Did you ever realize how much of the music you love just simply sucks?

Friday13th wrote:Mike Lee is a Dickinson knock off, bro. It's not like one person just came up with this comparison. People notice all the time. Plant is also less original than he's given credit, though he does have a good variety of styles. This is proof though. "Whole Lotta Love"...er..."You Need Loving" by the Small Faces.

Ian Gillan is another great, but no one touches Halford imo. The guy from Saint doesn't sound like Halford (not half as good anyway) so I agree that comparison is kind of silly.

I have to agree with all your points...

Man, where is the fun in agreeing   ???

Candlemass wrote:I'll take some Saint lp's over a few Priest offerings any day! I certainly don't think Josh is a better singer than Rob, but it's no injustice to compare the two. As for "Rattcross"...

Hey, I own all of Saint's cds.....and none of Judas Priest (anymore, that is, used to own a lot).

When Josh hits the higher levels he sounds a little like Rob, and he sounded really good...but I never thought Josh sang at those levels enough. When he wasn't hitting those higher levels, I thought his voice didn't sound very good at all. Not early on, at least. It got better.

I always think it is funny that a lot of people think that if they like something, then it must be good.

That isn't true.

People like things that suck all the time.

Look at Plan 9 From Outer Space. Regarded as the worst movie of all time. Yet thousands like it. The movie still sucks though, no matter how many people like it.

I love Godzilla movies... But I fully admit they suck when you look at them overall. Still love them though.

A lot of Godzilla fans will try to make the movies better than what they are...I however accept them for what they are. Bad movies that I like anyway.

A lot of music is the same way.

Speaking of bad movies, Murdock approves of cheesy 80's action films with stars like Seagal, Lundgren, and Van Damme, and even some C-movies.

lol I have a friend who loves all the Godzilla movies...ironically his taste in music is impeccable.

He Already Left wrote:I always think it is funny that a lot of people think that if they like something, then it must be good.

That isn't true.

People like things that suck all the time.


A lot of music is the same way.

You can only speak for your yourself...

I assure you that I am very selective about what I listen to, as well as to what I watch, it doesn't matter whether we are talking about movies, TV shows or a youtube video.

Of course, maybe I can show you many things I like that you might state as garbage, but if I enjoy something, that is because I think it is good indeed. I would never say that something I like sucks.

He Already Left wrote:

Thiago-Brazil wrote:

NoOneIsHere wrote:

Soldier777 wrote:I edited the my post above. In continuing with various bands, I can see when some people said they were into a certain band or album like Messiah Prophet or Bloodgood and after not listening to it for years and picking up and listening to it again recently - it don't have that same novelty. I don't take that necessarily as bands not being good, but perhaps we grow out of bands that we were once into. I find that when I got back into Saint around 2004 and started buying their CDs, I wondered about the "cheese factor" of their music and stage performance - even thought it is more modest, low key than their secular peers. Then you look at Judas Priest and Iron Maiden and I think - Saint is no less cheesy then these guys. Even on the same album like Time's End, I wonder a song like Primed and Ready is subpar but Steel Killer is outstanding and brilliant. Now, I think Time's End is a great album. Basically, I go through a mental roller coaster when I think an album is  as good as the secular music of the same style.

Yeah, I like Saint and have all of their albums...but I never really thought Josh had a great voice and the early music was never top notch. I still liked them...mostly due to them being Christian and not having a lot of choices....but they could never hold a candlestick talent-wise to Judas Priest or Iron Maiden. Never. 

A lot of it is just that many of us always felt that Christian bands were like a part of our family...so we didn't hold them to the same standards as we would for an "outsider" (secular). 

Even back in the 80s, certain Christian artists that we consider great I was embarrassed of when my friends heard them because they were so weak vocally compared to bands like Ratt, Motley, Def Leppard, Maiden, etc etc. Bands like Jerusalem, Daniel Band, Bride, Saint, these are all bands that I loved but were viewed to be a lot better by myself (and a lot of Christians) than they really are.

