Chinese Democracy may become the most underrated album in history.

[Len Cnut]

That ass speaks for itself...

I actually really liked Laundry Service when it came out. But as I sit here today, I gotta ask myself "how much was based upon the music and how much was based upon that ass shaking?"

Another pertinent question would be how much is music per se based on ass shaking and does ass shaking as a primary function necessarily detract from music? I mean it's sort of the point of pop music isn't it, to get you up out of your chair.

Just a small point regarding that specific aspect of your post, I'm not really that aware of Shakira other than she's married to Gerard Pique and she made a song once where, in the video, she appeared to be dancing in a stampede.

[Apollo]

Laundry Service was critically acclaimed at the time, commercially successful and is still widely regarded by fans and laymen alike. I do not see as many claims for CD on those three accounts.

Lets be blunt, no one has a good word for Chi Dem except GnR fanatics. And I do mean fanatics, a great portion of even GnR fans think it's a load of bollocks. It truly is a case of what Kurt Cobain once said in the song Aero Zeppelin, 'you could shit upon the stage, they'll be fans'...and thats what it is i think.

It's the same with art or music or films, whenever someones a fanatic of something, say for instance, i dunno, someones a Marlon Brando fanatic. You have the bona fide strokes of genius in Streetcar, Waterfront etc etc, the ones well all know...but i bet you any money you go on a Brando fansite or message board and they'll be people there claiming The Island of Dr Moreau to be a fuckin' earth shattering performance...and it's just not and only is if you are blindly in love with the man.

Now I'm the biggest Brando fan i know but i think it's a terrible disservice both to your own intellect and to the actual work of 'x' artist to just say EVERYTHING they did is brilliant, because it sort of detracts from what they did do that actually was brilliant because you are painting all of it with the same brush. Also, you might reccomend ALL that persons shit and the person you're reccomending it too picks one of the crap ones first and you've just basically lost someone who might've appreciated it and thats always a big thing with me, reccomending people stuff and then them liking it, i don't know why, i guess it's just like a cool thing shared y'know?

'It's a very creative album', what in Gods name is that supposed to mean anyway?!?

Best post of the entire topic.

I think there are only 5 posters on the entire forum that get it and would agree with you Lenny! But you absolutely nailed it.

CD is my FAVORITE album of the last decade, hands down.

But I completely understand that it isn't the "best" album of the last decade - if "best" is determined by some magical combination of record sales, billboard hits, critical acclaim, fan acclaim, etc. Using those logical factors, CD probably doesn't rate in the top 50 albums of the past decade.

But with that said - it's still my favorite and I like it better than any one album, by any other band, that I've listened to since its release.

[Apollo]

That ass speaks for itself...

I actually really liked Laundry Service when it came out. But as I sit here today, I gotta ask myself "how much was based upon the music and how much was based upon that ass shaking?"

Another pertinent question would be how much is music per se based on ass shaking and does ass shaking as a primary function necessarily detract from music? I mean it's sort of the point of pop music isn't it, to get you up out of your chair.

Again, great point.

People complain about the horrible lyrics of some famous pop singers. But that's not what pop music is necessarily about. Some songs are specifically made for people to dance to at clubs. Some are made for teenagers to dance to or lament with broken hearts about some dude they "love." Hair metal wasn't supposed to make a statement or change the world, it was meant to listen to while cruising and drinking beer or trying to get your girlfriend and her friends drunk in high school. Some music is just supposed to be fun. Some music tells a story. Some music tries to make a social statement. Tupac and Britney Spears aren't trying to write the same type of music.

Making love to your wife, singing in the shower, cruising the highway at 90 mph, studying or working on a work project, going out for drinks and dancing at a bar...........are you listening to the same song in all of those circumstances? If I'm tearing it up Travolta style on the dance floor, I'm not doing it to U2 or Coldplay. Eminem isn't playing while I'm giving my wife the hog. I'm not listening to gansta rap while I'm writing a report.

[Iron MikeyJ]

Which I agree with both of you in regards to the lyrical and purpose to pop music. It is supposed to make you dance, and it isn't supposed to be some serious social commentary. But there are exceptions to the social commentary and dancability throughout the history of pop, but that's a whole different discussion...

