Bands that suck... and why! [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Bands that suck... and why!


Aphotic
06-23-2005, 16:08
1. Nickelback. They use the same 4 or 5 chords in every damn song they write. They have literally made money off of essentially the same song from day one. I don't think they have any talent, and I hope they break up soon.

2. Green Day. They have put out like 7 or 8 cd's with the same songs on every one. Their newest cd does nothing but bash America itself, and any citizens who did not vote for John Kerry. How can a song called "American Idiot" that criticizes basically the entire population of our country become so popular? Easy. America truly is full of idiots. Idiots who listen to Green Day.

3. System of a Down. They are creative as hell, and I love the MUSIC behind their sound- but I absolutely cannot stand the singing. If you call it that. They need to get a new singer, and they need to stop writing lyrics like "Pull the tapeworm out of your ass" X 100.

4. Nirvana. Nirvana absolutely destroyed music. The hair-bands of the late 1980's were getting washed up, and the music scene was hurting for a breakthrough- but Nirvana over-simplified music in general and sissified rock. Killing himself was probably the most creative thing Kurt Cobain ever did. I respect his success, and I applaud his lyric-writing talent, but person to person, he was just a whiner who couldn't handle the realities of success. He's no hero, he's just a bum who WANTED to be miserable. And now he's dead.

5. Oasis. They had ONE good cd. A decade ago. Why are they still around?

6. Jet. 1970's-era rock passed for a reason. Cheesy lyrics and ultra-easy/in-no-way creative music only add to their misery.

7. The White Stripes. For a two-piece band, they sound really good- but I just can't get over the fact that all their songs sound so much alike, and that they are so famous with so little material.

8. Probot. Dave Grohl is probably my favorite songwriter/musician around- but I bought that Probot cd and damn near threw it out the window on the way home. It's collecting dust in my collection as I type this.

9. Marilyn Manson. I bought "Antichrist Superstar" and actually DID throw that piece of crap out my window on the highway. I've never been so pissed over $12.49 in my life. Manson has roughly one (1) decent song per cd.

10. Lamb of God. No vocal talent whatsoever, and the repetitive guitar riffs... the ones they use in EVERY SINGLE SONG are amazingly boring to see in concert. All their singer does is walk around smoking a cigarette and drinking a beer while making dog noises. They opened for Slipknot a couple months back, and they sucked. Shadows Fall and Slipknot F-ing rocked though! I'm definetly going to see both of those bands again.

11. The Vines, The Hives and any other 1960's-1982 cover-band out there. That's not rock, that's CLASSIC ROCK, or "Oldies" for guys like me. Go away. Leave more room in the market for NEW bands with NEW ideas about NEW MUSIC and NEW playing styles.

Opinions? Additions? Subtractions? Anyone?

Berto
06-23-2005, 19:04
With the exception of Nirvana and System,I pretty much agree on the rest.
Nirvana was a counterpoint to almost everything that was popular at the time;Intelligent songwriting framed in a post punk garage sound..despite the fact they were very talented musicians.More importantly,they took the spotlight and put it on other great bands from the Seattle area like the Melvins,Tad,Mudhoney and Soundgarden.
SOD also doesn't qualify as a "band that sucks"...I don't care for their politicizing-how a band cogniscent of the Armenian Genocide can be in favor of citizen disarment.(?!)However,they have the talent musicianship-wise and I have heard their latest CD in it's entirety-it's good.
Slipknot?! Now they suck balls!! Talk about gimmick metal...Korn with costumes. ;Q ;g

Oh well,opinions vary,right?;c

Berto
06-23-2005, 19:05
edited for weirdness.^8

BrassInPocket
06-23-2005, 21:19
The Offspring - Every song has to be a joke, it's pretty annoying!

84S
06-24-2005, 07:23
I don't agree with Nirvana, White Stripes, and Green Day being on the list when you left out Creed, Three Doors Down, and Limp Bizkit. Those three are far worse than the three you put on the list. I totally agree with your top choice though. I want to get front row seats at a Nickleback show and get kicked out during the first song! I hate that band with passion. You stated that the early 90's were a rip time for a change in the rock music scene, well Nirvana was definitely the most popular band to buck the trend, but there were other bands that were just as groundbreaking(so to speak) bands like Pavement come to mind. But none of that 90's stuff is as good as Television's 1977 "Marquee Moon" and they recorded all of that great guitar sound with Fenders and clean amps. It is truly a groundbreaking album.

pellertpale
06-24-2005, 10:03
Anything that is "pushed" on the radio.

I think American Idol is the best example for the mainstream. If any of those fans had a clue, they would realize that they are being hyped and it blatantly throws the concept of the media telling you what to listen to in the face of all those people.

Kinda like "famous for being famous."

Nirvana is alright not iconic or timeless though.

System of a Down, ok let's get a band, and have them play behind a billy goat with his nuts in a vice.

Goldendog Redux
06-24-2005, 22:47
The more intestesting part of this thread is imagining what one likes based on what they hate.

I have to absolutely disagree with Nirvana sucking. Verse-chorus-verse simple and effective. While I do not hear Nirvana with the same ears I had in the early nineties, I still get goosebumps when I hear certain songs. I remember having conversations with people about Nirvana when Nevermind came out. At the time Nirvana blew us away.

I find it a touch ironic that Apotic says that Dave Grohl is one of his favorite singer songwriters considering Grohl's pedigree. After Kurt bought the farm I knew Grohl was going to be huge. I really like the Foo Fighters.


I'll throw a few horrible bands out there. Some may have already disappeared.

Yup, Nickleback sucks.

Santana-Adult contemporary schlock

Rob Thomas and that band he used to be in-horrible

Three doors down and the five other bands that sound just like them.

Mudvayne-I thought those guys were metal.

Staind-Whiny

Anything featuring 50 cent-absolute garbage no redeeming qualities.

Blues Traveler-God I hated that high school band sounding, over-played harmonica garbage

Live was pretty ghey

Boston-yeah whatever, they have always sucked

Creed was so bad I am surprised anyone remembered to mention that they sucked.

Dave Matthews Band-They may not suck but I cannot stand them.

System of a Down-I hate them so much I kinda like them. It is kinda like watching a pack of lions eat a live zebra. While awful, it is fascinating at the same time.