It isn't due to them singing about Christ that kept them from being more popular with the mainstream, which is what Christian fans will try and tell you, it was talent, or actually a lack of talent...pure and simple. Stryper proved that you could sing about Jesus and still achieve mainstream success.

I couldn't disagree more.

Using your examples, every time I listen to Saint, I always wonder what do they lack in comparison with Maiden and Judas Priest. The only answer I can find is that both Maiden and Priest were pioneers in their styles. Besides that, maybe their financial resources for album production and distribution were much better. But just it. I always end these kind of comparison by thinking how some bands can be overrated.

I am a BIG fan of Stryper, but that is a great example of overrated band in christian metal. They are undoubtedly the most famous christian band out there, even though you can find, at least, a dozen christian bands that are much better than Stryper is.

The quantity of sales doesn't match how good the band is. It is not that logical.

Vocals and songwriting are the biggest areas that I always felt that most Christian bands took a back seat to secular bands.

Like I said, I always loved Saint. But I think it is an injustice to Halford to compare the two. Just like Mike Lee is no Bruce Dickinson..not even close....and yet I am a BC fan and not a Maiden fan.

I think Christians tend to judge "Christian" artists with a lot of bias and make them out to be better than they actually are.

Bands like Stryper and Whitecross are definitely two bands I think have / had the talent to compete against anyone. Just not many like them.

This is not a fair argument.
I can say that you judge with a lot of bias, as you follow the comercial tendencies. You are using a unfair logic: If it is popular, it is good. I would say that this is not how it works. Maybe I would say it is the opposite as I can't stand any  band with comercial appealing.

The only thing I say that christian metal is undoubtedly better than secular is on the lyrics. Apart from that, both have pros and cons. What do I often listen to? It depends on what I am in the mood for.

Besides having great singers such as Dickson and Halford (you can say they are the best singers ever, it is ok, it is your opinion), when you are generally speaking, you have to take into account more than two of your favorite singers. Why don't you put in your comments some awful singers such as Ozzy and Mustaine? After all, weare comparing different scenes, not only a few bands.
I can't judge Dickson and Mike Lee, as I barely know their works, but why don't you compare Ozzy with Les Carlsen?

Friday13th wrote:Mike Lee is a Dickinson knock off, bro.

I never said he doesn't sound like Dickinson. Some of my favorite "Maiden" tunes are written by Barren Cross. What I was saying is it doesn't make him less of a talent.

Thiago-Brazil wrote:

He Already Left wrote:I always think it is funny that a lot of people think that if they like something, then it must be good.

That isn't true.

People like things that suck all the time.


A lot of music is the same way.

You can only speak for your yourself...

I assure you that I am very selective about what I listen to, as well as to what I watch, it doesn't matter whether we are talking about movies, TV shows or a youtube video.

Of course, maybe I can show you many things I like that you might state as garbage, but if I enjoy something, that is because I think it is good indeed. I would never say that something I like sucks.

A lot of people can't look at something they like objectively. 

Fans of cheesy movies usually get it (except Godzilla fans)...they like bad stuff and admit it...lol
 
There have been videos posted here before that the whole reason the video was posted because it sucked sooooo bad. Yet, I guarantee you, somewhere out there is some small group of people that think it is extremely awesome.

Thiago-Brazil wrote:

He Already Left wrote:

Thiago-Brazil wrote:

NoOneIsHere wrote:

Soldier777 wrote:I edited the my post above. In continuing with various bands, I can see when some people said they were into a certain band or album like Messiah Prophet or Bloodgood and after not listening to it for years and picking up and listening to it again recently - it don't have that same novelty. I don't take that necessarily as bands not being good, but perhaps we grow out of bands that we were once into. I find that when I got back into Saint around 2004 and started buying their CDs, I wondered about the "cheese factor" of their music and stage performance - even thought it is more modest, low key than their secular peers. Then you look at Judas Priest and Iron Maiden and I think - Saint is no less cheesy then these guys. Even on the same album like Time's End, I wonder a song like Primed and Ready is subpar but Steel Killer is outstanding and brilliant. Now, I think Time's End is a great album. Basically, I go through a mental roller coaster when I think an album is  as good as the secular music of the same style.