But my main point is that when we hear Shakiras music, especially the album in question, what image comes to mind? Her shaking her ass. Which I don't think anyone can disagree with that. So my point is, if say someone like Gloria Estafan came out of retirement and recorded that exact same album with those exact same songs, would it of been such a hit? I would bet no. Why? Because it's the image of Shakira that really makes those songs go. Like I said before, Underneath Your Clothes is a great song, anyone could of had a hit with that one. But the rest of the album? No. How would old Gloria make Objection Tango, Whenever wherever, or Poem to a Horse appeal to the masses? I don't think she could. Why? Because the material isn't really that strong IMO, that's why. The only reason why Objection Tango and Whenever Wherever were hit songs, as with all of Shakiras hits since, are honestly because of her assets, not the songs themselves. Now could another "hot to trot" little pop diva come along and shake her ass and made them a hit? Perhaps. But again that begs the question to the quality of the actual music.

Which pop music hasn't always been like this, now has it? Elton John, Billy Joel, Michael Jackson, Prince, and many more older pop artists had more substance to their music IMO. Yes their has always been fluff in the pop world, and not all newer pop is fluff either. Like I said some songs are just plain great, and no matter who sang them, they would have been a hit. While others, it was all image based. But it does seem harder to find Alicia Keys type pop artists currently, while Katy Perry's are a dime a dozen. While 20 to 30 years ago it seemed the other way around, more quality, less fluff...

Edited April 10, 2015 by Iron MikeyJ

[tinyrobot]

Which I agree with both of you in regards to the lyrical and purpose to pop music. It is supposed to make you dance, and it isn't supposed to be some serious social commentary. But there are exceptions to the social commentary and dancability throughout the history of pop, but that's a whole different discussion...

But my main point is that when we hear Shakiras music, especially the album in question, what image comes to mind? Her shaking her ass. Which I don't think anyone can disagree with that. So my point is, if say someone like Gloria Estafan came out of retirement and recorded that exact same album with those exact same songs, would it of been such a hit? I would bet no. Why? Because it's the image of Shakira that really makes those songs go. Like I said before, Underneath Your Clothes is a great song, anyone could of had a hit with that one. But the rest of the album? No. How would old Gloria make Objection Tango, Whenever wherever, or Poem to a Horse appeal to the masses? I don't think she could. Why? Because the material isn't really that strong IMO, that's why. The only reason why Objection Tango and Whenever Wherever were hit songs, as with all of Shakiras hits since, are honestly because of her assets, not the songs themselves. Now could another "hot to trot" little pop diva come along and shake her ass and made them a hit? Perhaps. But again that begs the question to the quality of the actual music.

Which pop music hasn't always been like this, now has it? Elton John, Billy Joel, Michael Jackson, Prince, and many more older pop artists had more substance to their music IMO. Yes their has always been fluff in the pop world, and not all newer pop is fluff either. Like I said some songs are just plain great, and no matter who sang them, they would have been a hit. While others, it was all image based. But it does seem harder to find Alicia Keys type pop artists currently, while Katy Perry's are a dime a dozen. While 20 to 30 years ago it seemed the other way around, more quality, less fluff...

Laundry Service was the crossover album for Shakira. The album that launched her into the English-speaking audience. Before that she was a well-known young artist making it big in Latinamerica.

I don't think her best work is Laundry Service, though. Her best album lyrically and musically speaking is called "¿Donde están los ladrones?" with amazing rock tunes and thoughtful deep lyrics. Laundry Service is pop candy for the English-speaking audiences but it doesn't capture Shakira's real essence like her previous album did.

However, it was a commercial success and I dont think her looks and her body are the main reason for it. Unlike the process with CD, Laundry Service was not delayed 13 years, was not labeled as the most expensive album ever and it was promoted from Mars to Venus by Shakira, who worked really hard on her new image (she lost weight, switched to blond hair and became a way better performer onstage). She was accessible, she gave thoushands of interviews, made videos to promote the singles, and worked very hard to enter a new market that was competitive as hell.

So to make the story short: Shakira worked her hot ass off to make that album a commercial success and did all things she was expected to do. On the other hand, Axl didn't move a finger for CD, didn't promote it like he should have, didn't release a video, didn't tour it properly and his overall image was not that good.

[Russel Nash]

Which I agree with both of you in regards to the lyrical and purpose to pop music. It is supposed to make you dance, and it isn't supposed to be some serious social commentary. But there are exceptions to the social commentary and dancability throughout the history of pop, but that's a whole different discussion...