Thank you,
MF

mudfootball
06-25-2005, 10:49
yeesh, you guys have taken on some pretty big names in the music world. not some i agree with some i dont. one thing i must say is that some of the bands listed cannot be said to suck. for instance nirvana and green day, although you may highly dislike them, and they may be repetitive and radio over played as all hell. bands that have fans numbering in the millions or that have remained on the billboards for over ten years, must in fact being doing something that keeps them out of the "sucks" category, even if the lead singer O.D.'s. oh wait, if i had to pick some one and contradict my above statements, I hate
Rush with a passion. i hope what i wrote here wasnt complete BS ;)
kt

Goldendog Redux
06-25-2005, 14:09
I guess it depends on how one defines "suck"

Unfortunately, good or bad really has nothing to do with popularity. Consider Britney spears. She was never a musician/singer but sold millions of albums acting like one. I defy anyone on the planet to justify her music. She will never sell any more albums to speak of because all of the little girls that bought her records have grown up. Getting all fat and nasty wont help either.

No one can argue that Boston was a group of accomplished musicians with a knack for writing highly accessible rock and roll songs that live on today. Perhaps I think they suck because they will not go away.

I too hope that what I wrote was not complete BS. It probably was though.

MF

russ2400
06-25-2005, 14:37
add simple plan, every song has the same crappy sound..

Berzerker10mm
06-26-2005, 17:14
For the repetitive part, I think System of a Downs songs are really repetitive except for Arials which is the only SOD song I like. I will agree with you on everything else too, but my "personal" opinion is that all punk bands suck. Most heavy metal bands are under rated for musical tallent, just because people think metal is "Satanic" and "Evil" (which some are) but the most popular stuff will always be the simplist suckiest bands out there.

Aphotic
06-27-2005, 15:16
Slipknot?! Now they suck balls!! Talk about gimmick metal...Korn with costumes.
I bought their second CD "Iowa" simply for the song "New Abortion" which features the three percussionists playing overlapping parts as well as in unison... I bought their first CD a few months later on recommendation from a friend. I bought their third CD simply to be obnoxious, and realized that there is actually a lot of talent behind it.

The first two are oversimplified... the band is TRYING to be EXTREMELY hard, and it comes off sounding that way. The newest CD, "Volume 3, the Subliminal Verses" has some of the best percussion and vocal writing I've ever heard.

That's my take on that.The Offspring - Every song has to be a joke, it's pretty annoying! Amen. Mudvayne-I thought those guys were metal. I didn't like them as much when they were "metal." They made the same mistake as Slipknot and tried waaay to hard to sound heavy and edgy. Listen to "Death Blooms" sometime though- the live version from Ozzfest 2001 is good. Staind-Whiny I forgot about them. Right on! I find it a touch ironic that Apotic says that Dave Grohl is one of his favorite singer songwriters considering Grohl's pedigree. After Kurt bought the farm I knew Grohl was going to be huge. I really like the Foo Fighters. Like him or not, Grohl knows how to make hits that aren't repetitive or cheesy. That "Learn to Fly" song got old fast though. His new one isn't very good either. But I like "Monkeywrench," "Hero," (which is ironically about Kurt Cobain) and "Everlong."No one can argue that Boston was a group of accomplished musicians with a knack for writing highly accessible rock and roll songs that live on today. Boston invented the art of repackaging the same song and selling it as 3 or 4 different singles. I like the doubled guitar sound though.add simple plan Simple plan fits into that nice category known as "Aphotic's EXTREME ***** List." How can you make so much money off of songs written SPECIFICALLY for wannabe-depressed 13-year-old kids? "You don't know what it's like, welcome to my life..." I wish I had your life you ass. Playing for thousands of people 3 nights a week, having everything you ever want handed to you and banging hot 16-20 year old girls in every city on the globe? Yeah, retard, your life is terrible. Kill yourself.

Awesome thread guys, thanks for breathing some life into it.

My new additions are in...

The Beatles: Their initial success was based on the same song repackaged a dozen or so times. After they had enough money and fame that they could say F-You! to all their fans, they started in with all their stupid, drugged-out Yellow Submarine/Sergeant Pepper crap.

The Redwalls: They started out playing Beatles covers... Oh, wait! They still do- they just name them differently and take credit for writing them.

Blind Melon: Absolutely terrible. Just flat out not talented.

Billy Corgan: He was so amazing with the Smashing Pumpkins (Well, like 2/3 of the time anyways) that I constantly find myself asking, "What the hell happened?" Zwan was iffy, his solo stuff is nothing but whiny vocals over a beat box.

Pantera: Metal fans (myself included) cringe at this... but it's true. Dimebag was a fantastic guitarist, but the overall band just isn't impressive. Re-spect!

84S
06-27-2005, 17:57
Originally posted by Aphotic
I bought their second CD "Iowa" simply for the song "New Abortion" which features the three percussionists playing overlapping parts as well as in unison... I bought their first CD a few months later on recommendation from a friend. I bought their third CD simply to be obnoxious, and realized that there is actually a lot of talent behind it.

The first two are oversimplified... the band is TRYING to be EXTREMELY hard, and it comes off sounding that way. The newest CD, "Volume 3, the Subliminal Verses" has some of the best percussion and vocal writing I've ever heard.

That's my take on that. Amen. I didn't like them as much when they were "metal." They made the same mistake as Slipknot and tried waaay to hard to sound heavy and edgy. Listen to "Death Blooms" sometime though- the live version from Ozzfest 2001 is good. I forgot about them. Right on! Like him or not, Grohl knows how to make hits that aren't repetitive or cheesy. That "Learn to Fly" song got old fast though. His new one isn't very good either. But I like "Monkeywrench," "Hero," (which is ironically about Kurt Cobain) and "Everlong." Boston invented the art of repackaging the same song and selling it as 3 or 4 different singles. I like the doubled guitar sound though. Simple plan fits into that nice category known as "Aphotic's EXTREME ***** List." How can you make so much money off of songs written SPECIFICALLY for wannabe-depressed 13-year-old kids? "You don't know what it's like, welcome to my life..." I wish I had your life you ass. Playing for thousands of people 3 nights a week, having everything you ever want handed to you and banging hot 16-20 year old girls in every city on the globe? Yeah, retard, your life is terrible. Kill yourself.

Awesome thread guys, thanks for breathing some life into it.

My new additions are in...

The Beatles: Their initial success was based on the same song repackaged a dozen or so times. After they had enough money and fame that they could say F-You! to all their fans, they started in with all their stupid, drugged-out Yellow Submarine/Sergeant Pepper crap.

