[opnly bafld]

I like the conspiracy theory about them too, makes sense to me.

What conspiracy theory?
Thanks,
Jeff

The one about their "early British" success being fabricated and EMI making a boat load of money for years with a "former" secret service man at the helm. John's death is linked also by some.

Lin

[timind]

REM lost their charm when Stipe began to enunciate.
Christian rock -- while driving out of the area and tuning into unknown stations I'll hear an interesting tune and then catch the lyric. "What the frick?" is my usual reaction.

[mfsoa]

Sinatra

[soundbitten1]

I don't get why some don't get the Beatles . It's mostly just well played pop rock .

[rajacat]

For some reason I don't appreciate Neil Diamond. Same with Coldplay.

[opnly bafld]

I don't get why some don't get the Beatles . It's mostly just well played pop rock .

For me a lot of it is what I call "13 year old girl" music or "bubblegum" music.
Mostly though, for me, it has as much to do with their "batting ave." to use an analogy.
They bat about .150 or so to me.

REM lost their charm when Stipe began to enunciate.

I mostly agree, but I can easily understand every word on their second album (first full album Murmur) and most of the words on their first release Chronic Town. It was on their 3rd and 4th albums that he began to sing more unintelligibly.

Lin

[Wayner]

I don't get Manheim Steamroller. I don't understand why people like them and I don't know how they ever got a recording contract. They aren't that bad of musicians, but it's pointless, souless music, almost next to MUSAK.

Wayner

[nathanm]

Dave Matthews Band
Rave\Techno  (why doesn't the monotony bore people?)
Wagner

I only understand half of why anyone would listen to Krall or Barber.  The intimate hi-fi sound is great for like 3 minutes but then it's like watching paint dry.

I want to add The Grateful Dead, but that's not quite fair as I think I may have only ever heard ONE song and that's "Touch Of Grey".  Is there another Grateful Dead tune that a non-fan would know?

Oooh, thank you Wayner!!!  I have another post to make now…

[opnly bafld]

Can I change this up a bit?

Does anybody have a band they like that is mostly under the radar and you can't understand why the band isn't the most popular one ever?

I will start with The Tragically Hip from Canada.
I like them so much that I don't understand it when somebody that likes rock hears them and could care less.  

Lin

[DeadFish]

Does anybody have a band they like that is mostly under the radar and you can't understand why the band isn't the most popular one ever?

Lin, that's the way I felt about The Dead and Zappa, circa 1971 or so...

Re: someone I've failed to 'get'.....  (drum roll, please...) 


Miles Davis.   At best, I find him inovative and upbeat, at worst, an addled junkie lost in noodling...

('oh, somebody help me, PLEASE!')  I'm about a dozen or so albums into him, and still don't know why I spent the money...

DeadFish  (great thread btw!)

[wje]

I only understand half of why anyone would listen to Krall or Barber.  The intimate hi-fi sound is great for like 3 minutes but then it's like watching paint dry.

Which is why the Holly Cole Trio exists. 

I want to add The Grateful Dead, but that's not quite fair as I think I may have only ever heard ONE song and that's "Touch Of Grey".  Is there another Grateful Dead tune that a non-fan would know?

I once heard a small coffeeshop trio play a few years ago.  Most of their stuff was bluegrass.  However, they incorporated several Grateful Dead songs into the mix with a touch of bluegrass.  Very, very pleasant stuff.

A good starting point for the 'Dead might be: "Skeletons from the Closet: The Best of the Grateful Dead" featuring ... Sugar Magnolia, Uncle John's Band, Casey Jones, Friend of the Devil, etc.

[Zero]

U2 -  I never liked them, period
The Rolling Stones -  Dug on their early work, hate the circa 75 on up stuff
Manheim Steamroller – I’d rather punch myself in the crotch than listen to that shite
Gustav Holst – I appreciate his work, but personally, it never did anything for me
The Allman Bro’s -  A few great pieces mixed with a lot of bombs – imho
Arcade Fire - I never understood the hype surrounding this new band.
Fall Out Boy – Ditto to the above
John Mellencamp – Nope, never got it
Green Day -  Anything past “Dookie” has been barely listenable
Wilco – Nope, never got them either
Counting Crows – Why can’t they just go away!?
Steely Dan - Just in case you guys missed it the first time
KISS – It’s a shame KISS happened in the first place. Now..die..