But my main point is that when we hear Shakiras music, especially the album in question, what image comes to mind? Her shaking her ass. Which I don't think anyone can disagree with that. So my point is, if say someone like Gloria Estafan came out of retirement and recorded that exact same album with those exact same songs, would it of been such a hit? I would bet no. Why? Because it's the image of Shakira that really makes those songs go. Like I said before, Underneath Your Clothes is a great song, anyone could of had a hit with that one. But the rest of the album? No. How would old Gloria make Objection Tango, Whenever wherever, or Poem to a Horse appeal to the masses? I don't think she could. Why? Because the material isn't really that strong IMO, that's why. The only reason why Objection Tango and Whenever Wherever were hit songs, as with all of Shakiras hits since, are honestly because of her assets, not the songs themselves. Now could another "hot to trot" little pop diva come along and shake her ass and made them a hit? Perhaps. But again that begs the question to the quality of the actual music.

Which pop music hasn't always been like this, now has it? Elton John, Billy Joel, Michael Jackson, Prince, and many more older pop artists had more substance to their music IMO. Yes their has always been fluff in the pop world, and not all newer pop is fluff either. Like I said some songs are just plain great, and no matter who sang them, they would have been a hit. While others, it was all image based. But it does seem harder to find Alicia Keys type pop artists currently, while Katy Perry's are a dime a dozen. While 20 to 30 years ago it seemed the other way around, more quality, less fluff...

Laundry Service was the crossover album for Shakira. The album that launched her into the English-speaking audience. Before that she was a well-known young artist making it big in Latinamerica.

I don't think her best work is Laundry Service, though. Her best album lyrically and musically speaking is called "¿Donde están los ladrones?" with amazing rock tunes and thoughtful deep lyrics. Laundry Service is pop candy for the English-speaking audiences but it doesn't capture Shakira's real essence like her previous album did.

However, it was a commercial success and I dont think her looks and her body are the main reason for it. Unlike the process with CD, Laundry Service was not delayed 13 years, was not labeled as the most expensive album ever and it was promoted from Mars to Venus by Shakira, who worked really hard on her new image (she lost weight, switched to blond hair and became a way better performer onstage). She was accessible, she gave thoushands of interviews, made videos to promote the singles, and worked very hard to enter a new market that was competitive as hell.

So to make the story short: Shakira worked her hot ass off to make that album a commercial success and did all things she was expected to do. On the other hand, Axl didn't move a finger for CD, didn't promote it like he should have, didn't release a video, didn't tour it properly and his overall image was not that good.

Let's talk about Brando instead. We all agree that it was an ass thing.

On E6, don't think they have a boring album. I should exterminate... is fucking awesome too.

[Nosaj Thing]

Now I Grant you, Laundry Service does have some good songs on it, and as a song Underneath Your Clothes is a better song than anything on CD, but that's the only one I will give you. As a whole CD is superior musically, lyrically, and yes vocally. Axl on CD delivers far more impressive vocals than Shakira does.

I strongly disagree. Yeah, Shakira's Laundry Service does not have the best lyrics Shakira has ever written (for that you might want to check out "Donde Están Los Ladrones?" which not only an underrated album but an incredible work of a girl that has not sold out yet), but they are far better than whatever Axl was crying and ranting about on Chinese Democracy. Musically, of course, the work of Buckethead and Finck is indisputable.

[Iron MikeyJ]

Unlike many of you, I can't listen to music in a foreign language. Honestly I can probably count on one hand the amount of non English songs I can listen to. Luckily for me, rock has always been in English. I'm not knocking other languages, just stating my preference...

[wasted]

Shakira > Axl Rose/GN'R

Okay this is better than CD but its two completely genres of difference.

With albums from ACDC, Zmwtallica, U2 I just didn't think there was anything fresh on them. I found CD wildly entertaining from track to track so much variety and new takes on GNR. The fight against dictators is perfect for Axl. I still find it interesting to listen to and these tunes, rage, longing, bitterness all these emotions from song to song. Whereas as Black Ice or Deathmag are retreads and there's no variety. Well there's some it's just not that different. Is there anything like Shavklers, ItW, Sorry, Prostitute on another GNR record? Not really and if some of the songs bare resemblance then it's been nu metalled or opera'd.