The Redwalls: They started out playing Beatles covers... Oh, wait! They still do- they just name them differently and take credit for writing them.

Blind Melon: Absolutely terrible. Just flat out not talented.

Billy Corgan: He was so amazing with the Smashing Pumpkins (Well, like 2/3 of the time anyways) that I constantly find myself asking, "What the hell happened?" Zwan was iffy, his solo stuff is nothing but whiny vocals over a beat box.

Pantera: Metal fans (myself included) cringe at this... but it's true. Dimebag was a fantastic guitarist, but the overall band just isn't impressive. Re-spect!

To say Blind Melon had no talent is way off the mark. Plus, I guess you think "Abbey Road" or the white album by the Beatles is complete garbage too. I question your knowledge of music.

BrassInPocket
06-27-2005, 19:38
Yeah, Blind Melon was a great band. Shannon Hoon's vocal range was awesome!

Goldendog Redux
06-27-2005, 21:13
Holy cow! Someone dared to disrespect the Beatles. I consider myself to be a fan of all music. The Beatles however, have never even been a blip on my radar. They bore me. I will take The Who any day.

If it hadn't been for Bob Dylan, The Fab Four would have still been singing Chubby Checker songs to screaming girls who wouldn't know good music if it slithered up their skirts.

Apotic, you hit the nail on the head about Billy Corgan. Some Pumpkins songs are absolute masterpieces. They sure did peter out though.

MF

Kanos
06-28-2005, 11:42
I Love the lead singer of SOAD. Hes intresting. The only reason i dont like the bamd is i think there libral.;Q

Aphotic
06-28-2005, 14:35
To say Blind Melon had no talent is way off the mark. Plus, I guess you think "Abbey Road" or the white album by the Beatles is complete garbage too. I question your knowledge of music.

Shannon's vocal range was huge, yes, but the band really didn't have much potential.

"Abbey Road" and the "White Album" are what I consider the Beatles' "serious" attempt at songwriting. Unfortunately, they just didn't deliver.

I'm only 21 years old, so I wasn't around for "Beatlemania," but if my knowledge of music history is correct, people were so caught up in how "amazing" the Beatles were that they (at the time) considered "Yellow Submarine" and "Sergeant Pepper" to be great "masterpieces."

All in all, Goldendog says it right... the Beatles are just plain boring. The Who, Zeppelin or the early Aerosmith... hell, even Black Sabbath's early stuff is technically and lyrically far more creative than anything the "genius" John Lennon ever wrote.

In my heartfelt opinion, John Lennon was nothing more than a 1960's era Kurt Cobain. He had everything he could ever want... except hardship, which is what he tried desperately to portray in his later writings. In the end, he ended up just mocking people who truly knew the troubles of the world.

Edited to add: Does anyone want my opinion of Jimi Hendrix? I'll break out a sneak-peek for you... I think Eric Clapton at 16 years old could have wiped the floor with Jimi's Jimmy in his prime.

I'm a guitar player of 11 years, also, so I'm not just talking out of my ass. I'm a huge music fan and a musician- I'm not judging these bands based on their popularity or record sales; I'm judging them based on their actual talent- rather than marketability- which is what most people confuse with talent.

84S
06-28-2005, 18:39
Originally posted by Aphotic
Shannon's vocal range was huge, yes, but the band really didn't have much potential.

"Abbey Road" and the "White Album" are what I consider the Beatles' "serious" attempt at songwriting. Unfortunately, they just didn't deliver.

I'm only 21 years old, so I wasn't around for "Beatlemania," but if my knowledge of music history is correct, people were so caught up in how "amazing" the Beatles were that they (at the time) considered "Yellow Submarine" and "Sergeant Pepper" to be great "masterpieces."

All in all, Goldendog says it right... the Beatles are just plain boring. The Who, Zeppelin or the early Aerosmith... hell, even Black Sabbath's early stuff is technically and lyrically far more creative than anything the "genius" John Lennon ever wrote.

In my heartfelt opinion, John Lennon was nothing more than a 1960's era Kurt Cobain. He had everything he could ever want... except hardship, which is what he tried desperately to portray in his later writings. In the end, he ended up just mocking people who truly knew the troubles of the world.

Edited to add: Does anyone want my opinion of Jimi Hendrix? I'll break out a sneak-peek for you... I think Eric Clapton at 16 years old could have wiped the floor with Jimi's Jimmy in his prime.

I'm a guitar player of 11 years, also, so I'm not just talking out of my ass. I'm a huge music fan and a musician- I'm not judging these bands based on their popularity or record sales; I'm judging them based on their actual talent- rather than marketability- which is what most people confuse with talent.

Well, you fully entitled to your opinion of the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix's abilities. You would never hear Eric Clapton say that he was a better guitar player than Hendrix. Clapton was quoted one time back in the 60's saying that Jeff Beck had a lick better than Clapton and Clapton had a lick better than Jeff Beck, but Jimi Hendrix had a lick better than both of them. John Lennon wasn't the only song writer in the Beatles and the bands that you mentioned that you think were better all admired the Beatles. Now, that being said, I am also a huge Who, Led Zeppelin, and a Black Sabbath fan. Those bands plus the Beatles are four of the best rock and roll bands of all time. I play guitar too, and I would say that the Jimmy Page's and Eric Clapton's of the world influence my playing more than the Beatles, but as a songwriter too, it is hard not to admire the works of the Beatles. For you, at 21 years old, and say that the Beatles didn't deliver the goods with Abbey Road and the White Album goes against many musicians' opinions of those two albums

84S
06-28-2005, 18:42
Sgt Pepper's Loney Hearts Club Band is a great album, by the way. It was one of the first records I ever owned. My mom bought me a beat up LP of it when I was 6 years old. I played that thing all the time as a kid. I still love it, even though it is a little dated with all of the dreamy LSD influences on it.

