Grohl the most accomplished musician of the last 25yrs?

[Shareefruck]

Well I can see you read Pitchfork.

Uhmm... I don't. I think they stink and are obnoxious with their love for tepid modern indie acts that to my ears, usually suck.

It's weird that people assign all these stereotypical qualities to Pitchfork, though, when just about every other modern publication deals with historic artists pretty much the exact same way. From what I can see Pitchfork doesn't give Velvet Underground, Beefheart, or Coltrane any more praise than something like Rolling Stones magazine gives them, and that's about as mainstream as it gets. I would argue both these publications undersell the more eccentric classics rather than oversell them. They're both filling their top 10 with Dylan/Beatles/Stones albums and relegating the weirder guys to the lower placements-- this perception that one is fancy/wannabe high-brow and the other is blue-collar (at least when it comes to the classics) is complete nonsense.

If you want to put a label on me, the /mu and Scaruffi thing makes a whole lot more sense than Pitchfork, which just seems to be the go-to target for all things pseudo-elitist, but they don't really even earn that title. All you ever see me do is complain about how overrated/elusive guys like Kanye West, Arcade Fire, Wilco, Nirvana, 90s Radiohead, Kendrick Lamar, Animal Collective, Sonic Youth, Flaming Lips, Neutral Milk Hotel, and Bon Iver are to me, so it's weird to me that Pitchfork would be the publication that you immediately think of.

 

[Hivemind]

Rejecting Pitchfork is the most Pitchfork thing you could do.

 

[Shareefruck]

There's no winning with you people!

The Pitchfork label has turned into this catch-all to make fun of anything weird. Just like the term hipster gets thrown at anything disagreeable. It's just a complete bull-**** childish slur now. Stop stooping to that level.

I find all my music from looking at lists online and recommendations from this message board.

 

[Hivemind]

I find all my music from looking at lists online and recommendations from this message board.

That's exactly my point. Your tastes are filtered through "best of" criteria derived from online boards. They lack any personality. The result is something hardly distinguishable from Pitchfork (or /mu or RYM or whatever internet aggregate you prefer). They're basically the internet music nerds' greatest hits. It reeks of a shallow elitism of "I'm too good for the plebeian radio rock like Dave Grohl" yet still lacks the courage to venture too far off the beaten path.

 

[Shareefruck]

That's exactly my point. Your tastes are filtered through "best of" criteria derived from online boards. They lack any personality. The result is something hardly distinguishable from Pitchfork (or /mu or RYM or whatever internet aggregate you prefer). They're basically the internet music nerds' greatest hits. It reeks of a shallow elitism of "I'm too good for the plebeian radio rock like Dave Grohl" yet still lacks the courage to venture too far off the beaten path.

If you're making a broader point like that, I find it a little bit easier to swallow than the Pitchfork comment. But I still obviously take exception to it.

Yes, my preferences are filtered through pre-existing recommendations, and there are certain biases that unavoidably come with that, but the reason I do that is because it works better than any other approach I've tried. Following sales result in consistently crappy experiences, and diving into the crevices of a specific niche that I gravitate to on my own, I find largely unrewarding and limiting as well. There is no other efficient and reliable radar that I'm aware of that works for me-- to at least some degree, you need to let yourself be impressionable by other sources in order to get anywhere, and I don't see anything wrong with that. For the most part, I feel that the most rewarding things do seem to float to the top and become recognized by the kinds of people who make ultra-critical lists, and it makes sense to me that there SHOULD be some sort of consensus among them. Personally, I haven't managed to stumble into many outliers that go completely unrecognized-- otherwise I might feel more inclined to be more "courageous" with the unknown. So naturally, this is the approach that yields the best results for me, and the one I'm going to take. I'm purely interested in finding the things that I will find most rewarding-- hopefully as many as possible, as quickly as possible, and with as high a success rate as possible. Get this through your head-- I would love it everybody shared similar preferences-- Unique or obscure individualism is not a concern of mine, nor has it ever been. If it were, I would agree with you that I'd be failing miserably at it, because the things I like would only appear obscure/atypical to someone who doesn't pay attention this stuff.