Yeah, I like Saint and have all of their albums...but I never really thought Josh had a great voice and the early music was never top notch. I still liked them...mostly due to them being Christian and not having a lot of choices....but they could never hold a candlestick talent-wise to Judas Priest or Iron Maiden. Never. 

A lot of it is just that many of us always felt that Christian bands were like a part of our family...so we didn't hold them to the same standards as we would for an "outsider" (secular). 

Even back in the 80s, certain Christian artists that we consider great I was embarrassed of when my friends heard them because they were so weak vocally compared to bands like Ratt, Motley, Def Leppard, Maiden, etc etc. Bands like Jerusalem, Daniel Band, Bride, Saint, these are all bands that I loved but were viewed to be a lot better by myself (and a lot of Christians) than they really are.

It isn't due to them singing about Christ that kept them from being more popular with the mainstream, which is what Christian fans will try and tell you, it was talent, or actually a lack of talent...pure and simple. Stryper proved that you could sing about Jesus and still achieve mainstream success.

I couldn't disagree more.

Using your examples, every time I listen to Saint, I always wonder what do they lack in comparison with Maiden and Judas Priest. The only answer I can find is that both Maiden and Priest were pioneers in their styles. Besides that, maybe their financial resources for album production and distribution were much better. But just it. I always end these kind of comparison by thinking how some bands can be overrated.

I am a BIG fan of Stryper, but that is a great example of overrated band in christian metal. They are undoubtedly the most famous christian band out there, even though you can find, at least, a dozen christian bands that are much better than Stryper is.

The quantity of sales doesn't match how good the band is. It is not that logical.

Vocals and songwriting are the biggest areas that I always felt that most Christian bands took a back seat to secular bands.

Like I said, I always loved Saint. But I think it is an injustice to Halford to compare the two. Just like Mike Lee is no Bruce Dickinson..not even close....and yet I am a BC fan and not a Maiden fan.

I think Christians tend to judge "Christian" artists with a lot of bias and make them out to be better than they actually are.

Bands like Stryper and Whitecross are definitely two bands I think have / had the talent to compete against anyone. Just not many like them.

This is not a fair argument.
I can say that you judge with a lot of bias, as you follow the comercial tendencies. You are using a unfair logic: If it is popular, it is good. I would say that this is not how it works. Maybe I would say it is the opposite as I can't stand any  band with comercial appealing.

The only thing I say that christian metal is undoubtedly better than secular is on the lyrics. Apart from that, both have pros and cons. What do I often listen to? It depends on what I am in the mood for.

Besides having great singers such as Dickson and Halford (you can say they are the best singers ever, it is ok, it is your opinion), when you are generally speaking, you have to take into account more than two of your favorite singers. Why don't you put in your comments some awful singers such as Ozzy and Mustaine? After all, weare comparing different scenes, not only a few bands.
I can't judge Dickson and Mike Lee, as I barely know their works, but why don't you compare Ozzy with Les Carlsen?

Ozzy > Les   
There, I compared them. Love Les...I listen to Bloodgood.. I no longer listen to Ozzy...but I still think Ozzy's voice is better. Have you ever listened to the Bark At The Moon album in full?

I never said Dickinson and Halford were the best ever, btw. Ronnie James Dio is, IMO, one of the greatest ever.

You act like I am the first one to ever say that a lot of Christian bands are nowhere near as good as their secular counterparts.

It has actually even been discussed here before (though many moons ago). It's a known issue.

