Are populist contrarians really people?
 

You betcha, Joe.

mavericks?

"February 4, 2009 Au Contraire

I am a contrarian by nature. Hardcore vegans make me want to eat raw meat and shoot deer, extreme political correctness brings out my inner crudeness and insensitivity, and when I witness public displays of affection, my instinct is to swear off dating for good. Basically, if you're doing or saying something, and you're doing or saying it LOUDLY, then chances are, I will refuse to do it or say it along with you. In fact, I might do or say the opposite. Why? Because life is more fun this way.
As a contrarian, I am hardly alone. And music contrarians make up a large portion of us. You know the ones I'm talking about, those people who can never simply agree with popular, commonly held beliefs. Someone who insists that Chad Channing was Nirvana's best drummer, that Bleach was better than Nevermind, that the answer to "Beatles or Stones?" is The Kinks, that Springsteen's Tunnel of Love is one of his finest albums, that Bootsy Collins out-funked George Clinton, or that Soul Asylum was somehow the quintessential Minneapolis band. (Really? Over The 'Mats or Husker Du?)
Contrarians get even more infuriating when it comes to members of legendary bands, often claiming that the "genius" title has been misapplied. They'll tell you that the Buzzcocks were superior with Howard Devoto as their singer, and that Pink Floyd was at their peak with Syd Barrett. But were they? Was Fleetwood Mac actually more awesome before Stevie Nicks? Is Son Volt really a better offshoot of Uncle Tupelo than Wilco?
I can't answer those questions, but a music contrarian can, and will. In fact, their argument as to why Fugazi never outshone Minor Threat or Rites of Spring will be the contrarian's calling card, their 10-minute lecture at social events and why they'll never get asked to speak at a wedding.
But why? Why must you or I or our friends resort to such puerile incantations? Merely for the sake of argument, or to assert our individuality? Do we really mean it? Do we really care? I think we do care. I think that for people whose identities have been shaped by songs -- by songwriters, by bands, by cover art, by stage banter we live by and repeat the next day to our friends; by lyrics that make absolute sense or make so little sense that we worship them all the more; by those hours of memorization and by the effort it takes to embrace music, not just momentarily but to hold onto it for life -- that is not something you give up easily or readily. You fight and you contradict the norm not just to be an ass, but to defend all that's held you up over the years. Even if you're totally wrong.
So what contradictory musical beliefs do you hold? What contrarian musical opinions do your friends or co-workers have that drive you crazy? And what contrarian arguments do you find the most ridiculous or the most valid?
-------------------------"


Carrie

^^Good post. I don't know what I am.

Nirvana Nevermind was better than Bleach and it had better songs than In Utero as an overall complete album. From start to finish.

Syd Barrets Pink Floyd was edgier, had better hooks, and was less douchey than the Later Pink Floyd. They had some good songs, but most are too arena rock/cheesey psych in my opinion.

And The Kinks were not better than the beatles, but they were better than the Stones.

au contrair!

In Utero is a far superior album than bleach, if only for the better sound quality of Albini vs Butch Vig

and the material is less pop more authentic with an edge..

Contrarianism, like consistency, is the last refuge of the uninspired.

Reminded me of something I heard the other day:

In Utero is BORING

there , I said it.

I know this is far from the point of the thread, but I rather like pop music and I really try never to "go against the grain" for the sake of going against the grain. But really, I don't think anything Nirvana released was anywhere near the quality of Bleach. (Except maybe the last 4 songs on Incesticide.) Like it's an opinion (just an opinion) that I can't even fathom losing. Nevermind was catchier, but that's about all I see.

I don't want this to turn into another Nirvana thread, though. I just had to say it in response to the article's claim that thinking Bleach is better is "contrarian" and not "valid."

(spits out drink)


its too late! damn it carrie what did you do?

man yesterday I met a girl that has the exact voice as her.

Incesticide is my favorite.
But none of the others are bad.

Awesome. A thread where we all get to choose our favourite Nirvana album.

Alaska-Seattle: that's close.

im pretty sure that jack endino or whatever his name is produced bleached and vig only did nevermind

I said Nevermind has the best songs. It's better than Bleach. I didn't say Bleach was better than In Utero. That's second to Nevermind. Incesticide has some really cool moments, and my fav nirvana song aneurysm, but Bleach is better than Incesticide.

Anyways.

What about the beatles/stones/kinks arguement.

What about the Syd/Waters etc.

Stop dwelling on Nirvana!

neil Young vs Tom Petty?

Johnny Thunders vs CC Deville?

Now that the political danger is pretty much over, is it now OK to say that I still want to have sex with her?

Just rent that Nailin' Palin porno like every other sad fuck.

I tried. It's not the same.

:(

Perhaps a vacation to the great North West is in order?

I'd have to get past Todd first. He could be a problem.

that was a typo.. I meant to say Nevermind

i like the beatles better than the kinks by a good amount, and the kinks are better than the stones by miles and miles

the sound of Bleach
 

The sound quality of In Utero may be better, but, to my ears, the SOUND of Bleach is unsurpassed.

edit: Oh, you meant Nevermind... Nevermind doesn't sound all that bad, if you can get over the - perhaps - over-produced "layerdness" of it. The contrast between its sound and content works will in my opinion.

On the topic of contrarianism; I like being contrarian from time to time. Once, a friend of mine wanted to say something about a guy, whom I didn't know, sitting at a table next to ours. He happened to be the only black person at his table, but my friend referred to him as "the one with the hat". I replied, "you mean the negro?" just because I wanted to piss her off with my unPC remark. I succeeded tremendously. I'm proud of that to this day. I mean, no one would think it's not PC to refer to someone as "the girl with the red hair" or "the guy with the beard", would they? So why not say "the black guy"? Skin color is nothing to be tabooed, is it?

"we're not just boys and girls, people"

How about Tom Petty Vs The Strokes!!!!!!!!!!!!