My husband the guitarist still holds Tom Scholz in high regard as a guitarist and therefore agrees with you, and Scholz went to MIT and has a master's degree and is really smart, but I can't fucking STAND Brad Delp's voice so that's probably my biggest problem with Boston (RIP Brad Delp). But, yeah, they totally overplayed Boston when that first album was out, and if I never hear "Foreplay, Long Time" ever again it will be fine with me.
There must be some unwritten rule for classic rock stations that one Boston song has to be played at least once every 3-4 hours.
That opinion also seemed to be a lot more common than I thought as well. A lot of people I knew/met that either hated Limp Bizkit or were "meh" about Limp Bizkit also thought that it would've been better without Fred Durst. Heck, some of them even said that the actual music was good, but it was the vocals that turned it to shit for them.
Wes is a good guitar player/musician and I like Black Light Burns. Fred Durst has got to be the worst frontman, ever.
Believe it or not, but Eddie Van Halen auditioned for Limp Bizkit after Wes Borland left in the early 00s. I guess all of that coke and Shiraz wine really fucked up his judgement.
Last edited by GulDukat; 07-19-2014 at 01:43 PM.
I have actually listened to Houses of the Holy as an album. I find it kind of "meh," to be honest. Some songs I like, but they were no longer in their prime.
Another big expansive concept album that predates The Wall is The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, Peter Gabriel's last hurrah with Genesis. And the 70s were just full of that — The Wall was more like the last dying breaths of the era than any kind of a trailblazer.
I also listened to Quadrophenia recently (I was reading What You Want is in the Limo at the time, so it was sort of required homework), and it was also a mixed bag. Didn't really grab me until the second half — for me, Who's Next will always be their best album, failed concepts be damned.
Their first album is almost perfect, if a bit dated now. And I still remember the day the third album finally arrived, and radio was playing the whole thing … ultimately disappointing as hell, but it was the musical event of my college years. For me, Brad Delp was the most important part of it. Without him the songs are just dippy psychobabble.
is that true about EVH? That's absolutely NUTS if so! crazy.
re: Fred Durst, I hate to say it, but I agree with Wes Borland on the subject:
http://antiquiet.com/interviews/2011...-vs-antiquiet/
(not a fan of anti quiet but enjoyed that exchange)
I also think it's not quite as good as the other classic records, but Physical Graffiti is up there with the best.
Indeed, the end of an era. When punk appeared on the scene, prog-rock died. But Roger Waters didn't care and made that one last indulgent concept double-album about his mind.
I used to listen to Pink Floyd regularly in my early twenties, but almost never now. They are perfect for the expanding juvenile mind, but after that, they're reduced to the (wonderful) contributions of Gilmour and Wright.
I should listen more to the old Genesis records.
I've never cared for the Who. Their rock operas do nothing for me, what's the point? I guess they were there at the right time, a band of the Beatles generation, and before the next generation that began in 1969 (Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, David Bowie, Michael Jackson, Can and a couple more). So the Who can claim to be one of those original influences that had an impact on anything else, but I don't know what it is.
Last edited by ambergris; 07-19-2014 at 04:31 PM.
Hmm, yeah, I probably should give that one a listen.
Tommy and Quadrophenia were a bit overblown in my opinion. When Townshend indulges himself too much everything goes off the rails, but a little restraint on his part does wonders. (I wish his solo stuff was on Spotify — I have fond memories of White City — but it looks like he's not even on iTunes yet. Sigh.)I've never cared for the Who. Their rock operas do nothing for me, what's the point? I guess they were there at the right time, a band of the Beatles generation, and before the next generation that began in 1969 (Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, David Bowie, Michael Jackson, Can and a couple more). So the Who can claim to be one of those original influences that had an impact on anything else, but I don't know what it is.
http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/mtv...r-limp-bizkit/
Pretty nuts, indeed.
RE: Houses of the Holy--a masterpiece, IMHO. I actually need to give it another listen, it's been a while.
Agreed about the first Boston album. I liked Don't Look Back too, more of the same. I also really liked Third Stage. It's what you might call "soft rock" and I'm generally not into that--but it's well written and has a lot of heart. Many of Boston's songs were rather melancholy and seem even more so now, considering what happened to Brad Delp.
Journey's Don't Stop Believing is so ugh. It's like very bro's and middle aged yuppie's/baby boomer's anthem. It also makes for bad requisite drunken karaoke fodder.
