Lamest rock star ever -- I give you Billy Joel

Ventolin ^3 wrote:

I’m a massive BJ fan but Billy Joel sucks.

I'm a fan of both

Billy Joel doesn't really do it for me. Joe Jackson is similar to that music so vastly superior in most every respect (except arguably pop hit appeal).

Tire of this wrote:

Channel 30 on Sirius just replaced David Matthews -- a true mediocrity who does not have a single song I want to hear -- with the lamest rock stare of all time, Billy Joel.

Much as Kiss is a runway as the lamest rock group ever, Billy Joel wins the title as worst rock star ever with no real challengers.

Anyone dispute this?

You're not a successful, multiple chart topping millionaire artist.

Who's lame?

I am Sam wrote:

Ventolin ^3 wrote:

I’m a massive BJ fan but Billy Joel sucks.

I'm a fan of both

Quite often at same time too in past

seattle prattle wrote:

Billy Joel doesn't really do it for me. Joe Jackson is similar to that music so vastly superior in most every respect (except arguably pop hit appeal).

Not even close for me...Jackson is rubbish compared to Joel, and quite obvious why less popular.. Just shows how much musical appreciation can differ.

Billy Joel answered every question critics threw at him over the years , eg 'Glass Houses' as a response that he 'wasn't rock', and his songs have been covered by country singers (Brooks), motown (Barry White), pop, soul etc

There is good reason why he was given a music professorship

Dark meat is where it's at and that makes my mouth water for those delicious thighs. Yeah, chicken wings are overpriced. Well, Duh! And don't get me started about healthy.

* Sorry. Wrong thread.

Tire of this wrote:

Channel 30 on Sirius just replaced David Matthews -- a true mediocrity who does not have a single song I want to hear -- with the lamest rock stare of all time, Billy Joel.

Anyone dispute this?

Well, I've never seen Billy Joel, nor any other rock stars stare at a rock, so I can neither dispute or corroborate. If you can provide any pics or vids of Mr. Joel and other performers staring at rocks that would help with my decision.

Droddy & Stinson's Communal Bong wrote:

Elvis Costello is lamer than anyone you can name.

I know I’m responding to an 8 month old post but, no. Just No!

Geez .... what have things come to .... slating people who actually have enough talent to write and perform their own music ...

You'll be hating on Elton John next

But hey ... don't go changing ....

I saw Billy Joel two years ago and he put on a great show. I do not like his music, but his show was fun and he is a great entertainer.

We are in a VERY dark time for music. It makes me sad. The metal genre has some good stuff, but rock is at an all time low. Most of the good music is coming from bands that should be approaching reunion status at this point.

I am curious why this is and whether others agree with me.

Well said wrote:

Gravvvy wrote:

None so bland as Foo Fighters.

Well put! I have a lot of respect for Dave’s talent as a musician and I enjoyed the early FF stuff which directly succeeded Nirvana (I was a preteen and my musical tastes were still being formed). I’ve occasionally wondered why I don’t enjoy them as much anymore and I think you hid the nail on the head. Definitely not the worst IMO but FF really does just sound bland to me now. Everything post-The Color and the Shape drones on with the same sound and shallow lyrics.

Their first album was mindblowingly good.

The second had a few good songs and a lot of rubbish.

After that they went downhill rapidly.

I wonder if it was Cobain’s influence that made FF’s first album so good. Same with Hole, they made their only good album right around Cobain’s death.

Riotous wrote:

I saw Billy Joel two years ago and he put on a great show. I do not like his music, but his show was fun and he is a great entertainer.

We are in a VERY dark time for music. It makes me sad. The metal genre has some good stuff, but rock is at an all time low. Most of the good music is coming from bands that should be approaching reunion status at this point.

I am curious why this is and whether others agree with me.

I couldn't agree more.

What i wanted to say, had i really cared a bit more (which i don't), is that Billy Joel;s real talent to me seems to be as a songwriter who can uniquely tap into the popular idiom. In that respect, he's amazing. Maybe Jackson Brown comes to mind as a similarly gifted song writer.

There certainly is a place for that.

As for the current state of rock, well said. I have to dig like hell to find anything listenable made in the last 20 years. And most of that are the older bands riding off into the sunset with a last album or two. In that regard, i'm enjoying the band X and their newly released album Alphabet Land - pretty good but not their best. Similarly, the Afghan Whigs that came out about a year ago has its moments.

I am Sam wrote:

seattle prattle wrote:

Billy Joel doesn't really do it for me. Joe Jackson is similar to that music so vastly superior in most every respect (except arguably pop hit appeal).

Not even close for me...Jackson is rubbish compared to Joel, and quite obvious why less popular.. Just shows how much musical appreciation can differ.

Billy Joel answered every question critics threw at him over the years , eg 'Glass Houses' as a response that he 'wasn't rock', and his songs have been covered by country singers (Brooks), motown (Barry White), pop, soul etc

There is good reason why he was given a music professorship

I'm with you Seattle prattle. Joel is catchy pop music, Jackson makes you think.

Many LetsRun questions about girlfriends could be answered by listening to "Tell Her About It"

As for current state of music, I suspect it is something along the lines of why the modern movies are rarely worth seeing. Executives are interested in surefire box office - hence reboots, sequels, reimagings, superhero series. What they don't want is to invest in a movie like Seven which has no obvious sequel and has limited audience due to the higher rated material. It's efficiency over creativity.

In musical terms, many of today's successful acts are manufactured from shows like X-Factor with audience having got invested in the acts. Bands of the past were creative for themselves, grew up together and willing to toil for a few years in bars and clubs until stardom hit them or didn't. If it didn't they'd enjoyed jamming together.