Opinions so bizarre you have never heard anybody claim them

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Everything about musical taste is subjective, and the "What's the rarest opinion you possess" showed there are quite a lot of diverse opinions on ILX too. However, this thread are devoted to the exceptions; statements so bizzare you have never heard anyone - not even the most devoid trolls - claim them.

Starting out with:

- The best Rolling Stones albums ever were the ones released in the 80s and 90s.
- Andrew Ridgeley was the true creative brain of Wham!
- David Bowie reached his creative pinnacle in the mid 80s, around "Tonight" and "Never Let Me Down"
- "Never Mind The Bollocks...Here's The Sex Pistols" was a terribly boring and overproduced piece of clever-clever crap, made by a bunch of exaggeratedly talented musicians who just wanted to show off their skills in instrument wanking.

― Geir Hongro (geirhong), Thursday, 14 December 2006 23:09 (nineteen years ago)

The last opinion has long been held by Dan Perry.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 14 December 2006 23:13 (nineteen years ago)

geir is an valued member of ilx and i hope he will continue posting forever

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 14 December 2006 23:32 (nineteen years ago)

Lock thread.

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Thursday, 14 December 2006 23:36 (nineteen years ago)

NLMD is Bowie's third best album, as I've said before. Tonight is probably his second worst - just better than the truly appalling Black Tie White Noise.

― Dr.C (Dr.C), Friday, 15 December 2006 12:55 (nineteen years ago)

'Well I'm telling you they never got it right / Until they put out Undercover of the Night'

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 15 December 2006 13:04 (nineteen years ago)

- "Never Mind The Bollocks...Here's The Sex Pistols" was a terribly boring and overproduced piece of clever-clever crap, made by a bunch of exaggeratedly talented musicians who just wanted to show off their skills in instrument wanking.

What, you weren't arounf in 1977/8 then?

― M Grout (Mark Grout), Friday, 15 December 2006 13:09 (nineteen years ago)

Mark's right. Jon Savage said basically the same thing in 1977. Called the record the "musical headstone."

― Ice Ice Cream Baby (The Dirty Vicar), Saturday, 16 December 2006 02:47 (nineteen years ago)

TRU GEIR RETURNS

― u got yr hoo in my steen! (no reese's) (hoosteen), Saturday, 16 December 2006 03:01 (nineteen years ago)

"Guns & Roses are better than the Sex Pistols" was the first thing that came to mind upon reading the title of this thread.

― Bimbler (Sourkraut), Saturday, 16 December 2006 09:06 (nineteen years ago)

"1969 was the worst year ever for popular music"

believe it or not, somebody (not an idiot) recently wrote this in his blog. Bizarre. I read it but I still don't believe it.

― mark coleman (lovebug ), Saturday, 16 December 2006 10:34 (nineteen years ago)

I can't believe that he really believes it = what I mean

― mark coleman (lovebug ), Saturday, 16 December 2006 10:43 (nineteen years ago)

"Guns & Roses are better than the Sex Pistols" was the first thing that came to mind upon reading the title of this thread.

I've never heard any Sex Pistols tune that would make me rate them higher than G&R. Admittedly I don't rate either band that high, but I still think the latter is better.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Saturday, 16 December 2006 13:16 (nineteen years ago)

ah tuomas you silly fin you. ;-)

― nathalie (stevienixed), Saturday, 16 December 2006 13:26 (nineteen years ago)

I'm quite happy to admit, being fairly familiar with both, that Guns'n'Roses are much better. That's not even remotely a bizarre opinion, is it?

― ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Saturday, 16 December 2006 13:55 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the punk aesthetic, and if you don't count in cultural importance (the question was about which one was better, not more important), then it seems G&R have more hummable tunes, which is really what matters to me as far as rock music is concerned.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Saturday, 16 December 2006 14:37 (nineteen years ago)

There are probably millions of 14-year-olds in the world who think GnR are better than Sex Pistols. There were also millions of 14-year-olds who though the same thing in 1989.

― Geir Hongro (geirhong), Saturday, 16 December 2006 23:05 (nineteen years ago)

G'n'R were probably more "culturally important" than the Sex Pistols too, at least outside of rockwrite. I mean, it's not the Ramones didn't exist. And musically, it's no contest in favor of GnR. If the Sex Pistols never existed, there'd probably just be a slightly greater reverence for the Clash.