But come on, ANY way that you approach it is going to result in some equivalent flaw/bias-- Unless I have unlimited time on this earth to try everything humanly possible without being affected by other people's impression, EVERY other variation is going to result in gaining some benefits while sacrificing something else. As long as preferences are approached with honesty within these confines/influences, that's really the best that we can do. I know that I'm approaching it honestly, because I don't agree with most of the placement, and there are plenty of recommendations that I dislike.

I've never suggested that I'm particularly good at going off the beaten path, or that I even WANT to go too far off the beaten path-- I know that I'm not and I have my suspicions that the reward is not worth what is bound to be a tedious amount of effort. But to my ears, with all sincerity, Dave Grohl's music sounds bland and unrewarding to me. I'm sorry if you think voicing that opinion inherently makes me "elitist", but it REALLY REALLY doesn't. What the hell else are you asking of me? And what does everybody else do that's so much more sincere/unbiased? And why does adamantly professing my favorites that happen to come from this approach strike you as shallow elitism? I dislike typical radio rock because of the way it tends to sound, not because I'm weirdly driven not to like it due to how plebian and widely enjoyed it is. Similarly, I like the type of music I like because it sounds good to me, not because I'm weirdly driven by how patrician and obscure/individualistic I think it is.

The problem I'm finding with the perception of people like you is that if my organic reaction to music is that I find things that strive to become commercially accessible often inhibiting to the potential rewards of the music (which I clearly do, and I have some theories on this), people will notice this pattern in my preferences and automatically assume/get the sense that I have some sinister elitist agenda behind it, where I want to hate on popular things BECAUSE they're popular, for the sole purpose of feigning superiority. Well, that is a patently unfair leap to make and be so certain of, on your part, man. You're being snarky at me for a REALLY bad reason, based on false assumptions, and it's completely uncalled for. Whether you believe it or not, I'm telling you straight up that your assumptions do not match my actual motivations/views.

 

[member 51464]

Doesn't really seem like the type of thing you'd normally accept, to be honest. But here's something anyways. Approach it with an open mind.



Keep in mind that Beefheart is a guy that by definition tends to give a bad first impression and generally takes a bunch of tries to warm up to. I'm not sure how anyone can deny the instinctive infectiousness of that off-kilter bit in the second half, though.

On the short-list for my favorite artist of all time, together with Coltrane and Velvet Underground.

Is that comment about me not loving The Beatles?

To be honest, I don't know if I have ever really recommended much music on here. I am not on the cutting edge of listening to new things coming out so never really have trendy/new stuff to recommend to people. Vetusta Morla is good stuff if you want to try something maybe unfamiliar to you.

For what it is worth, I really like the Beefheart song you posted. Definitely infectious, I found myself bobbing my head and must say I enjoyed it The drums on that are stellar.

Also worth noting I still have the Fela Kuti thread bookmarked to listen to someday. I like trying new things. I just genuinely don't think people should care about my opinions on music, movies, or TV. I like what I like and find it hard to make actual recommendations that are not just "hey, I like this and you should as well." Like buying a Christmas present for a stranger. I am just left to give you what I know I have enjoyed.

 

[Roo Returns]

It's funny everyone is mentioning Foo Fighters and college. When I went to a University as an undergrad, it was all about Dave Matthews aka "Dave." The fact that people were on a first name basis with him was a little much, and while their music was inoffensive and at times fine, that was the white guy epitome.

Radiohead is a great band. Only issue is at times their music lacks spine. I'm not saying rock has to be testosterone fueled masculinity, but even let's say The Beatles or Bob Dylan sounds like a human 24/7, Radiohead just doesn't.

 

[OzzyFan]

Keep in mind that Beefheart is a guy that by definition tends to give a bad first impression and generally takes a bunch of tries to warm up to. I'm not sure how anyone can deny the instinctive infectiousness of that off-kilter bit in the second half, though.

On the short-list for my favorite artist of all time, together with Coltrane and Velvet Underground.

Beefheart is one of those guys I just can't get into. Muscially great, but lyrically so offputting. It's like a bad having a poor/subpar vocalist, it just doesn't work for me. That "Group" is rough: Zappa/mothers, Buckethead, and lastly(and most bearable) Kuti (Primus to a bit lesser extent talent wise for reference). I can mostly live with the lyrics being that "rough" if they aren't in your face or annoying. I just never could get into Beefheart at all though, by far the most annoying.