Hobear
06-28-2005, 20:50
Generally speaking, music (or any performing art) is a rainbow, the best you can hope for is a color. Your opinion is as vald as any here, but IMO, your knowledge of modern music, particularly R & R is grossly limited. To a one, all these great bands you have named have stated how great the Beatles were. The Beatles were by no means the only musical artists pushing the envelope in the 60's, but they were on the bleeding edge. Stadium concerts are generic today but they took it to that level before a music event of that size had ever been conceived. As for Beatlemania, remember they never toured again after 1966 because they couldn't hear themselves (there were no monitors in those days). They were the first studio band. They were the first musicians to use feedback on their instruments. They freely admitted that Dylan was a great influence on the direction of their music. They had some dog songs like any band but they never wrote the same song twice. Abbey Road and The White Album were the only serious attempts songwriting? Nowhere Man, In My Life (Rubber Soul), A Day In The Life, Lucy In The Sky..., (Sgt. Pepper's) Eleanor Rigby, For No One, Taxman, (Revolver), Strawberry Fields Forever, As I write this response, it occurs to me that it's no use to explain it to you b/c you just don't get it. Like I said, your opinion is as valid as anyone's here, I just think you're clueless. Go check out this link http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/grammy.htm and look at the grammy award nominations The Beatles lost and who they lost to. It puts what they were doing in the context of when it was written and what else was going on at the time.

As for an over rated band, The Doors to me were, at best, unremarkable. Jim Morrison was an obnoxious pretty boy drunk whose brain was so pickled by alcohol that he couldn't string two coherent sentences together and b/c of that he was called a poet. HA! Ray Manzarak was the only credible musician in the band.

pellertpale
06-30-2005, 17:50
TOOL

Now they suck! I saw in concert like five times, and I hated every single minute. The were all loud with too much guitars and drums. Speaking of drums their drummer has to be the worst member of the band. He ruins every other song with his tappity tap. Their singer sucks! I hate TOOL!

StainD is way better! TOOL dreams about being as cool as StainD.





















;z ;e ;f ;Q

BrassInPocket
06-30-2005, 21:59
Originally posted by pellertpale
TOOL

Now they suck! I saw in concert like five times, and I hated every single minute. The were all loud with too much guitars and drums. Speaking of drums their drummer has to be the worst member of the band. He ruins every other song with his tappity tap. Their singer sucks! I hate TOOL!

StainD is way better! TOOL dreams about being as cool as StainD.
Yikes! Please tell me you're kidding? If not, put the crack pipe down & go listen to the entire Undertow CD again! ;f

Bullwinkle J Moose
07-02-2005, 17:40
Originally posted by Aphotic
"Abbey Road" and the "White Album" are what I consider the Beatles' "serious" attempt at songwriting. Unfortunately, they just didn't deliver.

I'm only 21 years old, so I wasn't around for "Beatlemania," but if my knowledge of music history is correct, people were so caught up in how "amazing" the Beatles were that they (at the time) considered "Yellow Submarine" and "Sergeant Pepper" to be great "masterpieces."

All in all, Goldendog says it right... the Beatles are just plain boring. The Who, Zeppelin or the early Aerosmith... hell, even Black Sabbath's early stuff is technically and lyrically far more creative than anything the "genius" John Lennon ever wrote.

....

I'm a guitar player of 11 years, also, so I'm not just talking out of my ass. I'm a huge music fan and a musician- I'm not judging these bands based on their popularity or record sales; I'm judging them based on their actual talent- rather than marketability- which is what most people confuse with talent.

By your own measure, since I've been playing guitar over 40 years, that ought to make me 4X as knowledgable as you. But I'm not naive or egotistical enough to make such a silly claim (although I might well have been when I was your age). Because I loved the guitar, I grew up (and got old) favoring guitar dominant bands, so most of my listening at that time (records and live)was to the likes of Zep, Clapton, Hendrix, Mountain, Allman Bros, Buchannan, Winter, etc, but I also appreciated the songwriting of all the Beatles (except Ringo). They even had their guitar moments even if some were furnished by Eric. Then again I lived in the era, so I also had the added advantage of understanding their musical contributions in the context of the contemporary music offerings of that time.

Anyhow you may well find as I did that as you get older and more mature you will go back and start listening to and appreciating groups and artists that you previously would not pee of if they were on fire. You should realize that just because you prefer certain artists now, that doesn't necesarily mean others suck. It could just mean you haven't yet grown enough musically to appreciate their contributions.

If you'd like some objective evidence of "songwriting ability" do some research on how many of the songs written by these groups you mention including the Beatles that were covered by other artists. I'd venture to say that the more times a songwriter's songs were recorded, the better a songwriter has been proven to be whether you and I like them or not. At one time not too long ago "Yesterday" was THE most recorded song ever.

PennGlock
07-05-2005, 12:48
All that Jack Johnson, John Mayer, Guester, I-need-my-balls-reattached stuff, man. Stuff college chicks listen to...

Hobear
07-05-2005, 13:59
Each to their own bro, but I couldn't disagree more. Jack Johnson, John Myer and the like (anybody remember Michael Penn?) are solid for that style of music. Dave Chappel even had John Myer sit in as a guest musician:cool:

84S
07-05-2005, 15:46
Originally posted by PennGlock
All that Jack Johnson, John Mayer, Guester, I-need-my-balls-reattached stuff, man. Stuff college chicks listen to...

If you can play and sing a Jack Johnson song(not that hard really) to a college chick, it gets their panties wet real quick.;)

lonewolf01
07-06-2005, 13:05
Ok, here's my definition of crap bands:

The Doors - overrated weird crap. Ever hear their "Ode to my C0ck" song?

Dave Matthews Band - liberal who just strums the same chords and talks instead of singing.

Bruce Springsteen - overrated egomanaic

And, I don't even know most of the current bands but what I do hear, I don't like. I admit that I'm a clasic rock guy but where is the melody and intricate guitar work in today's music? All of the songs sound the same.

Hobear
07-06-2005, 14:14
Yeah, I never was into Springsteen either. DMB gad a couple of good songs but I never jumped on that bandwagon either.

84S
07-06-2005, 14:23
I would have to agree about DMB, the good songwriting from them dried up several years ago IMHO.

nickg
07-06-2005, 15:07
they've been showing a DMB concert on DirecTV this month.

excellent musicians but as soon as this moron starts his braying donkey style "vocals" the remote does the big click.

the following that him and springsteen have still boggles the mind. ;Q ;Q

Aphotic
07-06-2005, 21:14
I would have to agree about DMB, the good songwriting from them dried up several years ago IMHO. I saw him in concert in Chicago (August 2003) and he only played two (2) songs that I had ever heard before. The rest were a bunch of repetitive B-Sides, and of course, each had the obligatory 20-minute jam-session at the end where the entire band plays the same measure nonstop until your head hurts.