Some reasons why that have been discussed before that I agreed with:
.... Some Christian bands, especially those with a heart for ministry, don't live and breathe music the way secular bands do. Someone who has devoted their whole life, every minute, to playing an instrument is probably going to achieve a higher level of skill than someone who keeps it in perspective and refuses to make music their god.
.... At one time, especially in the 80s, you didn't have to work as hard to get signed to a Christian label as you would a secular label because there was less competition. A band that has to compete against a slew of bands to even get noticed is going to hone their craft more.
.... The talent pool to piece together a Christian band is thinner than the secular pool. If you need to replace a drummer (just for example) in a Christian band, you may not be able to find a talented Christian drummer right away. So, either you replace him with a non-Christian who is willing to play in a Christian band or maybe you go with a less talented drummer because he is a Christian.
.... It has been well documented that some bands weren't able to get signed to a secular label, so they switched to Christian and got signed.

H.M. Murdock wrote:Speaking of bad movies, Murdock approves of cheesy 80's action films with stars like Seagal, Lundgren, and Van Damme, and even some C-movies.

See...you get it...  lol

metaldude wrote:

Friday13th wrote:Mike Lee is a Dickinson knock off, bro.

I never said he doesn't sound like Dickinson. Some of my favorite "Maiden" tunes are written by Barren Cross. What I was saying is it doesn't make him less of a talent.

You are right..sounding like someone else doesn't mean they are less of a talent. 

In that particular case, I don't think Mike Lee is as good as Dickinson, but I am not downgrading his talent because he sounds similar to him, I just happen to think Bruce is better.

Hey, wasn't this on Slayers Hell Awaits ?

There is a difference between being technically proficient and being original and creative. using your influences to create your own sound, or just using a complete formula to your music. Many of the bands talked about are talented, but they just are not very creative. Now, that's not necessarily good or bad but its just the truth.

He Already Left wrote:

Thiago-Brazil wrote:

He Already Left wrote:

Thiago-Brazil wrote:

NoOneIsHere wrote:

Soldier777 wrote:I edited the my post above. In continuing with various bands, I can see when some people said they were into a certain band or album like Messiah Prophet or Bloodgood and after not listening to it for years and picking up and listening to it again recently - it don't have that same novelty. I don't take that necessarily as bands not being good, but perhaps we grow out of bands that we were once into. I find that when I got back into Saint around 2004 and started buying their CDs, I wondered about the "cheese factor" of their music and stage performance - even thought it is more modest, low key than their secular peers. Then you look at Judas Priest and Iron Maiden and I think - Saint is no less cheesy then these guys. Even on the same album like Time's End, I wonder a song like Primed and Ready is subpar but Steel Killer is outstanding and brilliant. Now, I think Time's End is a great album. Basically, I go through a mental roller coaster when I think an album is  as good as the secular music of the same style.

Yeah, I like Saint and have all of their albums...but I never really thought Josh had a great voice and the early music was never top notch. I still liked them...mostly due to them being Christian and not having a lot of choices....but they could never hold a candlestick talent-wise to Judas Priest or Iron Maiden. Never. 

A lot of it is just that many of us always felt that Christian bands were like a part of our family...so we didn't hold them to the same standards as we would for an "outsider" (secular). 

Even back in the 80s, certain Christian artists that we consider great I was embarrassed of when my friends heard them because they were so weak vocally compared to bands like Ratt, Motley, Def Leppard, Maiden, etc etc. Bands like Jerusalem, Daniel Band, Bride, Saint, these are all bands that I loved but were viewed to be a lot better by myself (and a lot of Christians) than they really are.

It isn't due to them singing about Christ that kept them from being more popular with the mainstream, which is what Christian fans will try and tell you, it was talent, or actually a lack of talent...pure and simple. Stryper proved that you could sing about Jesus and still achieve mainstream success.

I couldn't disagree more.

Using your examples, every time I listen to Saint, I always wonder what do they lack in comparison with Maiden and Judas Priest. The only answer I can find is that both Maiden and Priest were pioneers in their styles. Besides that, maybe their financial resources for album production and distribution were much better. But just it. I always end these kind of comparison by thinking how some bands can be overrated.