 

[Gordon Lightfoot]

^^Lol, I have friends who did (and still do) refer to Neil Young as "Neil" and Jerry Garcia as "Jerry."

"Wanna listen to some acoustic Jerry?"

 

[plank]

It's funny everyone is mentioning Foo Fighters and college. When I went to a University as an undergrad, it was all about Dave Matthews aka "Dave." The fact that people were on a first name basis with him was a little much, and while their music was inoffensive and at times fine, that was the white guy epitome.

Radiohead is a great band. Only issue is at times their music lacks spine. I'm not saying rock has to be testosterone fueled masculinity, but even let's say The Beatles or Bob Dylan sounds like a human 24/7, Radiohead just doesn't.

What the hell is the white guy epitome?

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

That's exactly my point. Your tastes are filtered through "best of" criteria derived from online boards. They lack any personality. The result is something hardly distinguishable from Pitchfork (or /mu or RYM or whatever internet aggregate you prefer). They're basically the internet music nerds' greatest hits. It reeks of a shallow elitism of "I'm too good for the plebeian radio rock like Dave Grohl" yet still lacks the courage to venture too far off the beaten path.

How do you usually find new music to listen to?

When I'm interested in branching out I usually check lists to see who people generally consider "the best", see what clicks and what doesn't, and then look further into the artists that clicked with me and see what other projects they've done, who they've worked with, who influenced them, etc.

Beefheart is one of those guys I just can't get into. Muscially great, but lyrically so offputting. It's like a bad having a poor/subpar vocalist, it just doesn't work for me. That "Group" is rough: Zappa/mothers, Buckethead, and lastly(and most bearable) Kuti (Primus to a bit lesser extent talent wise for reference). I can mostly live with the lyrics being that "rough" if they aren't in your face or annoying. I just never could get into Beefheart at all though, by far the most annoying.

Which lyrics annoyed you?

For what it is worth, I really like the Beefheart song you posted. Definitely infectious, I found myself bobbing my head and must say I enjoyed it The drums on that are stellar.

 

[Shareefruck]

Is that comment about me not loving The Beatles?

To be honest, I don't know if I have ever really recommended much music on here. I am not on the cutting edge of listening to new things coming out so never really have trendy/new stuff to recommend to people. Vetusta Morla is good stuff if you want to try something maybe unfamiliar to you.

For what it is worth, I really like the Beefheart song you posted. Definitely infectious, I found myself bobbing my head and must say I enjoyed it The drums on that are stellar.

Also worth noting I still have the Fela Kuti thread bookmarked to listen to someday. I like trying new things. I just genuinely don't think people should care about my opinions on music, movies, or TV. I like what I like and find it hard to make actual recommendations that are not just "hey, I like this and you should as well." Like buying a Christmas present for a stranger. I am just left to give you what I know I have enjoyed.

Nah, I just vaguely recall you disagreeing with my sensibilities alot, Beefheart is at the absolute extreme end of that, I don't recall you liking many weirder/eccentric things, and most people here are put off by him. I might even be confusing you with someone else who scoffed at something I've said in the past

But awesome! If you're feeling adventurous, you can really dive into a rabbit-hole with Beefheart. But be ready, it gets pretty out there. Safe as Milk is the most accessible album to get into, Trout Mask Replica is the most infamously polarizing but also most explosive and liberatingly extreme/bipolar, Lick My Decals Off Baby is the tightest/most consistently brilliant but is just as weird as Trout Mask Replica, in a more understated way that doesn't really throw you a bone.