Almost everyone there was very intoxicated, whether it be drugs or alcohol they were consuming, and I decided afterwards that while I think DMB are great musicians, that sadly, they in fact have run out of new material.

After he went solo, he went waaay downhill. "Gravedigger" is an excellent song, but the new DMB cd is absolute crap.

My girlfriend's cousin is a huge "DaveHead" or whatever you call them. He has fifty-four (54) cd's; none of them multiples. Apparently the DMB fan-club members get a 4 or 5 song cd every six months or so with a few live songs on it. In any case, almost everything after "Under the Table and Dreaming" is crap. I like "Crash Into Me" though.

pellertpale
07-06-2005, 23:09
While Tim Reynolds and Dave are good, DMB is all hype. Jack is good.

mudfootball
07-07-2005, 14:30
Now i have not made too many comments about the beatles bashing and doors whatever. being able to play jack j. is something that college chicks are into, so i would say that that leaves my balls attached right where they should be
as for the dave mathews band, i am a huge fan and as i posted in my first thread any one that is going 10 yrs or more strong and still has tons of fans may not be your music but that doesnt mean they suck. his voice pisses off many but every single one of them is a top notch musician, the saxophonist being able to play 5-6 instruments. i do admit the song writing has gone downhill since before these crowded streets, concerts are a ton of fun even if you dont like dave, which by the way i think once again this summer he has sold out a bunch of 15000 plus places and before the relatively recent album everyday, one of the magazines (spin or playboy im not sure) had them listed as the 3rd highest grossing performers in the nation for that year. yep they must suck. but i had to speak on his behalf. take that! ;)
kt
as for being a liberal, no i didnt go to the shows for the kerry thing cause of that but, i cant stop doing everything i like because the person behind it is liberal;)

reconvic
07-07-2005, 20:05
Music is very diferent for everyone, what one person likes others hate. That is why we all don't listen and play the same music. I can say I don't like Rap (which I don't) but others do and who am I just a old guitarist. That is my thoughts on it!

84S
07-07-2005, 20:27
Originally posted by mudfootball
Now i have not made too many comments about the beatles bashing and doors whatever. being able to play jack j. is something that college chicks are into, so i would say that that leaves my balls attached right where they should be
as for the dave mathews band, i am a huge fan and as i posted in my first thread any one that is going 10 yrs or more strong and still has tons of fans may not be your music but that doesnt mean they suck. his voice pisses off many but every single one of them is a top notch musician, the saxophonist being able to play 5-6 instruments. i do admit the song writing has gone downhill since before these crowded streets, concerts are a ton of fun even if you dont like dave, which by the way i think once again this summer he has sold out a bunch of 15000 plus places and before the relatively recent album everyday, one of the magazines (spin or playboy im not sure) had them listed as the 3rd highest grossing performers in the nation for that year. yep they must suck. but i had to speak on his behalf. take that! ;)
kt
as for being a liberal, no i didnt go to the shows for the kerry thing cause of that but, i cant stop doing everything i like because the person behind it is liberal;)

I would agree with you 100% that the DMB does not suck at all. I have not liked their last few albums, but they still put on a great live show. I first saw them in Charlottesville in 1993 and have seen them many times since then. I used to get free tickets and backstage passes for a while, but that connection dried up a couple of years ago. I can say this, Dave Matthews will drink you under the table, not that that is a good thing.

PennGlock
07-07-2005, 22:58
Popularity and ticket sales isnt proof that a band doesn't suck! Do you know what the last Rock single to reach #1 on the Billboard charts was? It was goddam Nickelback's "this is how you remind me." Most music that appeals to the mass market is usually just appealing to the lowest common denominator.

There are plenty of exceptions, though. I can name a lot of great music that has been well-recieved. I just dont have much respect for the average guy's taste in music. Nickelback dude...

Hobear
07-07-2005, 23:14
Never said DMB sucked, I just never really got into them big time. Do like some their songs. They are good musicians, really like the percussionist.

mudfootball
07-08-2005, 11:15
ok maybe i over reacted.;Q , that part about the lowest common denominator,man that is so true
kt

stepper
07-17-2005, 17:09
I can't stand the insane clown posse. They suck!

Slipnot(sp) sucks!

Any of the boy bands.

JMag
07-17-2005, 17:23
Just a note that Boston definitely does not suck. Okay?;f

Smizack
07-23-2005, 00:50
Originally posted by JMag
Just a note that Boston definitely does not suck. Okay?;f

There's no way anyone affiliated with Tom Schultz is in a "suck" band. Coming from a guitarist, he's a guitar pioneer no doubt about it.

lonewolf01
07-25-2005, 13:28
Originally posted by Smizack
There's no way anyone affiliated with Tom Schultz is in a "suck" band. Coming from a guitarist, he's a guitar pioneer no doubt about it.

Yeah, I still like their stuff. He could have stopped with his first album and retired. Imagine making one album and being a millionaire for the rest of your life!

dgg9
07-25-2005, 13:41
Originally posted by Aphotic
The Beatles: Their initial success was based on the same song repackaged a dozen or so times. After they had enough money and fame that they could say F-You! to all their fans, they started in with all their stupid, drugged-out Yellow Submarine/Sergeant Pepper crap.

No offense, but this is exactly why it's easy not to take children seriously when they talk about music.

Anyone who can say, with a straight face, that the Beatles, you know, like, suck, has excluded himself from worthwhile discussion.

Black Metal
07-25-2005, 13:49
Accidentally post thie reply as a thread earlier oops...

Anyway, HIM or His Infernal Majesty sucks!!!! Wuss Metal

Black Metal

Goldendog Redux
07-25-2005, 19:17
Originally posted by dgg9
No offense, but this is exactly why it's easy not to take children seriously when they talk about music.

Anyone who can say, with a straight face, that the Beatles, you know, like, suck, has excluded himself from worthwhile discussion.

I love it. People just get bent when someone says anything other than The Beatles are the "greatest band ever", "Sgt Pepper's, The White Album are the greatest ever recorded". It is like saying Jesus was a cross-dressing queer. I can see the steam coming out of your ears now.

MF

dgg9
07-25-2005, 20:55
Originally posted by Goldendog Redux
I love it. People just get bent when someone says anything other than The Beatles are the "greatest band ever", "Sgt Pepper's, The White Album are the greatest ever recorded". It is like saying Jesus was a cross-dressing queer. I can see the steam coming out of your ears now.

