Bands You Want to Like More than You Actually Do

Radiohead. I think their stuff is ok, and I really never got into them but I get swept up in all the hype. It's like they are the most beloved band of all time.

Radiohead
Sigur Ros
Frank Sinatra
The Roots
Okkervil River

Question:

With so many people who claim to not like Radiohead as much as they would like to... how is it that they sell so many records/sell out arenas all the time? Vanity?

"There are probably certain bands/artists that you recognize as producing quality music, and yet for whatever reason, you can't seem to get into them as much as you feel like you should. For whatever reason, you really WANT to like their music more, but it just doesn't strike a chord with you."

I think some have gotten away from the OP's original statement. I can't think of any bands/artists that I know produce what's considered quality music that i think I should like. If it doesn't "strike a chord" with me (good pun, BTW) then I simply don't like them. And, I don't feel that I should like them just because they may be critically acclaimed or liked by others. At the same time, I may not get why others like them. My best example is Rush. I think they are the most pretentious band and I don't like them. I don't feel that I should. I don't get why others like them. Another example is Counting Crows. Don't like them much because I grew tired of them fast. don't feel I should like them. Elton John. Got tired of him very fast and have never thought I should like him. Don't regret not liking any of these.

I do like a lot of the others some have posted here. For example, the Stones, Beatles, Grateful Dead, Floyd, Dylan, Radiohead, Jesus and Mary Chain.

Originally Posted by bachbeet

Click to expand...

I think some have gotten away from the OP's original statement. I can't think of any bands/artists that I know produce what's considered quality music that i think I should like. If it doesn't "strike a chord" with me (good pun, BTW) then I simply don't like them. And, I don't feel that I should like them just because they may be critically acclaimed or liked by others. At the same time, I may not get why others like them. My best example is Rush. I think they are the most pretentious band and I don't like them. I don't feel that I should. I don't get why others like them. Another example is Counting Crows. Don't like them much because I grew tired of them fast. don't feel I should like them. Elton John. Got tired of him very fast and have never thought I should like him. Don't regret not liking any of these.

I gave my own list as artists which I recognize as quality music and I understand why others (along with the musical press) like these said bands, but for some reason or other just don't fall under my own musical aesthetic.

For example with radiohead, I dug their work on Pablo Honey, The Bends, and parts of OK Computer, but from Kid A on, I just didn't have the same visceral feeling listening to their work anymore. Just because I don't have a personal predilection for the more prog rock direction that Radiohead took post Bends, doesn't mean I marginalize the artistic direction they chose to take their music. (Sounds a bit like the modern/abstract art debate don't it?) I don't know how to qualitate what makes up a visceral reaction (good or bad) to a piece of musical work. Could be certain harmonious frequencies that align with innate neural firing patterns developed during childhood.. could be that 2-day old cold burrito I ate for breakfast that caused me to have goosebumps on my prepubescent arm the first time Disarm by the smashing pumpkins came on the radio. Call me plebian in taste, but I just really dig music with good ol' pop melodies written in major chords.

As pretentious as this sounds, the "should like" part of the equation is probably rooted in the self-imposed guilt trip caused by the conflict between personal aesthetic differences and music snobbery.

Originally Posted by bachbeet

Click to expand...

"There are probably certain bands/artists that you recognize as producing quality music, and yet for whatever reason, you can't seem to get into them as much as you feel like you should. For whatever reason, you really WANT to like their music more, but it just doesn't strike a chord with you." I think some have gotten away from the OP's original statement. I can't think of any bands/artists that I know produce what's considered quality music that i think I should like. If it doesn't "strike a chord" with me (good pun, BTW) then I simply don't like them. And, I don't feel that I should like them just because they may be critically acclaimed or liked by others. At the same time, I may not get why others like them. My best example is Rush. I think they are the most pretentious band and I don't like them. I don't feel that I should. I don't get why others like them. Another example is Counting Crows. Don't like them much because I grew tired of them fast. don't feel I should like them. Elton John. Got tired of him very fast and have never thought I should like him. Don't regret not liking any of these. I do like a lot of the others some have posted here. For example, the Stones, Beatles, Grateful Dead, Floyd, Dylan, Radiohead, Jesus and Mary Chain.
Maybe this is something to do with being a musician (I can't remember whether you're a musician or not, and I'm not meaning to imply that you aren't), but there are a lot of bands (and composers) whose music I appreciate, and recognize as good, either technically or creatively, without particularly enjoying it. I find this to be true for just about every art form. I do not particularly enjoy Baroque portraiture, but I can intellectually appreciate a fine example of it. And in some ways, I do sort of regret not enjoying it, but there's no use pretending.

Originally Posted by Jenaimarr

Click to expand...

Call me plebian in taste, but I just really dig music with good ol' pop melodies written in major chords.


Plebe!