― ramon fernandez (ramon fernandez), Saturday, 16 December 2006 23:16 (nineteen years ago)

Blimey, I'm lucky I read the title of this thread before reading the last three postings.

― S1.Carter (S1.C@rter), Sunday, 17 December 2006 02:37 (nineteen years ago)

i hold the opinion that gnr > sex pistols too

― friday on the porch (lfam), Sunday, 17 December 2006 02:42 (nineteen years ago)

even when i was really into punk i was so bored by the pistols, what shit

― friday on the porch (lfam), Sunday, 17 December 2006 02:42 (nineteen years ago)

ruben studdard: better than al green
stereophonics: better than the beatles
sting: more street cred than dr. dre

― bohren un der club of gear (bohren un der club of gear), Sunday, 17 December 2006 02:55 (nineteen years ago)

There are probably millions of 14-year-olds in the world who think GnR are better than Sex Pistols. There were also millions of 14-year-olds who though the same thing in 1989.

I can vouch for this personally, if you substitute "Motley Crue" for "Guns n Roses" -- after they covered "Anarchy in the UK" there was a minor school-bus argument on my route wherein Paul Z defended this position quite rigorously. (I believe his main argument was "Vince Neil could kick all the Sex Pistols' asses," which after seeing the size of Steve Jones on that reunion tour seems far from convincing. Plus I bet Lydon would bite.)

― the pony-poop paradox (the pony-poop paradox), Sunday, 17 December 2006 03:17 (nineteen years ago)

Hitler was a New Romantic.

― Rofofo Fight! (honestengine), Sunday, 17 December 2006 04:10 (nineteen years ago)

Bahahhaha

― Bimbler (Sourkraut), Sunday, 17 December 2006 08:43 (nineteen years ago)

Hitler was a New Romantic.

admit it, you're baiting ILX for Anal Cunt lyrics.

― step hen faps (Curt1s Stephens), Sunday, 17 December 2006 08:47 (nineteen years ago)

- Andrew Ridgeley was the true creative brain of Wham!

is this your actual opinion or just an opinion you have never heard anyone else express?

I have heard it said that Ridger's contribution to Wham! was quality control and a general guidance into certain directions ("loads of girls in swimming costumes in the video") that the other guy might not have been into.

― The Real Dirty Vicar (The Real Dirty Vicar), Sunday, 17 December 2006 12:09 (nineteen years ago)

Well, the other guy did continue to have them girls in his videos after Wham! split.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 17 December 2006 13:21 (nineteen years ago)

Well the other guy obviously learned teh creative lesson then!
:)

― tiit (t**t), Sunday, 17 December 2006 21:21 (nineteen years ago)

one month passes...

admit it, you're baiting ILX for Anal Cunt lyrics.

anal cunt were every bit as technically accomplished as tool or primus!

― Eisbär (Eisbär), Thursday, 15 February 2007 10:30 (nineteen years ago)

... not to mention as lyrically profound & thoughtful as radiohead or the tindersticks. plus seth putnam is a much better singer than either thom yorke AND stuart staples.*

(* i'm SERIOUS about that last one.)

― Eisbär (Eisbär), Thursday, 15 February 2007 10:33 (nineteen years ago)

paris [hilton]'s brilliance is such that it dazzles any cultural theory with which you try to explain her appeal.

― temporary enrique (temporary enrique), Thursday, 15 February 2007 10:37 (nineteen years ago)

Menswear have dated surprisingly well -better than most of that stuff

― skooldog (skooldogg), Thursday, 15 February 2007 10:59 (nineteen years ago)

"David Bowie reached his creative pinnacle in the mid 80s, around "Tonight" and "Never Let Me Down""

well, this was a widely popular opinion among my schoolmates in 1988 or so.

― Marco Damiani (Marco D), Thursday, 15 February 2007 16:28 (nineteen years ago)

lol @ enrique

― deej (deej), Thursday, 15 February 2007 16:31 (nineteen years ago)

menswe@r are great thou! the nuisance album stands up really well!

