone but yourself. I decide what I mean, not you, as much as you’d like to protect yourself from my vile opinions. I’m not groping around in the dark for my own thoughts. I know exactly what I like and exactly why I like it. Your opinion of why you think I hate The Beatles is completely redundant.

A lot of the Beatles’ songs are cheery in the same way Komm Susser Todd is cheery. I can appreciate happy music, but The Beatles are depressing, bordering melancholy.

Most of what they wrote was also incoherant drug-induced crap and if you asked any of the members still living today, they would tell you they aren’t proud of their work in the Beatles and prefer to disassociate with them completely. They weren’t making a statement about “the dull intellectual music of the authorities.” They were on LSD.

But wait. Let’s pretend for a second that I’m immune to the fact that the Beatles aren’t characterized by the “morose disenchantment” I so adore. Their music is still dirty and unpolished, their voices are still unbearable, they sometimes ignored the laws of consonance and dissonance and harmony, and not deliberately. They were a glorified garage band. Yes, they were popular. But so is System of a Down. The few good songs they wrote were lucky guesses. They just fucked around until something came out, and if that’s what you call good music you shouldn’t be discussing this topic with anyone.

I hate you and all the music you enjoy. lol.

Hey you guys, can we discuss music for once without flipping the fuck out and getting all offended and flaming everyone? Just keep it civil.

And by you guys I mean Hades

Hades IS right about The Beatles being on LSD and therefore having extremely nonsensical (and, in my opinion, BAD) songs. I mean, have you heard “Octopus Garden” or anything that was new on the album “Yellow Submarine?” Terrible. Hell, a lot of what’s on the White album and Magical Mystery Tour just… isn’t that great. I mean, they each had great songs on them (such as “While My Guitar Gently Weeps,” or “Helter Skelter”), but they also had some reaaal stinkers (such as “Why Don’t We Do It In The Road” or “Everybody’s Got Something to Hide Except for Me and My Monkey”). And not only were they on drugs, but the band was in CONFLICT with each other. Each member of the Beatles had a completely different idea about what was supposed to be going on in the band (later on, at least), and they each tried to implement their own ideas.

That being said, I still like a lot of their music, and I wouldn’t even TRY to assert that they were mediocre musicians, because it would be an overt lie.

As for what I like generally, I like a variety of things. I’m not so slavishly devoted to any one band that I fail to recognize that most every band in this world has at least one bad song (and most bands much more than one song). I generally like music that has good lyrics, an interesting sound, and/or can successfully incite emotions from me (that aren’t due to bad music). The bands that I’m fondest of at the moment are Joy Division, The Misfits, King Diamond, The Smiths, and The Doors. My mind changes all the time, but it’s really due to mood more than anything. I’d talk more, but I really should study German.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention: “Imagine” isn’t by the Beatles. It’s John Lennon’s second solo album.

I’ve been listening to Primus, Melt Banana, and the Beastie Boys lately (I just got that Beastie Boys 2 disc collection).

My favorate bands would have to be The Jam and The Clash.

I am a pretty big fan of the Beatles (I even liked the weird songs generic mentioned).

Ooh, Primus! Beatles are cool, half of the not-standard-rock fare bands owe them big time. The rest rock with the Stones (pretentious smiley).

Random music: Zappa, Stan Getz, Pergolesi, AC/DC (now I’m getting intellectual), Spiritual Beggars.

I don’t really have a problem with drug induced songs. Would I throw away my absinthe-infuenced poems and the William Burroughs stuff? Nope. Would I get rid of my Hendrix stuff and all of my Psychedelia? Neither.

The weirder, the better

I’d almost forget to mention James Brown. Even in a stub he must be there (>cue funky stub)

I suppose that since you’ve completely rejected Xwing’s diagnosis of yourself on the sole basis that he isn’t you, you would be a hyprocrite to diagnose myself as liking the Beatles only because they’re old. That is, unless one can only like the Beatles for that reason and I therefore fit into your simplistic categorization with their billions of other fans.

While I actually do believe that one doesn’t choose whether or not to like the Beatles–the choice is never even presented–it does not follow that one must like them simply because of this. I prefer the Beatles because in addition to being the center of the pop music canon from which I can relate to my fellow man, their music lets me relate to myself and it is beautiful. Listening to A Hard Day’s Night the first time was like meeting a true love.

Your ironic conservativism amuses me again. It seems nothing is acceptable to you unless it conforms to your preconceived notion of what defines “music”. Paul and John couldn’t even read music when they started composing their earlier songs. Whether or not they could identify anything more complex than major and minor chords is suspect, but that they could assemble an original and beautiful melody and chord structure is beyond all doubt. The entire theory and language of music is a system used to convey to others truths that the best composers have always understood intuitively. It also serves indirectly to inspire derivative, but at least beautiful, works (as well as a lot of tripe). For you, Hades, the revolutionary workings of the truly creative brain seem to be anathema. Though the Beatles are beyond Happy and Sad, your thinking that they are “depressingly happy” show an incomplete listening.


Most of what they wrote was also incoherant drug-induced crap and if you asked any of the members still living today, they would tell you they aren’t proud of their work in the Beatles and prefer to disassociate with them completely. They weren’t making a statement about “the dull intellectual music of the authorities.” They were on LSD.

Yes… Sir Paul is downright ashamed of the universally acclaimed body of work he created with Lennon, and that’s why he played it in the superbowl half-time show a year and a half ago, and at the Live 8 concert more recently, and his other touring performances for the last 35 years. Ringo is even more ashamed of this horrible legacy, of which Octopus Garden is the only piece he wrote, and has been in self exile since 1970.

That is, you’re either mad or have very little control of the facts, Hades. This is not to say that drugs influenced some of the Beatles work, along with JUST ABOUT EVERY WORK OF ART EVER MADE AND ORIGINAL THINKING IN GENERAL.

Also, in response to Cavalcade: When I say inoffensive, I generally mean that their work doesn’t really show too much development and that nothing new can be expected from them; they won’t offend my current sensibilities, which they were at least a small part of creating in the first place, and thereby lead to something newly wonderful.

Hey! You leave that song out of this! It did nothing to you! >:(

Even though I’m not a big Beatles fan, I’ll have to say that I’m pretty much in agreement with what Silhouette said. To try to pigeonhole someone into who either hates or loves the Beatles into two broad categories (“They only like them because they’re old” or whatever) would be absolutely ridiculous (especially due to the sheer volume of Beatles fans). I will say though that almost nobody seems to be a “Beatles moderate” as I’d call myself that if it weren’t utterly ridiculous. I don’t really like some of their sillier songs (and I like absolutely ridiculous music at times) nor do I like ALL of their drug induced ranting (some of which was meant just to mess with people, which I dig).

As for that song, 984, I’ll do with it what I please. I’ll have my way with it. :open_mouth:

I’d call myself a beatles moderate. I like em, but I nowhere near love em. <<;

And I’d also like to point out Sil, that unless you’ve listened to every single one of RHCPs albums i’ts pretty damn hypocritical for you to say that they haven’t changed or anything, since you yourself advocated listening to albums been far more important and a better way of getting to know a band.

None of you could even pronounce the names of my favorite musical artists.