No, steam would require that I actually respected the speaker's judgment, and cared what he thought. "Bent" would require even more concern, which is sadly missing.

You seem to be confused by the logic here. I'll help you out. The available alternatives are not a) "greatest band ever" and b) "sucks." There are a few options in between.

We can debate where the Beatles fit in rock's pantheon. We can not debate that they "suck." That's a statement that identifies someone as not to be taken seriously.

Hobear
07-25-2005, 23:20
LOL

Hey Goldendog, just out of curiousity, how old are you? Seriously.....

Goldendog Redux
07-26-2005, 21:05
37

I am not really concerned with The Beatles' place in rock history. I am not into them and never have been. I just like it when people say they suck because it always gets people to react.

Frankly, Pete Townsend destroying his gear at Woodstock, Monterey Pop, or wherever, with that anger, rage, showmanship or whatever it was speaks to me in ways that that freak-hippy Lennon couldn't even begin to muster.

Now that I am all fired up, I think I'll listen to The Who really loud and consider them the greatest band of all time.

MF

Hobear
07-26-2005, 23:05
The Who is a great band, giants in the annals of R & R history. Nobody played with more sheer energy and intensity. Also, at least you admit you're a troller.

Glockerel
07-27-2005, 03:14
Band that Sucks:

1)Styxx

Why?

Dennis DeYoung

How can you take a great technical guitarist like Tommy Shaw and make him play that femmy overproduced/rock/showtune crap topped off with DeYoung's Geddy Lee-like voice..


2)ELO:

Why:

Jeff Lynn

Everything this guy touches sounds the same. Layered synth crap with cliche melodies and awful vocals.

Hobear
07-27-2005, 08:21
Never was into Styx, I just never got into them. I always liked ELO though, mostly b/c they/he was Beatlesque. Always liked Rush a lot too, in spite of Geddy Lee's voice. :)

Altaris
07-27-2005, 19:54
I can't stand Rush. Their drummer = Badass. But the singer just turns all of their songs into crap the second he opens his mouth.
Smashing Pumpkins has the same problem. The singer just ruins everything with his annoying/terrible voice.

Hobear
07-27-2005, 22:24
LOL, I understand what you're saying. Geddy's voice is their idiosynchrasy. He takes some getting used to. But he is a phenominal musician. (Hell, thay all are):cool:

nickg
07-28-2005, 12:37
Originally posted by Hobear
LOL, I understand what you're saying. Geddy's voice is their idiosynchrasy. He takes some getting used to. But he is a phenominal musician. (Hell, thay all are):cool:

count me in as one of the drummers in the world who do NOT worship at the altar of neil peart and rush.

i'd prefer to get my teeth drilled with no novacain while getting a prostate exam with a cattle prod with my nuts attached to a 220 line before i'd subject myself to the ramblings on of peart.

Aphotic
07-28-2005, 16:04
Anyone who can say, with a straight face, that the Beatles, you know, like, suck, has excluded himself from worthwhile discussion. Not only do they suck, but they had absolutely no idea how to manage their careers- which is why Michael Jackson now owns the rights to most of their "important" works. Getting shot was the best thing John Lennon ever did, in my honest opinion.

Anyway, HIM or His Infernal Majesty sucks!!!! Wuss Metal "I'm waiting for your call, and I'm ready to take your six-six-six in my heart. I'm longing for your touch, and I welcome your sweet six-six-six in my heart; right here in this heart!"

They might be a tad whiney, but you have to admit- they have some damn fine songwriting ability. People are starting to confuse "sucks" with personal preference, rather than actual talent.I love it. People just get bent when someone says anything other than The Beatles are the "greatest band ever", "Sgt Pepper's, The White Album are the greatest ever recorded". It is like saying Jesus was a cross-dressing queer. I can see the steam coming out of your ears now. The same thing happens when you say, "I've heard that in real life, Oprah is a real *****!"

I honestly have heard that from several people who either do or have known her personally. People get sooo mad when you trash on a perceived idol. The Beatles were smart in that they created one of the deepest-running cult-followings ever. To this day, people born between 1950-1960 will not even contemplate the fact that the Beatles just really weren't that good.The Who is a great band, giants in the annals of R & R history. Nobody played with more sheer energy and intensity. Damn straight.

I don't like Styx either.

A surprising one? I think Journey had a lot of talent. For their genre, they wrote some really good songs. Their band was talented, their singer is as good live as on record and you can differentiate between their songs.

Calling me a "child" and trashing my posts just goes to show that you have nothing legitimate to back up your claims of "the Beatles are the best band ever!!!"

Trust me, I spend 8 hours per day listening to music at work. I was brought up listening to all styles, all genres and all types of music. I know what good, from-the-heart, honest, quality songwriting is.

Some bands have it, and I give them huge credit. Others were only in it for the money, and did everything they could to keep surfing the wave- and those bands, in my opinion, suck.

No grab a towel and wipe your p***y. Deal with the facts man.

Berto
07-28-2005, 16:53
Originally posted by nickg
count me in as one of the drummers in the world who do NOT worship at the altar of neil peart and rush.

i'd prefer to get my teeth drilled with no novacain while getting a prostate exam with a cattle prod with my nuts attached to a 220 line before i'd subject myself to the ramblings on of peart.

Prove it. :)

dgg9
07-28-2005, 17:03
Originally posted by Aphotic
Not only do they suck, but they had absolutely no idea how to manage their careers-

As evidenced by Paul's bank account.

Calling me a "child" and trashing my posts just goes to show that you have nothing legitimate to back up your claims of "the Beatles are the best band ever!!!"

Another hallmark of children is the inability to read, which leads you to claim I said something I never said. Don't worry -- taking 3rd grade again might cure that.

Deal with the facts man.

I already did -- the abundantly clear fact that you need to buy a clue.

Hobear
07-28-2005, 19:52
He's a troller, i.e. troll = one who gets off on starting a flame war in a forum, not genuinely interested in sharing ideas/opinions, just wants to shove its abrasive rants in your face and get a reaction. OK, I'll bite....



"I'm waiting for your call, and I'm ready to take your six-six-six in my heart. I'm longing for your touch, and I welcome your sweet six-six-six in my heart; right here in this heart!"

;g



They might be a tad whiney, but you have to admit- they have some damn fine songwriting ability.

;z

People are starting to confuse "sucks" with personal preference, rather than actual talent.

