Fun Stuff > BAND
Most underrated songs ever?
nescience:
--- Quote from: Kirbo ---But really, it's not a song. It's.....a mish mash of sounds that don't gel. I don't get what it's supposed to be.
Number nine, number nine, number nine.
--- End quote ---
Open your mind, son.
My vote for the most underrated song of all time goes to: Queen's "Princes of the Universe," the mostly-mocked rocker that was used in Highlander. Any song that features Freddie Mercury singing "I have inside me blood of kings" and "Bring on the girls!" is okay in my book.
On that note, the entire A Kind of Magic album is a tragically overlooked piece of glam/synthpop mastery. It's got "Princes of the Universe", "Who Wants to Live Forever", "Pain is So Close to Pleasure", and most importantly the stellar title track.
Kirbo:
--- Quote from: Kai ---
--- Quote from: Zaarin ---"Mr Moonlight" by the Beatles, from Beatles for Sale. Everyone everywhere seems to believe it to be the worst thing they ever committed to wax,
--- End quote ---
Octopus' Garden is easily the worst song they ever wrote ever.
--- End quote ---
Oh hell no. That entire album is perfect. It's just silly, I mean look at Maxwell's Silver Hammer. Ringo is the man.
--- Quote from: nescience ---Open your mind son
--- End quote ---
Clean out your ears son. It's not musical, it may be artsy or something, but it's not a song.
onewheelwizzard:
--- Quote from: Kai ---
--- Quote from: Zaarin ---"Mr Moonlight" by the Beatles, from Beatles for Sale. Everyone everywhere seems to believe it to be the worst thing they ever committed to wax,
--- End quote ---
Octopus' Garden is easily the worst song they ever wrote ever.
--- End quote ---
Octopus's Garden is good for the same reason Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da is. It's fun. It's music that small children dance and sing along to. Disliking it means you're being too serious.
If the Beatles wrote a "worst song" it's Wild Honey Pie. At least that one is childish in the wrong ways.
E. Spaceman:
--- Quote from: KimJongSick ---
Definition of "underrated" in this case is probably just "didn't get enough recognition when it was released."
--- End quote ---
Then I think the entire catalogue of the Velvet Underground fits here and all of Village Green... by the Kinks
PS on Bell Bottom Blues, I'm not a Clapton fan at all. I just love Cream and Drek and the Dominoes
nescience:
--- Quote from: Kirbo ---
--- Quote from: nescience ---Open your mind son
--- End quote ---
Clean out your ears son. It's not musical, it may be artsy or something, but it's not a song.
--- End quote ---
"Not Musical"? Eh? I'm going to have to once again respectfully disagree. I'll give it to you that "Revolution 9" non-melodic, dissonant, and seemingly unstructured, but by your reckoning, ambient, tape-collage and musique concrète should be considered "non-musical." "Revolution 9", as well as works by Negativland, Faust, the Tape-Beatles, Fripp & Eno, and John Cage (4′33″ being a well-known example) all use nonstandard instrumentation or recording techniques and the result is often surprising and discordant (or, in the case of 4'33", almost completely silent), but the works are ultimately unified and illuminating. To me, saying a work like "Revolution 9" isn't musical is like saying birdsong isn't musical, or speech isn't musical, or the outside world isn't musical, and a multitude of musical composers, artists and sound-samplers remind us time and again that that is not the case.
With regards to my claim that "Revolution 9" should be considered a song, I will elaborate:
(1) It is music (by my reckoning above),
(2) It is relatively short (and while it is long by the standards of the Beatles and of the period's popular music in general, it is a pretty standard length for psychedelic and experimental rock music groups),
(3) It is identified in context as a song (ie, it's on an experimental pop record with a bunch of other songs, appears before and after other songs, and is identified on equal terms with other songs)
(4) It really isn't all that "out-there" by any standards of the time except pop music standards
(5) It is convenient to call every Beatles track a "song", as they were by-and-large a song-based pop group
You may disagree with the veracity or relevance of any of these claims, but I claim that any counter-argument that you can give against at least loosely calling "Revolution 9" a song is a matter of semantics-- rather limiting semantics, in my opinion.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version