But first, here's a kick-ass live performance that's a really nice way to wet your beak with his more accessible stuff


If you want specific songs to try, here are some suggestions:

Steal Softly Through Snow (probably the most similar to Pachuco Cadaver)
One More Red Rose That I Mean
I Love You Big Dummy
Moonlight on Vermont
Bellerin Plain
Hair Pie Bake 1 (these last three are a bit tougher on the ears, but are among my favorites)
Japan in a Dishpan
My Human Gets Me the Blues

And here's a small tidbit to get a sense of how his weird sense of humor/lyrics work:

 

[member 51464]

Nah, I just vaguely recall you disagreeing with my sensibilities alot, Beefheart is at the absolute extreme end of that, I don't recall you liking many weirder/eccentric things, and most people here are put off by him. I might even be confusing you with someone else who scoffed at something I've said in the past

But awesome! If you're feeling adventurous, you can really dive into a rabbit-hole with Beefheart. But be ready, it gets pretty out there. Safe as Milk is the most accessible album to get into, Trout Mask Replica is the most infamously polarizing but also most explosive and liberatingly extreme/bipolar, Lick My Decals Off Baby is the tightest/most consistently brilliant but is just as weird as Trout Mask Replica, in a more understated way that doesn't really throw you a bone. If you want another song to try, here are some suggestions:

Steal Softly Through Snow (probably the most similar to Pachuco Cadaver)
One More Red Rose That I Mean
I Love You Big Dummy
Moonlight on Vermont
Bellerin Plain
Hair Pie Bake 1 (these last three are a bit tougher on the ears, but are among my favorites)
Japan in a Dishpan
My Human Gets Me the Blues

And here's a small tidbit to get a sense of how his weird sense of humor/lyrics work:


And here's a kick-ass live performance

The bolded is interesting! I find it more a matter of not overdoing it with weird and eccentric things. I find it really easy to acquire a massive list of movies to watch, books to read, or music to listen to that is reasonably considered to be well out of the "mainstream" if you will. The issue is that things like this Captain Beefheart take a bit more focus/attention than just throwing on the latest Top 40 mix or whatever.

I find that I can sort of get "uniqueness" burnout, if that makes sense. Maybe there is a better term. But like with kihei's movie suggestions, I can't do too many of the more intriguing/challenging things in a row or I start to get less out of them. I feel I kind of need a steady stream of generic Hollywood stuff so I can appreciate the indie things more. If I only ever ate caviar and lobster, then it wouldn't mean as much as if I have Captain Crunch for breakfast daily. Oftentimes this means not getting to what was the conversation du jour until weeks, months, or sometimes years after it was originally brought up. Rather than comment on old-timey things, I just experience it and onto the next thing.

The internet gives us the chance to expose ourselves to so much more new and unique and wonderful everything. But it is easy to just hoard and overdo it. I actually just today tossed out some old ripped divx movies I made in like 2007 and never got around to watching, haha. 2017 resolution is to actually get through what I have before acquiring too much more. That said, thanks for the suggestions. I bookmarked your post to get around to listening to. Someday

 

[OzzyFan]

Which lyrics annoyed you?

I guess it's just Beefheart's voice or delivery. It's just so offputting to me and takes away from the instrumentals too much, it feels like it wants to be part of the main stage when it doesn't belong imo.

Also, it doesn't help him that he sounds like a horrible person offstage, all the word of mouth stories of how he treated his band and such, even if he had a mental disorder(s). I just couldn't get into his music.

Ftr, I love Fela Kuti and parts of Frank Zappa's stuff.

 

[Shareefruck]

How do you usually find new music to listen to?

When I'm interested in branching out I usually check lists to see who people generally consider "the best", see what clicks and what doesn't, and then look further into the artists that clicked with me and see what other projects they've done, who they've worked with, who influenced them, etc.

Exactly, outside impressionability is something that I think should be embraced to some degree, and it's pretty much completely unavoidable. The way I see it, you're either at the mercy of the advertising/marketing machine which has zero correlation with quality, or you're at the mercy of critical consensus, which has some correlation with quality, or you're at the mercy of word of mouth from people who were also at the mercy of exposure from critics/advertising.

The only way to avoid that is to wander the board aimlessly between entire decades and genres of music, somehow getting the idea that you'll be able to miraculously stumble upon something better than everything else/common knowledge that decades and decades of music criticism somehow missed. That seems like a psychotic way to do it.

Beefheart is one of those guys I just can't get into. Muscially great, but lyrically so offputting. It's like a bad having a poor/subpar vocalist, it just doesn't work for me. That "Group" is rough: Zappa/mothers, Buckethead, and lastly(and most bearable) Kuti (Primus to a bit lesser extent talent wise for reference). I can mostly live with the lyrics being that "rough" if they aren't in your face or annoying. I just never could get into Beefheart at all though, by far the most annoying.