Couldn't have said it better myself.


Last and least of your "opinions",

Getting shot was the best thing John Lennon ever did, in my honest opinion.

Forget about if you liked his music or not, someone's husband, someone's father, someone's friend was murdered for no good reason by a severely mentally ill person. I used to find your trolling mildy amusing, if not a bit adolescent. With your most recent rant, I can see that you're not an adolescent, you're a full grown a-hole.

84S
07-29-2005, 16:49
The best thing for Aphotic would be for him to go completely deaf, because he is already tone deaf. To say the best thing to happen to John Lennon was to get shot and killed is a jerkoff comment.

Sum1_special
07-30-2005, 05:23
Well... I have just read this whole thread... And I must say, What a waste of time. Pretty soon I will start hearing people say 'Elvis was nothin special' 'Bob Marley was a Joke' 'The Beatles suck'... Oh wait... might as well cross that last one off. Honestly, I don't think its the music that sucks, I think its this thread. Some People like Jimi Hendrix others like Sum41, Whether it 'sucks' or not is all about personal preference(Although I can't STAND bands like Blink 182 and Sum41). Why didn't we make a 'Bands that Rock... and why' thread instead? ;Q

And Aphotic you seem to be putting down a lot of great bands, tell me, what kind of bands do you like?

Altaris
07-31-2005, 09:17
Originally posted by Sum1_special

And Aphotic you seem to be putting down a lot of great bands, tell me, what kind of bands do you like?


Well he already said that 'HIM' has great song writing ability. I think that alone should tell you he has no right to judge peoples musical tastes. Let me guess, he probably thinks Britney Spears writes great tunes as well? `l `l `l `l `l

Aphotic
07-31-2005, 20:17
Man... some of you are so brainwashed into thinking that pre-packaged, made-for-screaming-13-year-old-girls, unoriginal, repetitive, redundant, simple "music" is the greatest thing to ever happen for the industry that don't know where to start.

HIM are whiney, but you know what? They're ORIGINAL. I listen to all kinds of music on an almost constant basis, and HIM is the only band that SOUNDS LIKE HIM.

This is the same reason that I said I respect System of a Down and other bands even if I don't personally like them. They have ideas, they have original thoughts and they try new things musically... but none of you would know anything about that.No offense, but this is exactly why it's easy not to take children seriously when they talk about music.***You quoted me when you said this... My reading and comprehension skills are perfect, however your memory seems to be slipping old man. It's no wonder to me that you are stuck in the '60's as that's probably where you destroyed most of your "creative thinking" brain cells with Mary J and 'Cid while listening to the "Beatles" and talking about how John Lennon was the sexiest man alive.

The rest of you can read this thread and others... i.e. the "greatest rap group ever" thread or any other in this forum. I don't have time to list the bands that I like in full, but I'll reply when I have more time and give you a "Top Ten Greatest Bands" list, and why I believe so.

You guys who are trashing on me so much will probably be surprised... earlier I said that Journey had a lot of talent- and they do.

I base what I'm saying here on TALENT, CREATIVITY and ORIGINALITY and nothing else. Bands like Blink 182 make TONS of money and have HUGE audiences, but that doesn't mean they are exceptional songwriters, it means they appeal well and market themselves well. The same goes for the Beatles and most of the other bands I say "suck."

They might make millions and millions, they might be famous worldwide, but musically, they're really NOT that great- they bent over to the record industry's standards of what "good" (and by 'good' I mean 'marketable') music is, and played/wrote what they were told to by a producer.

That's what a producer does.

Obviously many of you chodes have no experience with the recording process or songwriting in general... so I'll say it here and now:

Most of your "rock" or "hip-hop" or "blues" or "country" artist idols are posers. They write songs based on what people tell them will sell well and they spend huge money marketing and promoting those songs. That's how they make money- creating a product specifically to sell to the willing public.

So all of you who love the Beatles, know this- THEY SCREWED YOU! THEY TRICKED YOU INTO BUYING THEIR PRODUCT, NOT THEIR TALENT.

dgg9
07-31-2005, 20:31
Originally posted by Aphotic
They might make millions and millions, they might be famous worldwide, but musically, they're really NOT that great

Well, that's one possibility. The other, far more likely, is that your musical tastes are "really NOT that great."

One sees this a lot with children -- lacking anything useful to say, they lapse into reflexive contrarianism, as if striking a pose were the same as having an original thought.

dgg9
07-31-2005, 20:36
Originally posted by Aphotic
My reading and comprehension skills are perfect, however your memory seems to be slipping old man.

Really? So when you said:

Calling me a "child" and trashing my posts just goes to show that you have nothing legitimate to back up your claims of "the Beatles are the best band ever!!!"

...where exactly did I make that claim? Oh, that's right -- I didn't. So much for reading and comprehension.

Hobear
07-31-2005, 22:32
Obviously many of you chodes have no experience with the recording process or songwriting in general... so I'll say it here and now:

Ahhhh, that explains it, he's an authority on, well, just about everything that has do with creating, producing and marketing music. I'm sure the aphotic record label and his stable of artists will be taking the musical world by storm any day now.

So all of you who love the Beatles, know this- THEY SCREWED YOU! THEY TRICKED YOU INTO BUYING THEIR PRODUCT, NOT THEIR TALENT.

Really? And all this time I thought it was because I liked their music.

Translation = everyone who has an opinion different from this self aggrandizing arse is an ignorant fool who needs to be told what is and isn't worthwhile.


"I'm waiting for your call, and I'm ready to take your six-six-six in my heart. I'm longing for your touch, and I welcome your sweet six-six-six in my heart; right here in this heart!"


;z This still cracks me up as his example of "some damn fine songwriting ability"


For your edification, that little booth at the mall where you can sing along with a song and buy a CD of your "production" at the end is not a real recording studio.

84S
08-01-2005, 10:03
Originally posted by Aphotic
Man... some of you are so brainwashed into thinking that pre-packaged, made-for-screaming-13-year-old-girls, unoriginal, repetitive, redundant, simple "music" is the greatest thing to ever happen for the industry that don't know where to start.

HIM are whiney, but you know what? They're ORIGINAL. I listen to all kinds of music on an almost constant basis, and HIM is the only band that SOUNDS LIKE HIM.

