Music Pet Peeves

[Cosmic Harmony]

One big one is a "one hit album", I don't know the proper term for it, so I just call it that. It's when an artist that you like has an album that has like...1 or 2 good songs on it, and the rest are shit. I hate that. If I like the artist enough I will learn to enjoy the other songs, otherwise i'll just put it into the album pile that I won't listen to much anymore.

Ahem...

"Sledgehammer", "Big Time", and "In Your Eyes" and.....nothing else that matters.

 

[Prime]

Ahem...

"Sledgehammer", "Big Time", and "In Your Eyes" and.....nothing else that matters.

In this case, their can be exceptions. That's just my opinion though, I like a full album full of great music. Not to say this isn't a great album though. I will now await the tomatoes that will be thrown at me.

 

[Lynch]

My biggest pet peeve is when people like "music" that is plain and simply just noise just to be non comformists, so they can go and find other non conformists and conform with them(death metal) and then go hate on other groups of people who like "music" that is just noise(screamo/emo/grindcore stuff).

. . . . .

I hope its just a fad and they grow up and start listening to what they ACTUALLY like, not liking something just because its "br00tal"

I'm not telling them to like what I like. I'm just saying they should listen to music for the real reasons.

I agree with a lot of this. Not specifically death metal, but there are plenty of people out there (and even a couple around here) that act like this. If you listen to anything that is played on the radio as opposed to some "underground" shit that only 24 people on earth have ever listened to, you are a sellout and don't know shit about that specific genre. Personally, I say FU to anyone with that mentality. (and if you want to say it back, feel free).

But LXA has a point here about the whole unconformity thing. Listening to and following anything they personally view as 'non-conform' is ok, but when and if that artist or band starts seeing a rise in popularity, suddenly this group of elitist snobs considers them to be sellouts and even will go so far as to talk about them in the past tense as if something the band/artist is doing now isn't worthy of even recognizing.

It's one thing to not like an entire genre of music. NO one can tell you what you should or shouldn't listen to, what you should or shouldn't like, who and how you support this artist or the next. My problem is with being an elitist snob about it. Hip Hop could be a good example of this. There's mainstream hip hop, average stuff out there that die-hard fans like and enjoy, then there's this "underground" scene. If someone like myself rips on hip-hop in general, we are told we don't know shit about hip-hop and "real" hip hop is the underground stuff, NOT what everyone knows or has heard. when/if one of those "underground" artists suddenly gets a big break, starts making money, selling albums, concerts, whatever... they are the big "sellout" and suddenly seem to be shunned by the elitist snob fans. It's their right to have that opinion, but don't expect me to take you or your opinion seriously when you act like that. JM2CW, take it for what it's worth.

 

[annie]

Forgive my misreading then. Though, people do have their own opinions on bands from the 70's and those years. People can say any band I listen to is mainstream, and it wouldn't mean shit. It's all opinion. And everyone has one whether we like to believe them or not.

I was just stating my pet peeve, if that is allowed.

 

[lady_barrett2112]

^I have the same "gripe" toward ticket sales. I don't have any memory of ever going to a concert for 15 bucks because i've only been a concert goer for a few years. But, I can say that the amount of money I have spent on tickets is absolutely ridiculous. The sad thing is, that hasn't stopped me from buying them, because I want to see my favorite bands play. It's starting to become more about the money than the act itself. If anything, they should be lowering ticket prices, and should work on organizing how their merchandise is sold at the venues. The reason I don't buy merchandise when I go to a concert is because its completely disorganized and is bloody impossible to get what you want. If they lowered the prices, and worked on the merchandise organization, I think they'd make more money from that, than the tickets themselves.

I know exactly what you mean. I remember my first "big," concert was Nine Inch Nails back in 2000. I purchased my ticket for $45 however my friend and I got floor seating. Therefore we got an incredible view of the band for under $100 which is what I consider a nice deal.

These days you'd have to strike a gold mine in order to get good seats for a bargain price, in which I mean winning tickets on a radio station. Of course I have never won tickets on the radio so I don't know how nice of a deal you get. Also to my understanding, not only is there a "handling fee" but also a parking fee.