Everything about Beefheart is definitely initially grating, but I don't know, I eventually warmed up to all of it. I actually struggled more with the lyrical content and skronking free jazz-style sound than the vocal delivery. Personally, I've always been put off by that really dramatic and directly meaningful/symbolic/preachy lyrical style that alot of music has (funny enough, I actually view THAT stuff as pretentious), so when guys like Beefheart (and sometimes beatnik-era Dylan) cut through all of that, approach it with playful irreverence, and embrace the nonsensical side of it, I tend to gravitate straight to it and view it as a positive.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Never even heard of him. So no.

 

[Shareefruck]

The bolded is interesting! I find it more a matter of not overdoing it with weird and eccentric things. I find it really easy to acquire a massive list of movies to watch, books to read, or music to listen to that is reasonably considered to be well out of the "mainstream" if you will. The issue is that things like this Captain Beefheart take a bit more focus/attention than just throwing on the latest Top 40 mix or whatever.

I find that I can sort of get "uniqueness" burnout, if that makes sense. Maybe there is a better term. But like with kihei's movie suggestions, I can't do too many of the more intriguing/challenging things in a row or I start to get less out of them. I feel I kind of need a steady stream of generic Hollywood stuff so I can appreciate the indie things more. If I only ever ate caviar and lobster, then it wouldn't mean as much as if I have Captain Crunch for breakfast daily. Oftentimes this means not getting to what was the conversation du jour until weeks, months, or sometimes years after it was originally brought up. Rather than comment on old-timey things, I just experience it and onto the next thing.

The internet gives us the chance to expose ourselves to so much more new and unique and wonderful everything. But it is easy to just hoard and overdo it. I actually just today tossed out some old ripped divx movies I made in like 2007 and never got around to watching, haha. 2017 resolution is to actually get through what I have before acquiring too much more. That said, thanks for the suggestions. I bookmarked your post to get around to listening to. Someday

Perfectly understandable.

I get that way with movies too, although I do feel that the stuff that feels like work/can get exhausting are usually worth the effort and DO ultimately end up giving me a feeling that completely dwarfs the easy stuff. I do find that I need to reset once in a while (which is why you'll always see me watching stuff every year that you can predict that I would inevitably trash), but the satisfaction I get between the two types is completely one-sided. I can't say that I've ever seen a blockbuster that ACTUALLY gives me a strong, lasting feeling. And even if I can think of something (Empire Strikes Back? Raiders?), it's still a feeling that pales in comparison to the other thing.

But with music, it's different for me-- I just can't get enough it and never get sick of it. I also find that unlike with movies, the challenge is ENTIRELY in initially getting familiar with it. Once it clicks, it becomes as accessible as anything on top of (in my opinion) often being better, and quirks that make things accessible just end up feeling like a completely worthless/compromising distraction for me (because there's no longer a need for it). With music, I actually get "normal"-burnout . Something that I think is really well made, like, say, "Gimme Shelter" or "Eleanor Rigby" sounds really boring if I listen to it too often-- it's why I'm not that crazy about Pet Sounds. If I listen to Beefheart over and over again, it just gets better and easier to swallow each time. I'm pretty sure I can listen to something like "Sister Ray" non-stop for an eternity and never tire of it.

 

[Hivemind]

If you're making a broader point like that, I find it a little bit easier to swallow than the Pitchfork comment. But I still obviously take exception to it.

Yes, my preferences are filtered through pre-existing recommendations, and there are certain biases that unavoidably come with that, but the reason I do that is because it works better than any other approach I've tried. Following sales result in consistently crappy experiences, and diving into the crevices of a specific niche that I gravitate to on my own, I find largely unrewarding and limiting as well. There is no other efficient and reliable radar that I'm aware of that works for me-- to at least some degree, you need to let yourself be impressionable by other sources in order to get anywhere, and I don't see anything wrong with that. For the most part, I feel that the most rewarding things do seem to float to the top and become recognized by the kinds of people who make ultra-critical lists, and it makes sense to me that there SHOULD be some sort of consensus among them. Personally, I haven't managed to stumble into many outliers that go completely unrecognized-- otherwise I might feel more inclined to be more "courageous" with the unknown. So naturally, this is the approach that yields the best results for me, and the one I'm going to take. I'm purely interested in finding the things that I will find most rewarding-- hopefully as many as possible, as quickly as possible, and with as high a success rate as possible. Get this through your head-- I would love it everybody shared similar preferences-- Unique or obscure individualism is not a concern of mine, nor has it ever been. If it were, I would agree with you that I'd be failing miserably at it, because the things I like would only appear obscure/atypical to someone who doesn't pay attention this stuff.