Originally Posted by m@T

Click to expand...

I have never been able to see the alleged genius involved in either The Beatles or The Rolling Stones.

They (especially the beatles) could play around with song structure with a natural ease that has never been replicated. In addition art's greatness is correlated to its popularity. The beatles were a straight pop band (albeit still impressive for aforementioned reasons) that then went to the opposite end of the spectrum and became extremely experimental. The Beatles are great in the same way Shakespeare is great. This all applies to the stones to a lesser degree.

Originally Posted by redgrail

Click to expand...

Plebe!
Wouldn't Phil Spector's old stuff fit into that?

While music snobs may deride contemporary pop, they seem to love '50s through '70s pop.

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Click to expand...

Wouldn't Phil Spector's old stuff fit into that?

While music snobs may deride contemporary pop, they seem to love '50s through '70s pop.

Yeah, but 10-1 says they didn't in the '50s through '70s....

Originally Posted by Saucemaster

Click to expand...

Yeah, but 10-1 says they didn't in the '50s through '70s....

No, they were probably feverishly collecting Ragtime or the Carter Family recordings.

For the people who want to like Sigur Ros and GYBE, I think it's good to keep in mind that post rock from ~2000 almost requires a melancholy mood and an artsy fartsy mindset. Here's the deal with Sigur Ros: With the exception of Tortoise and Do Make Say Think, the post rock bands getting press were mostly instrumental bands focusing on dynamics (eg, Slint, Mogwai, EITS, Godspeed, Kinski, Mono). Sigur Ros was different from the jazzy post rock bands but also the loud/soft ones. They came out with a drumstick on a bass, a crazy falsetto, and a bow on a guitar. When they released their concept album ( ) using a made-up language with no track titles for a listening experience that put the full focus on interpretation, my friends and I were all blown away. Then they followed that up with a soundtrack to a weird dance piece; these guys apparently put forth every effort in innovating conceptually, which was really what post rock is all about. These days, they could not possibly live up to the hype now that they created back then. I think maybe you just had to be there or dig the general premise of post rock. Some of the love for Sigur Ros might be residual as well. They toured with Radiohead during the Kid A era and had an influence on Radiohead themselves, IIRC. Nowadays, they can't be seen as much else than easy listening, something nice to put on while you sit in front of a fireplace with a glass of wine watching the snow fall. As for G!YBE, they are very hit or miss with a limited number of tricks up their sleeve. I'm guessing they realized this after Yanqui U.X.O. and didn't want to become an AC/DC of post rock (I still love you Mogwai). These are the only tracks you need from them (although a few others hold their own): -The Dead Flag Blues -Moya and BBFIII -Sleep -Antennas to Heaven If you ever feel existential pangs, put these tracks on your iPod and push a big rock up a hill.

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Click to expand...

Wouldn't Phil Spector's old stuff fit into that?

While music snobs may deride contemporary pop, they seem to love '50s through '70s pop.

Which is why I can't completely follow the herd mentality in dismissing modern manufactured boy bands (backstreet boys, nsync, etc) and bubble gum pop artists like britney spears and the like. It'd be hypocritical to completely disregard them strictly because they were products created by the music industry. Most revered Spector era motown bands were also created by some conglomerate with sheet music handed to them (if they were even fortunate enough to be able to read it) on a silver platter.

Although their musicality and songwriting abilities are craptastic, I still recognize their relevancy as a social barometer (as well as kitch value). Also, it's undeniable that some mainstream pop artists just have a good voice and should be recognized for it. I'm not (too) ashamed to say I was thoroughly entertained when I saw Christina Aguilera w/ Destiny's Child in concert back in 2001. There's a certain unparalled entertainment factor to large budget production values. The caveat is that you don't approach them with the same expectations that you would with a small little indie garage band playing in a smoky dive bar on a Tuesday night.

Sauce/Jenai: I get what you're saying. I am a musician (guitar). I do appreciate the "jazz" chords (flat 9th, diminished 7th, etc). I was focusing on the should part. Jenai hit it on the head when he talked of the self-imposed guilt. I just don't feel a need to like music that I simply don't like. Don't regret or feel guilty.

As for Baroque: I didn't like it at first, but after giving Bach more listens I do enjoy it. I do prefer Mozart and Beethoven but I appreciate Bach more now than I did before. As for Opera, I really didn't think I'd like it much until I gave Puccini (as sung by Pavarotti) a chance. I really like Puccini now. I didn't feel I should like it. I gravitated to it for several reasons -- I'm Italian and it was a "roots" type interest; and, being a musician, I'm willing to have an open mind about new musical experiences. When I found myself liking it, I didn't feel any "guilt release." I simply felt that I had opened my musical horizons.

Anyway, I didn't mean to belabor this.

Bowie
Zeppelin
Deep Purple
Beach Boys