I got really excited when I heard on my local radio station that Rush will be stopping in my hometown. However my smile turned into frown when I found out from some of my friends that ticket pricing is well over $100. I love this band to death but I don't think I'm willing to pay that much money just to see them play a live set for two hours. Thank goodness I got a chance to see them years back. While it would be nice to see them again, I have my own memory of seeing their show live to cherish.

Besides the music industry nowadays is so screwed up that bands make most of their money from touring then from selling records. Hence the possible reason why tickets are so expensive. I'm not saying that it's right but that reason sounds more plausible.

 

[Prime]

I was just stating my pet peeve, if that is allowed.

Of course it's allowed, that's the whole point. I was only stating my opinion towards yours, which others have done in this thread.

I know exactly what you mean. I remember my first "big," concert was Nine Inch Nails back in 2000. I purchased my ticket for $45 however my friend and I got floor seating. Therefore we got an incredible view of the band for under $100 which is what I consider a nice deal.

These days you'd have to strike a gold mine in order to get good seats for a bargain price, in which I mean winning tickets on a radio station. Of course I have never won tickets on the radio so I don't know how nice of a deal you get. Also to my understanding, not only is there a "handling fee" but also a parking fee.

I got really excited when I heard on my local radio station that Rush will be stopping in my hometown. However my smile turned into frown when I found out from some of my friends that ticket pricing is well over $100. I love this band to death but I don't think I'm willing to pay that much money just to see them play a live set for two hours. Thank goodness I got a chance to see them years back. While it would be nice to see them again, I have my own memory of seeing their show live to cherish.

Besides the music industry nowadays is so screwed up that bands make most of their money from touring then from selling records. Hence the possible reason why tickets are so expensive. I'm not saying that it's right but that reason sounds more plausible.

Yeah, ticket sales are ridiculous. There are certain venues I will go to that I don't mind purchasing cheap tickets for. They are the ones that are slanted downwards toward the stage. Because wherever you sit, you can see the stage perfectly.

 

[Balance]

$8 beers at a concert and spilling 1/4 of it working your way through the crowd back to your seat.

 

[Lynch]

$8 beers at a concert and spilling 1/4 of it working your way through the crowd back to your seat.

Flasks = the only way to go.

 

[lady_barrett2112]

I think my biggest pet peeve in music is this whole "style over substance." This especially pertains to women in the music industry in the form of "sex sells," and it seems this formula has gotten way out of hand in this generation (i.e. Katy Perry, Keisha, etc.) I remember when Britney Spears first broke out and she appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone in a bra and hot pants. She was seventeen for crying out loud. She was still a minor yet she was being branded as a sex object. Don't get me wrong, I hate censorship but her image along with many other pop tarts in the 90s is not what I'd call a positive role model for the young girls they were being marketed towards.

I think the women in the music business back in the 60s and 70s had real class. I don't recall ever seeing Grace Slick, Michelle Phillips, Joan Baez or the Wilson sisters prancing around in next to nothing to entertain their audience. They didn't need to! The only woman I can think of from that era that wasn't too moderate was Tina Turner but she still kept things classy as opposed to raunchy.

Then there is someone like Lady Gaga. I admit I like her music and I think she has tremendous talent but I don't feel that she needs to have this twisted image in order to get an audiences' attention. In fact it saddens me to think that when she fades from the spotlight, the only thing that people will remember her for are her flamboyant outfits as opposed to the tremendous pipes she had.

... okay I think the inner feminist in me has calmed down and I'm not even a feminist. This lady is stepping off the soapbox now.

 

[ComfortablyNumb]

Death Metal is the only genre I absolutely despise. I think the only reason anyone likes it is either they are doing it to be non conformist but at the same time to conform into the group of hate mongering teenagers who think they know everything about music when they listen to only cannibal corpse
Or they're ears have become so damaged by listening to music on full volume straight into their ears, that anything becomes music to them, even pure and simple noise.

Man I love your assumptions and generalizations. Pure ignorance haha.