But come on, ANY way that you approach it is going to result in some equivalent flaw/bias-- Unless I have unlimited time on this earth to try everything humanly possible without being affected by other people's impression, EVERY other variation is going to result in gaining some benefits while sacrificing something else. As long as preferences are approached with honesty within these confines/influences, that's really the best that we can do. I know that I'm approaching it honestly, because I don't agree with most of the placement, and there are plenty of recommendations that I dislike.

I've never suggested that I'm particularly good at going off the beaten path, or that I even WANT to go too far off the beaten path-- I know that I'm not and I have my suspicions that the reward is not worth what is bound to be a tedious amount of effort. But to my ears, with all sincerity, Dave Grohl's music sounds bland and unrewarding to me. I'm sorry if you think voicing that opinion inherently makes me "elitist", but it REALLY REALLY doesn't. What the hell else are you asking of me? And what does everybody else do that's so much more sincere/unbiased? And why does adamantly professing my favorites that happen to come from this approach strike you as shallow elitism? I dislike typical radio rock because of the way it tends to sound, not because I'm weirdly driven not to like it due to how plebian and widely enjoyed it is. Similarly, I like the type of music I like because it sounds good to me, not because I'm weirdly driven by how patrician and obscure/individualistic I think it is.

The problem I'm finding with the perception of people like you is that if my organic reaction to music is that I find things that strive to become commercially accessible often inhibiting to the potential rewards of the music (which I clearly do, and I have some theories on this), people will notice this pattern in my preferences and automatically assume/get the sense that I have some sinister elitist agenda behind it, where I want to hate on popular things BECAUSE they're popular, for the sole purpose of feigning superiority. Well, that is a patently unfair leap to make and be so certain of, on your part, man. You're being snarky at me for a REALLY bad reason, based on false assumptions, and it's completely uncalled for. Whether you believe it or not, I'm telling you straight up that your assumptions do not match my actual motivations/views.

My comment was exposing the irony of disliking Grohl for being "bland" when you own taste is so "bland." It's the irony of disliking middle of the road material that's been focused grouped into being inoffensive, while you yourself flock to the curated selections of internet music nerds.

It really IS elitism. You view your tastes as superior to the Top 40 listener. Elitism doesn't mean you don't genuinely enjoy what you listen to. Hell, I don't even find anything wrong with elitism. Own it! I am absolutely an elitist when it comes to particular genres that I have explored in great depth. There's an earned elitism that comes with unlocking esoteric art. But in order for that to be valid, you need to actually have superior knowledge of a subject matter.

There's also the massive irony is your thoughts regarding the "most rewarding rising to the top" compared to your thoughts on sales and radio plays. All you've done is simply redefine where your top lies.

If you were to come here and call Dave Grohl bland as someone who had deep knowledge and an earned perspective of post-grunge hard rock, it would be one thing. You'd be speaking as an expert on the topic. But you're not. So why should anyone value your opinion on the matter? If I want an informed opinion of Dave Grohl, I'd much rather talk to someone who listens to a bunch of radio rock than the /mu pseudo-elitist who doesn't.

 

[Hivemind]

How do you usually find new music to listen to?

When I'm interested in branching out I usually check lists to see who people generally consider "the best", see what clicks and what doesn't, and then look further into the artists that clicked with me and see what other projects they've done, who they've worked with, who influenced them, etc.

As a starting point, sure you can look up some of "the best" and expand from there. That's a perfectly acceptable entry point. But you should keep digging well beyond that point. Find the forgotten bands, the overlooked albums in the discography, the 3rd and 4th wave of artists in a genre that brought a new idea to the table or simply perfected an attribute of the sound, etc. When someone limits themselves to only "the best," that's when I don't really value their opinion.