More generally speaking;

Modern pop Christmas music  -  see my comments towards Manheim
Damn near any rap album past 2002
Christian Rock / pop / traditional muzak - can I get an amen?
Most K-Pop (or any other form of Asian pop muzak)

[DaveC113]

Rave\Techno  (why doesn't the monotony bore people?)

Apparently you've never been to an underground rave and ordered a "smart" drink  aa

[wje]

Rave\Techno  (why doesn't the monotony bore people?)

Apparently you've never been to an underground rave and ordered a "smart" drink  aa

A little over a year ago, I was in a club and heard some of the former members of "The String Cheese Incident" play a bunch of techno stuff.  I guess I really wasn't too impressed with it.  However, the others (a few generations younger than me, appeared to be enjoying it.)

[DaveC113]

A little over a year ago, I was in a club and heard some of the former members of "The String Cheese Incident" play a bunch of techno stuff.  I guess I really wasn't too impressed with it.  However, the others (a few generations younger than me, appeared to be enjoying it.)

I only liked it after the "smart" drink. After that night... not so much. The Propellerheads and a few others are  really good, though...

[jkelly]

YANNI

[nathanm]

Rave\Techno  (why doesn't the monotony bore people?)

Apparently you've never been to an underground rave and ordered a "smart" drink  aa

No, you're right.  I was dragged along to one such techno type club once and that cured me of the music.  No drugs involved.  I can appreciate a good beat, I have a few techno tunes in my collection (and I'm sure that's not even the right genre name for it, but it's all I've got), but I can't fathom a whole night of such tedious pounding.  I guess you have to like dancing moreso than music.

[Ericus Rex]

I don't get why some don't get the Beatles . It's mostly just well played pop rock .

I think what people here don't get is their uber-fame.  What's not to get about (most) of their music?

I recently went to a Grateful Dead cover band (Playing Dead) with a deadhead friend.  He said they were the closest thing to the real deal he's ever heard (and he saw the real Dead 7 times).  Sure, they sounded great and the music was polite and all but the most interesting thing about the whole experience was the crowd.  Everyone was dancing and talking to their neighbor they just met and laughing....  I can see how a real Dead show would have been an incredible experience, even with boring music.

[kbuzz3]

I don't get why some don't get the Beatles . It's mostly just well played pop rock .

For me a lot of it is what I call "13 year old girl" music or "bubblegum" music.
Mostly though, for me, it has as much to do with their "batting ave." to use an analogy.
They bat about .150 or so to me.

REM lost their charm when Stipe began to enunciate.

I mostly agree, but I can easily understand every word on their second album (first full album Murmur) and most of the words on their first release Chronic Town. It was on their 3rd and 4th albums that he began to sing more unintelligibly.

Lin

Not only do i not get REM, ive never got them even in 1985. They sucked then, they suck now.  The "college radio" promoters were wrong then and they are still wrong.  Not only that they appropriated my fave esoteric "frequency kenneth" saying.  Darn...

I hear about the same whining from my twin 6 year olds as i do with REM. Much "the same frequency" and the same level of annoyance....glad to see folks on this site have the same musical IQ

[darrenyeats]

IMHO... The thing about the Beatles is they were very very successful and different at the same time. My dad often comments on how weird their early singles sounded, discordant almost, compared to the other popular music up to then. To mix it up AND to achieve mainstream success at the same time is rare indeed. And that was even before their experimental phases. A lot of the musical furniture we take for granted...some say most of rock and of pop AS WE know it...is built upon what the Beatles did. Just a really basic example: think of Rage Against The Machine, their pretty distinctive riffs and then listen to "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" from Abbey Road. You'll hear a precursor there. There are many examples like this, they laid the foundation of a lot of the pop and rock idioms. Another point is they were prolific and their material is very diverse.

If they didn't do it, would someone else have eventually? Maybe, but maybe not one band. They moved the game on in leaps and bounds and they deserve credit for it.

I am NOT saying that only the Beatles have been successful, only the Beatles have innovated and only the Beatles have moved music on. But I am saying the Beatles have done all three and that is why people rave about them. The very fact their pop songs remain relevant, almost 50 years (yes!) later, is 'nuff said.

BTW I am a Beatles fan. 
Darren