That's just me, if Id listened to DM or Rock or Bust more or been interest idsay. I had some weird affection for Dont Believe the truth I think because Lyla and Mucky Fingers and some songs written by Bell and Archer freshened things up. I found Sams town and Black Parade much more exciting. Guns, 90s rock and 70s rock from the best front man ever kind of hard to resist.

[tinyrobot]

Unlike many of you, I can't listen to music in a foreign language. Honestly I can probably count on one hand the amount of non English songs I can listen to. Luckily for me, rock has always been in English. I'm not knocking other languages, just stating my preference...

Do you know other languages to start with? Because if it's about the limitation of not understanding lyrics, well, that's your own limitation but it doesn't mean music from other regions, cultures and languages is of a lower quality Actually, Latinamerica has very good rock bands and you are probably missing a lot.

Edited April 11, 2015 by tinyrobot

[uncivil war]

Unlike many of you, I can't listen to music in a foreign language. Honestly I can probably count on one hand the amount of non English songs I can listen to. Luckily for me, rock has always been in English. I'm not knocking other languages, just stating my preference...

Do you know other languages to star with? Because if it's about the limitation of not understanding lyrics, well, that's your own limitation but it doesn't mean music from other regions, cultures and languages is of a lower quality Actually, Latinamerica has very good rock bands and you are probably missing a lot.

Would you be able to recommend a couple to check out?

[Nosaj Thing]

Unlike many of you, I can't listen to music in a foreign language. Honestly I can probably count on one hand the amount of non English songs I can listen to. Luckily for me, rock has always been in English. I'm not knocking other languages, just stating my preference...

Eh? It's weird that you decide to limit yourself just because the music is not in your mother tongue. Actually, it is the first time I see someone claiming something like this.

To me, it's definitely the opposite. I have heard music in languages I can't even pronounce, but I can appreciate how good a particular song is, if I feel connected to it.

[Apollo]

Which I agree with both of you in regards to the lyrical and purpose to pop music. It is supposed to make you dance, and it isn't supposed to be some serious social commentary. But there are exceptions to the social commentary and dancability throughout the history of pop, but that's a whole different discussion...

But my main point is that when we hear Shakiras music, especially the album in question, what image comes to mind? Her shaking her ass. Which I don't think anyone can disagree with that. So my point is, if say someone like Gloria Estafan came out of retirement and recorded that exact same album with those exact same songs, would it of been such a hit? I would bet no. Why? Because it's the image of Shakira that really makes those songs go. Like I said before, Underneath Your Clothes is a great song, anyone could of had a hit with that one. But the rest of the album? No. How would old Gloria make Objection Tango, Whenever wherever, or Poem to a Horse appeal to the masses? I don't think she could. Why? Because the material isn't really that strong IMO, that's why. The only reason why Objection Tango and Whenever Wherever were hit songs, as with all of Shakiras hits since, are honestly because of her assets, not the songs themselves. Now could another "hot to trot" little pop diva come along and shake her ass and made them a hit? Perhaps. But again that begs the question to the quality of the actual music.

Which pop music hasn't always been like this, now has it? Elton John, Billy Joel, Michael Jackson, Prince, and many more older pop artists had more substance to their music IMO. Yes their has always been fluff in the pop world, and not all newer pop is fluff either. Like I said some songs are just plain great, and no matter who sang them, they would have been a hit. While others, it was all image based. But it does seem harder to find Alicia Keys type pop artists currently, while Katy Perry's are a dime a dozen. While 20 to 30 years ago it seemed the other way around, more quality, less fluff...

I get where you are coming from and you make valid points!!!

But you just named the hall of fame group as an example. I was alive 20 years ago and there was just as many manufactured pop stars then as there are now. For every Prince that managed to stand the test of time there were dozens of Billy Oceans, Ray Parker Jrs and the guy who sang We Don't Have to Take Our Clothes Off. Don Johnson, Eddie Murphy and Bruce Willis had hit songs. The Jets had two hit songs and disappeared. For every Billy Joel there were ten Vanilla Ices. Remember Tiffany and Debbie Gibson?

There has always been mindless pop crap that is popular for a bit and then disappears. And the cream of the crop that manages to stand the test of time.

Just my opinion though!

[tinyrobot]

Would you be able to recommend a couple to check out?

Yes.

Argentina: Soda Stereo, Charly García, Spinetta (solo work) and with band Pescado Rabioso, Fabulosos Cadillacs, Massacre, Catupecu Machu, Redonditos de Ricota, Rata Blanca, Divididos, Sumo, Los Piojos, El Bordo.

