Jack Wolf wrote:
That's odd! I thought people hated her because she can't sing worth crap? On top of that, she comes off as being incredibly pretentious. I guess her record company keeps encouraging her to make more music because there will always be a few hundred thousand half-deaf listeners who'll keep buying her albums regardless if it's just her making nonsensical noises with a mishmash of un-tuned terrible sounding instruments.
That certainly is odd. Why would someone hate a person who they consider to be bad at singing? If you are going to defend people for hating Yoko Ono, that is not a good defense. It just makes the haters seem like they have chips on their shoulders and get wound up about inconsequential things which are easily avoided. It's not as if they are forced to listen to Yoko Ono singing.
If you think all of her albums are comprised of Yoko Ono "making nonsensical noises with a mishmash of un-tuned terrible sounding instruments", you evidently have not listened to (m)any of her albums. Unless you believe that words are "nonsensical noises" - if so, you have described your own post with remarkable fluency.
Jack Wolf wrote:I could walk into a slaughter house and make a recording then release it and call it "art", but c'mon, seriously?
Yoko Ono and Velvet Underground shouldn't even be in the same paragraph. The difference here of course is that VU is actually listenable and good for the most part.
Yoko Ono has never done that, as far a I know, so what is your point?
I could name dozens of Yoko Ono songs which are more melodic and accessible than Velvet Underground tracks like "European Son" and "Melody Laughter" (both of which are great, incidentally). I don't know if you would want to hear about those songs, though, since they do not fit into your false narrative about Yoko Ono being defined by "nonsensical noises".