(04-10-2022, 12:29 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: "There's no accounting for taste"

It's an age-old adage that this thread proves to be true.

We all have different levels of appreciation of talent, different preferences of style, differing abilities to discern what we are listening to, and different perspectives on what we perceive as good or bad.

It's always disappointing to me to just see ppl rattle off a list of what sucks to them.
Very little thought required to just list a bunch of stuff that doesn't do it for you.
I'd be much more interested in reading about the redeeming qualities of artists that tend to have "haters."

Just to take a few from one such list above as examples:

Bob Dylan has a vocal delivery that is akin to a child with a face only it's mother could love. But he's widely known as one of the greatest songwriters and lyricists of our time. His songs have been covered over and over again by countless artists and still top the charts to this day when they are resurrected. The list of artists that have recorded his songs reads like a veritable "who's who" of incredible musicians from every genre under the sun.

Tina Turner was an insanely entertaining R&B performer long before MTV made her a household name to a new generation and associated her with a bunch of corny 80's pop songs. She had her first R&B radio hit in 1960 and in 1969 became very popular with a remake of CCR's "Proud Mary" that still gets heavy rotation on classic R&B channels/stations and streaming.

I'm 100% with you on Dylan. His vocals are an acquired taste, but its more about style, nuance and phrasing with him than actual pitch-perfect delivery. And he's one of the few songwriters that has had more cover versions chart big than his original releases. Nashville Skyline was the exception; he quit smoking and suddenly had a really nice vocal tone on that release.

I also liked Tina Turner more in the 'Ike and Tina' era than in the 80's during her pop period, but that early era just beat her down. Literally.

---