I am a BIG fan of Stryper, but that is a great example of overrated band in christian metal. They are undoubtedly the most famous christian band out there, even though you can find, at least, a dozen christian bands that are much better than Stryper is.

The quantity of sales doesn't match how good the band is. It is not that logical.

Vocals and songwriting are the biggest areas that I always felt that most Christian bands took a back seat to secular bands.

Like I said, I always loved Saint. But I think it is an injustice to Halford to compare the two. Just like Mike Lee is no Bruce Dickinson..not even close....and yet I am a BC fan and not a Maiden fan.

I think Christians tend to judge "Christian" artists with a lot of bias and make them out to be better than they actually are.

Bands like Stryper and Whitecross are definitely two bands I think have / had the talent to compete against anyone. Just not many like them.

This is not a fair argument.
I can say that you judge with a lot of bias, as you follow the comercial tendencies. You are using a unfair logic: If it is popular, it is good. I would say that this is not how it works. Maybe I would say it is the opposite as I can't stand any  band with comercial appealing.

The only thing I say that christian metal is undoubtedly better than secular is on the lyrics. Apart from that, both have pros and cons. What do I often listen to? It depends on what I am in the mood for.

Besides having great singers such as Dickson and Halford (you can say they are the best singers ever, it is ok, it is your opinion), when you are generally speaking, you have to take into account more than two of your favorite singers. Why don't you put in your comments some awful singers such as Ozzy and Mustaine? After all, weare comparing different scenes, not only a few bands.
I can't judge Dickson and Mike Lee, as I barely know their works, but why don't you compare Ozzy with Les Carlsen?

Ozzy > Les   
There, I compared them. Love Les...I listen to Bloodgood.. I no longer listen to Ozzy...but I still think Ozzy's voice is better. Have you ever listened to the Bark At The Moon album in full?

I never said Dickinson and Halford were the best ever, btw. Ronnie James Dio is, IMO, one of the greatest ever.

You act like I am the first one to ever say that a lot of Christian bands are nowhere near as good as their secular counterparts.

It has actually even been discussed here before (though many moons ago). It's a known issue.

Some reasons why that have been discussed before that I agreed with:
.... Some Christian bands, especially those with a heart for ministry, don't live and breathe music the way secular bands do. Someone who has devoted their whole life, every minute, to playing an instrument is probably going to achieve a higher level of skill than someone who keeps it in perspective and refuses to make music their god.
.... At one time, especially in the 80s, you didn't have to work as hard to get signed to a Christian label as you would a secular label because there was less competition. A band that has to compete against a slew of bands to even get noticed is going to hone their craft more.
.... The talent pool to piece together a Christian band is thinner than the secular pool. If you need to replace a drummer (just for example) in a Christian band, you may not be able to find a talented Christian drummer right away. So, either you replace him with a non-Christian who is willing to play in a Christian band or maybe you go with a less talented drummer because he is a Christian.
.... It has been well documented that some bands weren't able to get signed to a secular label, so they switched to Christian and got signed.

Ozzy isn't even a good singer, no matter whether he devoted his life in being a singer or not.

Regarding your arguments:

"Some Christian bands, especially those with a heart for ministry, don't live and breathe music the way secular bands do. Someone who has devoted their whole life, every minute, to playing an instrument is probably going to achieve a higher level of skill than someone who keeps it in perspective and refuses to make music their god."

I agree partially with this one, especially with the part "PROBABLY". As you see, it's not a logical science. And there are many musicians in christian metal that make their living in music industry, teaching music classes, selling instruments, such as Ken Tamplin and Bob Hartman. And anyway, how can you learn creativity, for instance? 

And you know, there are some "music devoters" that couldn't even record an album properly due to alchool and drugs effects. And you know, thisis quite commom in secular metal. So, nobody is a 100% devoted to something.

"At one time, especially in the 80s, you didn't have to work as hard to get signed to a Christian label as you would a secular label because there was less competition. A band that has to compete against a slew of bands to even get noticed is going to hone their craft more."