I love Who's Next, as well; but, I love Quadrophenia because of that whole mods vs rockers thing. And, when I was a teen, I could really identify with a lot of the themes in Quadrophenia. Now that I'm older, I guess maybe it doesn't mean quite as much to me as it did back then, but I still think it's a brilliant album.
Last edited by allegro; 07-19-2014 at 11:57 PM.
Last edited by allegro; 07-20-2014 at 12:13 AM.
I've been lukewarm at best Journey with Steve Perry, but I'm very curious about the first albums that were way more prog/fusion and also had Gregg Rolie (singer on Santana's first 3 albums) as lead singer. If we're talking about that era of rock, I do like Foreigner and Heart (even their 80's stuff). I even like the harder REO Speedwagon stuff. But if I have to be honest, some of those bands were responsible for dulling Rock music down from something that was more intellectual and inventive to "another can of beans" like the song goes. If anything though, it was long before that when people started seeing it come I'm sure. People thought initially that Led Zeppelin were a dumbed down version of rock, eliminating the mystique and intelligence of bands up to that point. The difference being is that Zeppelin managed to outgrow that exponentially while some of these other bands were stuck (by either outside influence or their own creative laziness) to the formula that made them hit machines until the next big thing came along.
I can't stand Steve Perry in Journey, but that guy sure can sing.
Quadrophenia works well for many reasons but the two that stick out are as follows. One, despite Pete writing everything the working relationship in The Who still allowed the other members to be creative enough to make it a group effort. And second to that is that a lot of the songs on their own are great songs, a lot of which became concert staples so many years after the first disastrous attempt to tour it. Otherwise what you wind up with on rock operas is a mix of good to great songs with tiny bits of music and words which only exist to push the story along. It's all over The Wall and even Tommy but very little on Quadrophenia.
Last edited by onthewall2983; 02-09-2020 at 04:27 PM.
I liked Scream by Chris Cornell. People love to trash it, but I thought it was a pretty cool, interesting album. At least it wasn't boring, like Carry On. That said, I hope that he never releases another album like it.
The Cult are a criminally underrated band;
Last edited by GulDukat; 07-20-2014 at 07:25 AM.
People say this... but I'm going to chime in as someone who's worked at a karaoke bar. Drunk people can fucking nail Journey. They can sound (sometimes) just like Steve Perry, and they can (for whatever reason) hit all those hard sounding notes. Sure, they're sloppy and drunk, but they can do it.
Not sure what that says, but...
Shocking thing I learned working at a karaoke bar, is that NOBODY can nail an Aerosmith song. Even more shocking? The Offspring. For some reason or another, nobody ever came in and did a song by The Offspring justice. Those bands suck (much like Journey), but their lead singers don't get enough credit.
Much as I like Steve Perry, I have the warm and fuzzies for those records. With a lot of 70s bands the first few albums are pretty forgettable, but Journey was an offshoot of Santana and they knew what they were doing.
I actually like the last two albums with Perry the best. Raised on Radio was purely a pop album, but beautifully done. And the opening track is one of my favorite songs ever.
Steve Perry Journey, yeah, I think he sings stuff that's easy to sing because the notes are easy for most people to hit, predictable, no strange major/minor changes, no strange range, etc. But The Offspring's "Come Out and Play," minor key, people usually don't "get" that, and their vocal lines aren't too melodic to me, it ain't the Beatles, so I can imagine people not being very successful at that shit. But, as far as front man vocals and the strength of vocals, not just "hey, that drunk dude was able to actually hit all the notes," that's what I'm talking about. I'm not a Steve Perry fan, but I saw him on a video recently, when he appeared on stage at an Eels show in Minneapolis after being hidden for nearly 20 years, and the guy still sounds pretty much the same as when he was singing "Oh, Sherrie" in '84. Vs. Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull who sounds like he has emphysema. But I don't think anybody ever discredited Steven Tyler's voice, ever. Maybe now, 600 years later, after a lot of drugs and alcohol. But, not during his prime, certainly not. In the 70s, Tyler was considered one of the best vocalists in rock Mick Jagger Jr.. And Steve Perry was considered a fluff ball ("Wheel in the Sky" vs. "Sweet Emotion?" HELLO??!??!).
Both below tours in 1978 (heh, the Toxic Twins are so strung out on this tour):
Last edited by allegro; 07-20-2014 at 03:32 PM.