Uruguay: No Te Va Gustar

Chile: La Ley

Mexico: Molotov, Cafe Tacuba

Colombia: Aterciopelados

http://youtu.be/-XIeMp4zQC4

http://youtu.be/7-hHW-cLNVg

http://youtu.be/TnhcBZg0sEs

http://youtu.be/_4I4M94cGe0

http://youtu.be/z-KkAz6uI6A

[Free Bird]

Shakira > Axl Rose/GN'R

Okay this is better than CD but its two completely genres of difference.

Completely agreed. It's "better" in terms of more succesful but it's a genre I don't listen to. Well I have to admit at the time when there was a regular airplay for the singles they were some of the better stuff played in radion and I appreciated them in some way but thats it. It's not the kind of music I would buy and put in my player. So I'd prefer CD if I had to.

The fight against dictators is perfect for Axl.

What directors do you mean?

[maynard]

Speaking of Argentinian artists, you guys should give a listen to Federico Aubele. Beautiful music and a very talented artist. Sorry for the off topic

[DieselDaisy]

What about Vespertine?

[Len Cnut]

Which I agree with both of you in regards to the lyrical and purpose to pop music. It is supposed to make you dance, and it isn't supposed to be some serious social commentary. But there are exceptions to the social commentary and dancability throughout the history of pop, but that's a whole different discussion...

But my main point is that when we hear Shakiras music, especially the album in question, what image comes to mind? Her shaking her ass. Which I don't think anyone can disagree with that. So my point is, if say someone like Gloria Estafan came out of retirement and recorded that exact same album with those exact same songs, would it of been such a hit? I would bet no. Why? Because it's the image of Shakira that really makes those songs go. Like I said before, Underneath Your Clothes is a great song, anyone could of had a hit with that one. But the rest of the album? No. How would old Gloria make Objection Tango, Whenever wherever, or Poem to a Horse appeal to the masses? I don't think she could. Why? Because the material isn't really that strong IMO, that's why. The only reason why Objection Tango and Whenever Wherever were hit songs, as with all of Shakiras hits since, are honestly because of her assets, not the songs themselves. Now could another "hot to trot" little pop diva come along and shake her ass and made them a hit? Perhaps. But again that begs the question to the quality of the actual music.

Which pop music hasn't always been like this, now has it? Elton John, Billy Joel, Michael Jackson, Prince, and many more older pop artists had more substance to their music IMO. Yes their has always been fluff in the pop world, and not all newer pop is fluff either. Like I said some songs are just plain great, and no matter who sang them, they would have been a hit. While others, it was all image based. But it does seem harder to find Alicia Keys type pop artists currently, while Katy Perry's are a dime a dozen. While 20 to 30 years ago it seemed the other way around, more quality, less fluff...

I get where you are coming from and you make valid points!!!

But you just named the hall of fame group as an example. I was alive 20 years ago and there was just as many manufactured pop stars then as there are now. For every Prince that managed to stand the test of time there were dozens of Billy Oceans, Ray Parker Jrs and the guy who sang We Don't Have to Take Our Clothes Off. Don Johnson, Eddie Murphy and Bruce Willis had hit songs. The Jets had two hit songs and disappeared. For every Billy Joel there were ten Vanilla Ices. Remember Tiffany and Debbie Gibson?

There has always been mindless pop crap that is popular for a bit and then disappears. And the cream of the crop that manages to stand the test of time.

Just my opinion though!

As a counterpoint, I've noticed that back in the day, like 60s etc, most of the people who were there who were music fans adored pop music and like, if you talk to em, for as much as documentaries and history make of The Beatles, The Stones etc (and thats certainly not to be ignored), look at the people of the time, their record collections, you'll find The Hollies, Gerry and The Pacemakers, Dave Dee Dozy Beaky Mick and Titch, Cilla Black and all like, the pop fluff of the time. I've noticed that a lot, i have a tendency to like, drill people on music, it's just an interest of mine so i ask em what they were into etc etc and mostly from the 60s lot you tend to hear about the pop music of the time. Loads of people just bought singles over albums back then too, at least until just past the middle of the 60s.

[wasted]

Shakira > Axl Rose/GN'R

Okay this is better than CD but its two completely genres of difference.