Personally, I discover new music thru various different means. The most consistent methods all simply revolve around interacting socially with people who have tastes I respect. Both in-person and online. I've been parts of online communities with similar tastes, and learned of new music that way. I've frequented plenty of shows, and learned of tons of new music that way. From those shows I've grown my social circle, and been exposed to new music via my friends. Expanding my social circle once again exposes me to new online communities, and so on and so forth.

 

[K Fleur]

Never even heard of him. So no.

You know how to use the internet, and have never heard of Dave Grohl?

I call bull ****.

 

[Shareefruck]

My comment was exposing the irony of disliking Grohl for being "bland" when you own taste is so "bland." It's the irony of disliking middle of the road material that's been focused grouped into being inoffensive, while you yourself flock to the curated selections of internet music nerds.

It really IS elitism. You view your tastes as superior to the Top 40 listener. Elitism doesn't mean you don't genuinely enjoy what you listen to. Hell, I don't even find anything wrong with elitism. Own it! I am absolutely an elitist when it comes to particular genres that I have explored in great depth. There's an earned elitism that comes with unlocking esoteric art. But in order for that to be valid, you need to actually have superior knowledge of a subject matter.

There's also the massive irony is your thoughts regarding the "most rewarding rising to the top" compared to your thoughts on sales and radio plays. All you've done is simply redefine where your top lies.

If you were to come here and call Dave Grohl bland as someone who had deep knowledge and an earned perspective of post-grunge hard rock, it would be one thing. You'd be speaking as an expert on the topic. But you're not. So why should anyone value your opinion on the matter? If I want an informed opinion of Dave Grohl, I'd much rather talk to someone who listens to a bunch of radio rock than the /mu pseudo-elitist who doesn't.

Don't you think that's a bit of an unrealistic expectation to place on a hockey board poster? That someone needs to have deep expertise in order to comment on something?

I have no problem with people flocking to something curated, have never imposed my opinion on others as an authority, and I've repeatedly rejected the notion of total objectivity in music. I have opinions about what I like and dislike, what I think is good/bad, and I do instinctively feel that there's some truth to certain thoughts, just like anybody would, but I'm fully aware of how imperfect and non-universal they are and I don't think I ever pose them as facts or argue that people have no choice but to agree with me. I'm at a loss and get annoyed when many people love things that I don't, but that's about as far as I've ever gone. I've never taken that feeling and suggested that it's indicative of some objective truth.

If that has no value to you because it's not as deep probing as your own expertise, you're free to take it with a grain of salt, just like you should for someone with similarly limited expertise who likes David Grohl, but that doesn't give you grounds to dump all this crap on me.

I am by no means an expert and my exposure is very limited. But I don't think of Dave Grohl as being particularly great. The fact that it's been focus-grouped into being inoffensive is irrelevant to why I feel this way.

Did that really need to be spelled out?

 

[Sarcastic]

You know how to use the internet, and have never heard of Dave Grohl?

I call bull ****.

It's his gimmick to go into threads and just post how he's never heard of something or someone notable.

 

[Terry Yake]

beefheart was a cool guy. an accomplished artist as well

although i'd have to say i'm more a fan of his contemporary frank zappa

 

[BonMorrison]

It's his gimmick to go into threads and just post how he's never heard of something or someone notable.

Hella annoying gimmick too, first and only person I put on ignore.

 

[OzzyFan]

beefheart was a cool guy. an accomplished artist as well

although i'd have to say i'm more a fan of his contemporary frank zappa

For those unfamiliar, Beefheart was "a heartless monster" to a lot of people, including his bandmates:

=He'd put bandmates in a barrel and emotionally and physically abuse them for hours.
=Amongst other ridiculous things he'd do include: kidnapping/house arrest for his band, food deprivation, sleep deprivation, brainwashing, threatening and sometimes using weapons on them(whips and crossbows are the infamous ones), other forms of negative reinforcement, and encouraging physical and emotional fighting between them.

Beefheart was a psychotic and drug abusing *******, in complete honesty. Even if he made good music.