― acrobat (acrobat), Thursday, 15 February 2007 16:33 (nineteen years ago)

the reputation of other britpop bands is down to the menswear level, i think.

― temporary enrique (temporary enrique), Thursday, 15 February 2007 16:37 (nineteen years ago)

Miles Davis isn't jazz.

― Jubalique die Zitronen (juicefriend), Thursday, 15 February 2007 19:47 (nineteen years ago)

Is the rareity of said opinions directly related to the degree of bizarreness or is there something inherently bizarre?

For instance it seems that there are many teenagers on here that seem to back the GNR>Pistols argument.

― factcheckr (factcheckr), Thursday, 15 February 2007 20:05 (nineteen years ago)

In order to fully, truly understand country-rock, you need to reverse the equation Byrds>Eagles.

x-post
i'm 31, but accept the GNR>Pistols argument.

― Justin Farrar (QuantumNoise), Thursday, 15 February 2007 20:07 (nineteen years ago)

"Guns & Roses are better than the Sex Pistols" was the first thing that came to mind upon reading the title of this thread.

Where do you live that this is bizarre?! The reverse seems more unusual, if anything. (In fact, I'm TAing a course on rock history this semester. GnR appear far more often than the Pistols on the students' lists of favourite bands.)

The Eagles>Byrds thing doesn't sound too ludicrous to me, though I don't pretend to understand country-rock well enough to have an opinion on the larger issue. I can say that in pop music courses and books I'm familiar with, the Eagles are usually presented as the main example of country-rock.

― sundarsubramanian (SundarS), Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:08 (nineteen years ago)

I don't really know how to answer the main question though. There are really obvious answers like "No orchestra in the world contains a violin player" or "Guitars were invented on Uranus" but I don't know that they're really worth listing.

― sundarsubramanian (SundarS), Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:11 (nineteen years ago)

"GnR appear far more often than the Pistols on the students' lists of favourite bands."

surely this is yr usual youthful contrarianism when it comes to an old band that's a sacred cow (the Pistols) and a younger one that's perceived as more challenging to the prevailing order?

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:12 (nineteen years ago)

Do radio playlists and record sales charts also reflect this contrarianism?

― sundarsubramanian (SundarS), Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:13 (nineteen years ago)

they do in America, where the Pistols never had a hit or sold that much

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:15 (nineteen years ago)

I mean, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, the Beatles, Elvis all appear very often. Is it really surprising that students in Western New York might connect more with "Paradise City" or "Sweet Child o Mine" than "Anarchy In the UK" or "EMI?" (I think I do and I'm not even that big of a GnR fan.)

xpost I'm not sure what you're saying anymore.

― sundarsubramanian (SundarS), Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:16 (nineteen years ago)

My point was exactly that - the Pistols were never that big this side of the Atlantic and GnR were huge. So why would it be surprising, bizarre, or contrarian that more people listen to GnR (and, presumably, might think they're better)?

― sundarsubramanian (SundarS), Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:17 (nineteen years ago)

I'm basically agreeing with you - I can't think of any reason why kids in America today would (or even should?) give a shit about the Sex Pistols.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:17 (nineteen years ago)

One reason would be because they were pretty good.

― Tim Ellison is number one proponent of Beatle!!!Mania!!! on nu-ILX (tim ellison), Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:20 (nineteen years ago)

I mean I would fully expect that the only reason kids today would even know who the Sex Pistols are is because of rock criticism - and rejecting that canonical endorsement out of hand is a no-brainer for a young'un. Especially when someone like GnR is a handier, more recognizable alternative - and one that still carries an air of myth and danger.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:20 (nineteen years ago)

(I totally hate GnR btw)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:20 (nineteen years ago)

i think you're overestimating the impact of rock criticism on today's youth

― bohren un der club of gear (bohren un der club of gear), Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:22 (nineteen years ago)

well we are talking about kids in a history of rock class here

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:23 (nineteen years ago)

xpost I'm not sure what you're saying anymore.
-- sundarsubramanian

^^ co-sign ^^

― Tim Ellison is number one proponent of Beatle!!!Mania!!! on nu-ILX (tim ellison), Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:25 (nineteen years ago)

uh it really isn't that complicated. My personal opinion is that both bands are boring. Today's American kids preferring GnR to the Sex Pistols makes total sense, as the only cultural cache the Sex Pistols have in America is derived from rock criticism, an orthodoxy which kids are liable to reject out-of-hand if they are aware of it at all.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:30 (nineteen years ago)

I'm 34. I'm not American. I've read a bit of rock criticism in my time. I prefer, as I said already, GnR to the Sex Pistols. I'm not claiming to be representative of anyone, but I still don't see how that's that bizarre a claim - saying "the majority of X say Y" is not the same as saying "the world says X, no-one's ever said Y ever".

― ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:32 (nineteen years ago)

xpost I'm not sure what you're saying anymore.
-- sundarsubramanian

^^ co-sign ^^

-- Tim Ellison is number one proponent of Beatle!!!Mania!!! on nu-ILX

^^ c-s ^^

― bohren un der club of gear (bohren un der club of gear), Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:36 (nineteen years ago)

someone's already said everything.

― sir lord baltimore club music (Matt Helgeson), Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:42 (nineteen years ago)

one that still carries an air of myth and danger.

(FWIW some other bands who are also doing a lot better than the Pistols include Bon Jovi, Journey, Foreigner [this one may be a WNY thing], DMB and numerous jam bands, ...)

― sundarsubramanian (SundarS), Friday, 16 February 2007 02:15 (nineteen years ago)

"GnR appear far more often than the Pistols on the students' lists of favourite bands."
surely this is yr usual youthful contrarianism when it comes to an old band that's a sacred cow (the Pistols) and a younger one that's perceived as more challenging to the prevailing order?

-- Shakey Mo Collier (audiobo...), February 15th, 2007 11:12 PM. (Shakey Mo Collier)

Thank god there are bands from 20 years ago that are around to challenge the "prevailing order" bands from 30 years ago.

― step hen faps (Curt1s Stephens), Friday, 16 February 2007 02:29 (nineteen years ago)

I've heard "Sweet Child" & "Paradise City" & "Welcome to the Jungle" on rock radio my entire life; "Anarchy in the UK," maybe once or twice.

― step hen faps (Curt1s Stephens), Friday, 16 February 2007 02:37 (nineteen years ago)

You've heard "Anarchy In the UK" on commercial radio?

― sundarsubramanian (SundarS), Friday, 16 February 2007 02:40 (nineteen years ago)

On an alt-rock station, during the "retro music" hour.

― step hen faps (Curt1s Stephens), Friday, 16 February 2007 02:41 (nineteen years ago)

GNR vs. TSP = music is the loser

― unfished business (Scourage), Friday, 16 February 2007 02:42 (nineteen years ago)

truly

― friday on the porch (lfam), Friday, 16 February 2007 02:56 (nineteen years ago)

Like James Brown, music would have been better today had Mary J. Blige never happened.
-- Geir Hongro (geirhon...), February 16th, 2007.

― Burl Ervins (mjt), Friday, 16 February 2007 03:29 (nineteen years ago)

The Jews broke up Audioslave.

― Rofofo Fight! (honestengine), Friday, 16 February 2007 04:47 (nineteen years ago)

Like James Brown, music would have been better today had Mary J. Blige never happened.

James Brown would be better today had Mary J. Blige never happened? Was there a gift of magi at work?

― Joseph McCombs (gazoo15), Friday, 16 February 2007 07:02 (nineteen years ago)

Miles Davis isn't jazz.

well, he never referred to his own work as "jazz", and never proclaimed himself to be a "jazz" musician. same with ellington, monk, and parker.

― Lawrence the Looter (Lawrence the Looter), Saturday, 17 February 2007 23:41 (nineteen years ago)

CC deville's guitar solos are among the greatest ever.

Never heard this claimed, even from CC.

― Matt Armstrong (gensu3k1), Sunday, 18 February 2007 00:02 (nineteen years ago)

The Boss should re-record Nebraska with CC Deville.

― QuantumNoise (QuantumNoise), Sunday, 18 February 2007 13:12 (nineteen years ago)

Talk Talk would have benefited greatly if CC played on Spirit of Eden.

― QuantumNoise (QuantumNoise), Sunday, 18 February 2007 13:47 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.