Completely agreed. It's "better" in terms of more succesful but it's a genre I don't listen to. Well I have to admit at the time when there was a regular airplay for the singles they were some of the better stuff played in radion and I appreciated them in some way but thats it. It's not the kind of music I would buy and put in my player. So I'd prefer CD if I had to.

The fight against dictators is perfect for Axl.

What directors do you mean?

Dictators. That's why Axl made CD. Whether its china or Riad that guy selling weapons, Slash, the media etc. that's kind of the loose theme of CD he's quote as saying something like that. Don't ask for a source Im plastered.

No I haven't listened to everything since 2000. It's a GNR forum someone's going to like CD and think its underrated.

[Free Bird]

Shakira > Axl Rose/GN'R

Okay this is better than CD but its two completely genres of difference.

Completely agreed. It's "better" in terms of more succesful but it's a genre I don't listen to. Well I have to admit at the time when there was a regular airplay for the singles they were some of the better stuff played in radion and I appreciated them in some way but thats it. It's not the kind of music I would buy and put in my player. So I'd prefer CD if I had to.

The fight against dictators is perfect for Axl.

What directors do you mean?

Dictators. That's why Axl made CD. Whether its china or Riad that guy selling weapons, Slash, the media etc. that's kind of the loose theme of CD he's quote as saying something like that. Don't ask for a source Im plastered.

No I haven't listened to everything since 2000. It's a GNR forum someone's going to like CD and think its underrated.

Yeah sorry. Of course dictators, thats what I meant.

[Nosaj Thing]

Speaking of Argentinian artists, you guys should give a listen to Federico Aubele. Beautiful music and a very talented artist. Sorry for the off topic

"...y suena mi guitarra, y le canto a la luna, que me devuelve tu voz, tus profundos ojos negros..."

Beautiful music, indeed. You know your shit, buddy.

[Iron MikeyJ]

Which I agree with both of you in regards to the lyrical and purpose to pop music. It is supposed to make you dance, and it isn't supposed to be some serious social commentary. But there are exceptions to the social commentary and dancability throughout the history of pop, but that's a whole different discussion...

But my main point is that when we hear Shakiras music, especially the album in question, what image comes to mind? Her shaking her ass. Which I don't think anyone can disagree with that. So my point is, if say someone like Gloria Estafan came out of retirement and recorded that exact same album with those exact same songs, would it of been such a hit? I would bet no. Why? Because it's the image of Shakira that really makes those songs go. Like I said before, Underneath Your Clothes is a great song, anyone could of had a hit with that one. But the rest of the album? No. How would old Gloria make Objection Tango, Whenever wherever, or Poem to a Horse appeal to the masses? I don't think she could. Why? Because the material isn't really that strong IMO, that's why. The only reason why Objection Tango and Whenever Wherever were hit songs, as with all of Shakiras hits since, are honestly because of her assets, not the songs themselves. Now could another "hot to trot" little pop diva come along and shake her ass and made them a hit? Perhaps. But again that begs the question to the quality of the actual music.

Which pop music hasn't always been like this, now has it? Elton John, Billy Joel, Michael Jackson, Prince, and many more older pop artists had more substance to their music IMO. Yes their has always been fluff in the pop world, and not all newer pop is fluff either. Like I said some songs are just plain great, and no matter who sang them, they would have been a hit. While others, it was all image based. But it does seem harder to find Alicia Keys type pop artists currently, while Katy Perry's are a dime a dozen. While 20 to 30 years ago it seemed the other way around, more quality, less fluff...

I get where you are coming from and you make valid points!!!

But you just named the hall of fame group as an example. I was alive 20 years ago and there was just as many manufactured pop stars then as there are now. For every Prince that managed to stand the test of time there were dozens of Billy Oceans, Ray Parker Jrs and the guy who sang We Don't Have to Take Our Clothes Off. Don Johnson, Eddie Murphy and Bruce Willis had hit songs. The Jets had two hit songs and disappeared. For every Billy Joel there were ten Vanilla Ices. Remember Tiffany and Debbie Gibson?

There has always been mindless pop crap that is popular for a bit and then disappears. And the cream of the crop that manages to stand the test of time.

Just my opinion though!

I completely agree that the pop world has always had manufactured garbage, but I guess my point is who are the legitimate pop artists currently? Bruno Mars, Alicia Keys, Christina Agulara, Shakira, Beyonce I guess would all fall into that category. So maybe it's not as bad as I thought, I guess it's just me being a grumpy old man, lol.

