Album Rating: 4.0
And also anything blues-related is going to adhere to some pretty defined characteristics by it's very nature, so to criticize one blues artist for sounding a bit similar to another is ignorant and ludicrous. It's a self-defeating argument. Blues is all about feeling, interpreted individually by very subtle nuances. If you want crazy colorful varieties and innovative genre-mashing, you're barking up the wrong tree.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Jefflebowski: ALL of the artists in this vein are "ripping off" Led Zeppelin in large chunks, and guess what Led Zeppelin themselves were accused of?
That's really just the way blues has always been.
ChoccyPhilly: "basic pop songs played in a style to make them sound more heavy" = rock n roll.
Think about it.
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.5 | Sound Off
It might not be pop music but they're still playing pop songs. rock and roll played pop too, especially a band
like AC/DC, what about it?
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Honestly I just feel like "pop" music is a terrible description in general, a terrible indication of both sound and style.
Think about it: Top 40 music in the 60's and Top 40 radio today sound NOTHING alike -- yet both would be considered "pop" music.
Now if you're just talking about a "pop" song--as in, just a simple and catchy song--then I can see where you're coming from. But it sounded to me like you were referring to "pop" as a genre.
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.5 | Sound Off
Pop is a broad term though and you can say that about anything, like the Indie of today doesn't sound anything like it used to. I wouldn't outright call this pop, but the pop characteristics are VERY apparent and much too prominent for my liking.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Yeah but the term "indie" also didn't exist back in those days either. It was folk, or bluegrass, or psychedelic, or blues, soul, etc. Of course genres weren't as mixed as they are now, but you see what I mean...it's not quite an accurate comparison.
So like when you say the "pop characteristics" are annoying, what are you referring to? Is it too simple, too catchy, too hooky? Are you unable to enjoy anything that be described in those terms? Do you find blues-based music in general to be underwhelming? Or is it just that these guys don't execute the style well enough in your opinion? I'm curious.
|
| |
Alright, the thing is, there was obviously something special about The White Stripes when they got popular. Maybe they weren't doing anything extremely new, but they executed it so well, and that in itself made them unique. QOTSA's a whole 'nother story - they're creative and haunting and unique, just because they are. They invented a language of their own. There's a difference between inspired and derivative. Royal Blood has no spark about them, nothing really their own. It sounds cool, but it essentially is a wholesale ripoff. The final question is, however: if it's stuck in my head, and I'm bobbing my head when I listen, can I really complain?
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.5 | Sound Off
The thing I find with this is that, like most pop songs, it seems to want to rush into the chorus as quickly as possible. The chorus is also the strongest part of the song, which makes it annoying in my opinion because the rest of it still can't stand on its feet. As for indie, when the term was first used the style was way different then anyway, so styles just change over time. I'll be honest, I don't listen to a lot of blues, so I can't truthfully answer you on that part. As for the pop characteristics, I just find that the "catchy" hooks are pretty stale and again, it sounds like any other pop song in the same way that Breaking Benjamin plays pop songs, but are just heavier than normal
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Breaking Benjamin do not play pop songs either.
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.5 | Sound Off
Lol wtf green? So what's the difference between breaking benjamin, a normal "pop band" and like a pop punk band? They all play the same songs, just with different instrumentation, but they're all pop songs in the end
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
what no no no
Breaking Benjamin are not a normal "pop band" at all.
they're generic post grunge but that =/= pop
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.5 | Sound Off
They're not a pop band but they play pop songs
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
If they're not a pop band THEY DON'T PLAY POP SONGS.
Breaking Benjamin does not sound like fucking Miley Cyrus or Katy Perry for chrissakes
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5
'If they're not a pop band THEY DON'T PLAY POP SONGS.
Breaking Benjamin does not sound like fucking Miley Cyrus or Katy Perry for chrissakes'
i find your lack of logic...disturbing
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.5 | Sound Off
jeez, you don't understand, green, you don't have to be a pop band to play pop songs. It has so many pop characteristics, like a very catchy and accessible hook, typical verse chorus verse structure and that is what a pop song is, and it can heard in any genre of music. So you're gonna tell me a band like The 1975 aren't pop because they're an "indie rock" band? no, they're still pop and they sound NOTHING like katy perry or miley cyrus
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5
also the 1975 are shit
i realize this doesn't really add to the debate but still
|
| |
I think Green Baron is assuming that referring to Royal Blood as 'pop' is inherently a negative thing... which it isn't.
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.5 | Sound Off
I literally had a friend scream at me because I called her beloved 1975 "pop" as if it's a dirty word
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5
they're basically 80s pop played by a bunch of indie shitheels, i hate literally everything about them
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.5 | Sound Off
Likewise. Rated their debut a 2 cos I couldn't stand anything on it
|
| |
|
|