Ok, but what is the difference between a band that got rejected from a secular label and was accepted in a smaller secular label? 
Of course, everybody wants to get signed for the biggest labels, but that is not for everybody. There are small labels on secular market, as well. This is all about being in the right place at the right time, not just quality. What about Deliverance that had had a proposal from a bigger label and couldn't attend, as they were stuck with a long contract at Intense Records (The tried to get rid of Intense Records, that is why they included the "jokes"in What a Joke album)?

"The talent pool to piece together a Christian band is thinner than the secular pool. If you need to replace a drummer (just for example) in a Christian band, you may not be able to find a talented Christian drummer right away. So, either you replace him with a non-Christian who is willing to play in a Christian band or maybe you go with a less talented drummer because he is a Christian."

Of course, the bands with better distribution have access to better musicians, as they want a better job, with better wages and in a bigger spotlight, but again, that is not a question of christian and non-christian, this is a question of small and big.

Remember that we have small bands and small labels in secular metal.

"It has been well documented that some bands weren't able to get signed to a secular label, so they switched to Christian and got signed."

This is the exception, not the rule. And what about Mass that own their fame mostly to Michael Sweet who helped the band to get signed on the label they were in the 80's? And what about they using cross in their artcovers, even though the band is not a christian band? (I am not criticizing, I love Mass and their lyrics doesn't hurt my christian faith). So, does Mass sucks because of it?


It has also been documented that some secular labels ask the christian bands to switch "Jesus" for "the big light". I know a few brazilian bands that have refused signing in a secular label because of it.

So, there are cases and cases...

From your comments above, you are assuming that EVERY secular band is big and EVERY christian band is small.

Thiago, 

I have always liked talking with you in the forum, so this isn't personal. But I gotta tell you, I really don't understand some of your responses to my comment. 

"A" level bands in the secular world are not the same as what is considered A level talent in Christian music. Most "A" level Christian bands are usually considered no more than B level or C level talent in the secular world. 

Anyway, you can disagree all you want..that's what a forum is about.

To go one step further...I now think a lot of rock / metal (secular or Christian)  is inferior music when compared to the big picture. This was actually where my mind was when I started off this thread.

Having finally taken the time to broaden my world and listen to some jazz, orchestra pieces and some classic music, I find there is an element in that style that makes me view a lot of rock and metal as nothing more than annoying noise. Like a child banging on pots and pans.

Not saying I will stop listening to or even loving some rock / metal bands, I'm just saying that even though I still like a lot of it I no longer believe it is a superior form of music.

He Already Left wrote:

Look at Plan 9 From Outer Space. Regarded as the worst movie of all time. Yet thousands like it. The movie still sucks though, no matter how many people like it.

Most of the people who "like" it are actually the ones who enjoy snarking on it and making fun of it. Same reason Troll 2, Birdemic, and The Room have so many fans. As for me, i go by the "there are two types of music, stuff i like and stuff that sucks" school of music (i usually listen to music as background noise anyway, yeah, i want background noise that i like, but the point remains, and the stuff i put on my mp3 player, for the most part, is the music i like to sing along to). I dont analyze the "big picture" of music or all that though, i can deal with stuff being "just ok".

WildWorld wrote:

He Already Left wrote:

Look at Plan 9 From Outer Space. Regarded as the worst movie of all time. Yet thousands like it. The movie still sucks though, no matter how many people like it.

Most of the people who "like" it are actually the ones who enjoy snarking on it and making fun of it. Same reason Troll 2, Birdemic, and The Room have so many fans. As for me, i go by the "there are two types of music, stuff i like and stuff that sucks" school of music (i usually listen to music as background noise anyway, yeah, i want background noise that i like, but the point remains, and the stuff i put on my mp3 player, for the most part, is the music i like to sing along to). I dont analyze the "big picture" of music or all that though, i can deal with stuff being "just ok".