[Iron MikeyJ]

Unlike many of you, I can't listen to music in a foreign language. Honestly I can probably count on one hand the amount of non English songs I can listen to. Luckily for me, rock has always been in English. I'm not knocking other languages, just stating my preference...

Do you know other languages to start with? Because if it's about the limitation of not understanding lyrics, well, that's your own limitation but it doesn't mean music from other regions, cultures and languages is of a lower quality Actually, Latinamerica has very good rock bands and you are probably missing a lot.

Which I'm not knocking Spanish or any other foreign language music, but I don't speak those languages. So I can't get into that music, I have to know what the Hell they are saying in order to enjoy the music. Which I'm sure their are some pretty good Spanish rock bands out there, But they are not for me. I don't think I'm being close minded about it, it's just very hard to get into something when you don't understand the wwords, at least for me. The same goes for films, if they didn't have subtitles I would never watch a foreign film, I just wouldn't, I would be bored out of my mind, no matter how good the film is. But luckily they do have subtitles, so I can still enjoy those films.

I thought a lot about this post last night, and to be honest, the only songs not in English I can even stand are; LA Bamba, Du haust, Feliz Navidad, and some of Mars Volta's stuff. But that's about it.

[ZoSoRose]

Unlike many of you, I can't listen to music in a foreign language. Honestly I can probably count on one hand the amount of non English songs I can listen to. Luckily for me, rock has always been in English. I'm not knocking other languages, just stating my preference...

Do you know other languages to start with? Because if it's about the limitation of not understanding lyrics, well, that's your own limitation but it doesn't mean music from other regions, cultures and languages is of a lower quality Actually, Latinamerica has very good rock bands and you are probably missing a lot.

Which I'm not knocking Spanish or any other foreign language music, but I don't speak those languages. So I can't get into that music, I have to know what the Hell they are saying in order to enjoy the music. Which I'm sure their are some pretty good Spanish rock bands out there, But they are not for me. I don't think I'm being close minded about it, it's just very hard to get into something when you don't understand the wwords, at least for me. The same goes for films, if they didn't have subtitles I would never watch a foreign film, I just wouldn't, I would be bored out of my mind, no matter how good the film is. But luckily they do have subtitles, so I can still enjoy those films.

I thought a lot about this post last night, and to be honest, the only songs not in English I can even stand are; LA Bamba, Du haust, Feliz Navidad, and some of Mars Volta's stuff. But that's about it.

I don't think you are being closed minded at all, its a matter of personal preference.

I used to only like bands that sang in English but then I got into X Japan and they've become one of my favorite bands of all time

You guys should check them out, great metal band

[tinyrobot]

Which I'm not knocking Spanish or any other foreign language music, but I don't speak those languages. So I can't get into that music, I have to know what the Hell they are saying in order to enjoy the music. Which I'm sure their are some pretty good Spanish rock bands out there, But they are not for me. I don't think I'm being close minded about it, it's just very hard to get into something when you don't understand the wwords, at least for me. The same goes for films, if they didn't have subtitles I would never watch a foreign film, I just wouldn't, I would be bored out of my mind, no matter how good the film is. But luckily they do have subtitles, so I can still enjoy those films.

I thought a lot about this post last night, and to be honest, the only songs not in English I can even stand are; LA Bamba, Du haust, Feliz Navidad, and some of Mars Volta's stuff. But that's about it.

I totally get what you mean and yes, knowing what they are saying its important, but unlike the films (which cannot be watched at all if you don't know the language or don't have subtitles) I think music is easier to feel and like even when you don't understand the language.

When I became curious about GNR I was a kid and my exposure to English language was very limited. However, that didn't stop me from enjoying the music and it's one of the main reasons why I started learning English. My like for the band was so intense and passionate that I did this effort only for the sake of getting a full experience with the music AND lyrics.

Maybe if you heard or liked a Latinamerican artist to that extent, you would be willing to learn Spanish. Or you'd be like me in the beginning with Guns, I bought this book that had all UYI lyrics in English in one page and the Spanish translation on the other. That made things really easy for me to grasp the theme of the songs, until later in time when I studied the language, I was able to understand the full meaning of them.

You should check the videos I posted in the previous page when someone asked me to recommend them music and see if you like any of it. Those songs you say you can barely stand are not even close to a good representation of Latin rock or music in Spanish in general.