And that's ok  

He Already Left wrote:

WildWorld wrote:

He Already Left wrote:

Look at Plan 9 From Outer Space. Regarded as the worst movie of all time. Yet thousands like it. The movie still sucks though, no matter how many people like it.

Most of the people who "like" it are actually the ones who enjoy snarking on it and making fun of it. Same reason Troll 2, Birdemic, and The Room have so many fans. As for me, i go by the "there are two types of music, stuff i like and stuff that sucks" school of music (i usually listen to music as background noise anyway, yeah, i want background noise that i like, but the point remains, and the stuff i put on my mp3 player, for the most part, is the music i like to sing along to). I dont analyze the "big picture" of music or all that though, i can deal with stuff being "just ok".

And that's ok  

Yeah, I'm definitely a "big picture" kinda guy. I gotta know who influenced whom, who came up with what, and why these here and not those there are the best of the genre. This approach could lead to madness, but I don't care at the moment.   I'm sticking to it as long as I'm entertained by the results.

BTW what kind of jazz you digging right now?

Friday13th wrote:

He Already Left wrote:

WildWorld wrote:

He Already Left wrote:

Look at Plan 9 From Outer Space. Regarded as the worst movie of all time. Yet thousands like it. The movie still sucks though, no matter how many people like it.

Most of the people who "like" it are actually the ones who enjoy snarking on it and making fun of it. Same reason Troll 2, Birdemic, and The Room have so many fans. As for me, i go by the "there are two types of music, stuff i like and stuff that sucks" school of music (i usually listen to music as background noise anyway, yeah, i want background noise that i like, but the point remains, and the stuff i put on my mp3 player, for the most part, is the music i like to sing along to). I dont analyze the "big picture" of music or all that though, i can deal with stuff being "just ok".

And that's ok  

Yeah, I'm definitely a "big picture" kinda guy. I gotta know who influenced whom, who came up with what, and why these here and not those there are the best of the genre. This approach could lead to madness, but I don't care at the moment.   I'm sticking to it as long as I'm entertained by the results.

BTW what kind of jazz you digging right now?

Being new to it, I am starting with the basics. I really like the jazz instrumentals more than anything else. Live jazz is also incredible. I am finding that recordings don't do it justice.

Charlie Parker is also an excellent example of what I am getting into right now. I also really like Lee Ritenour and Dave Grusin.


I am a newbie..have any recommendations? 

Charlie Parker is great! I'm just starting to get into that era of jazz from about 1940-1958. It's true, most critics agree the albums took a while to capture the magic. 1959 is the year to go with albums, though. Davis, Mingus, Brubeck, and Coleman released arguably  their best works. My fave is probably Mingus' Ah Um, but Brubeck's singles that year are still my favorite jazz songs. Coincidentally, the album artworks are remarkably similar 

MINGUS IS AWESOME!!!!!!

I know right? Love "Moanin." It's much better than the Art Blakey jazz song by the same name. It reminds me of some Nintendo Mario song  Anyways, Mingus has the perfect combination of melody, harmony, structure, and chemistry between all the instruments. I can appreciate some more improvisational or solo-centric jazz like Coleman or Coltrane, but I prefer when if feels more classically structured and with every member getting to shine some.

some great jazz mentioned here. I would also offer up these as some good stuff to listen to:

Thelonious Monk Quartet - Misterioso
Cannonball Adderley - Somthin' Else
Horace Silver Quintet - Song for My Father
Ford, Robben - Handful of Blues
Hancock, Herbie - Mwandishi
Henderson, Joe - Page One
Mobley, Hank - No Room for Squares
Shorter, Wayne - Speak No Evil

As for older music not as good as i thought it once was I think it is more of a tastes changing than anything else. I have been going back ripping my cd collection to mp3 and there is a lot of stuff that is as every bit as good now to my ears as it was when i first got it and some stuff that isnt what i thought - and that is not limited to Christian stuff vs. Secular stuff.