This is the same reason that I said I respect System of a Down and other bands even if I don't personally like them. They have ideas, they have original thoughts and they try new things musically... but none of you would know anything about that.***You quoted me when you said this... My reading and comprehension skills are perfect, however your memory seems to be slipping old man. It's no wonder to me that you are stuck in the '60's as that's probably where you destroyed most of your "creative thinking" brain cells with Mary J and 'Cid while listening to the "Beatles" and talking about how John Lennon was the sexiest man alive.

The rest of you can read this thread and others... i.e. the "greatest rap group ever" thread or any other in this forum. I don't have time to list the bands that I like in full, but I'll reply when I have more time and give you a "Top Ten Greatest Bands" list, and why I believe so.

You guys who are trashing on me so much will probably be surprised... earlier I said that Journey had a lot of talent- and they do.

I base what I'm saying here on TALENT, CREATIVITY and ORIGINALITY and nothing else. Bands like Blink 182 make TONS of money and have HUGE audiences, but that doesn't mean they are exceptional songwriters, it means they appeal well and market themselves well. The same goes for the Beatles and most of the other bands I say "suck."

They might make millions and millions, they might be famous worldwide, but musically, they're really NOT that great- they bent over to the record industry's standards of what "good" (and by 'good' I mean 'marketable') music is, and played/wrote what they were told to by a producer.

That's what a producer does.

Obviously many of you chodes have no experience with the recording process or songwriting in general... so I'll say it here and now:

Most of your "rock" or "hip-hop" or "blues" or "country" artist idols are posers. They write songs based on what people tell them will sell well and they spend huge money marketing and promoting those songs. That's how they make money- creating a product specifically to sell to the willing public.

So all of you who love the Beatles, know this- THEY SCREWED YOU! THEY TRICKED YOU INTO BUYING THEIR PRODUCT, NOT THEIR TALENT.

Please give us some examples of your great songwriting. You are correct, Journey was a talented band, I don't like them, but I respect their abilities. You see there, you can dislike music but you can also appreciate the talent that is or was there to create it. The guys in Journey probably love and respect the Beatles music like many musicians do. To say that there was no talent in the Beatles shows how much you don't know about music.

costanza187
08-02-2005, 21:09
Creed... they suck because they are/were Creed

LAWDOGKMS
08-02-2005, 21:22
FWIW:

I happen to like Creed..

I wish they were still together and making music..

quinlanv
08-10-2005, 11:21
I spent the last 12 years as a music buyer for a small chain of music stores. My list of bands that suck would be to huge to list.
But I make ammo for a living now and music is fun again :)

TDH
03-02-2006, 18:29
I skimmed trough list

manson is good

Fallout boy sucks…every time I here that stuff I want to kill my self
90 % of rap example fat joe, lil john,ludachris,ll cool j
then there is backstreet boys, 98 degrees, n’sync, spicegirls


ps screew spelling tonight

AJE
03-03-2006, 09:30
Originally posted by LAWDOGKMS
FWIW:

I happen to like Creed..

I wish they were still together and making music..

They are... they just got a new singer and changed thier name.

PoiDog
03-03-2006, 18:09
I agree on Springsteen. An overrated, whiny, grunting liberal asswipe. Never liked him, never will.

And how about Lynrd Skynyrd? I may have screwed up their stupid name, but not as bad as they screwed up imitating the Allman Brothers Band. "I know, the Allmans have two lead guitars, let's have THREE!" I've never liked a single song they played. That whiny, screeching, overplayed "Free Bird" makes my skin crawl. Reminds me of the scene in the Blues Brothers at the country bar.

And I defy anybody but their mothers to tell the various so-called divas apart just from their voices.

Now I'll take on a real sacred cow: U2. Bono has to be the most self-centered, arrogant, overbearing nitwit in the history of music. If he doesn't like the way this country is run, he can head on back to the Emerald Isle posthaste. And take your politics with you. If he wants to screw with how countries are run, start with the UK.

I have XM, and as soon as any of these bands come on it's punch the button time. Except I wouldn't listen to any channel that played 'divas'.

epsylum
03-03-2006, 22:05
The big problem here is even "talent" can be subjective.

I do not like the Beatles, The Doors, or many other classic rock bands. Do they have talent or not? I would venture to guess anyone who likes them would say yes, and a lot who don't like them (not necisarrily all) would say no. Perosnally, I have no music talent, but I do know what I like.

I like metal, Drum n Bass (flame suit on, I know DJs aren't technically musicians), very very little rap, and..... classical.

If you want talent (and I don't care who you are) a good classical songwriter has to have talent. That many instruments to write for and they all have to work together flawlessly (no distortion to cover up mistakes).

Even though I don't listen to it as often as I do other kinds of music, I think the classical masters (Mozart, Chopin, Beethoven, etc.) are some of the most talented songwriters ever. Ad if you want staying power...... well there you go.

nickg
03-08-2006, 09:49
can someone PLEASE explain to me all the hype about Arctic Monkeys.

i checked out some of their stuff just to see what they are all about. piece o' *****.

just another band whose members will be selling shoes somewhere in england in about a year or so.

i know there are some good bands out there. too bad nobody bothered to tell the record companies' A & R morons. ;Q ;Q

nickg
03-08-2006, 09:57
Originally posted by epsylum


If you want talent (and I don't care who you are) a good classical songwriter has to have talent. That many instruments to write for and they all have to work together flawlessly (no distortion to cover up mistakes).

Even though I don't listen to it as often as I do other kinds of music, I think the classical masters (Mozart, Chopin, Beethoven, etc.) are some of the most talented songwriters ever.

as difficult as it is to actually write a GOOD song i am still completely amazed when i see orchestral SCORES.

trying to write a basic pop or rock song with guitar, bass, keys, drums is a chore in itself....and like i said, i mean a GOOD song.

writing orchestral scores for MULTIPLE instruments still boggles my mind.

i don't listen to classical as much as when i was younger and studying it in school and college, but i still enjoy turning on some of the classical stations on XM from time to time.

epsylum
03-08-2006, 18:29
Originally posted by nickg
as difficult as it is to actually write a GOOD song i am still completely amazed when i see orchestral SCORES.

trying to write a basic pop or rock song with guitar, bass, keys, drums is a chore in itself....and like i said, i mean a GOOD song.

writing orchestral scores for MULTIPLE instruments still boggles my mind.

i don't listen to classical as much as when i was younger and studying it in school and college, but i still enjoy turning on some of the classical stations on XM from time to time.

"scores"

That's the word I was looking for. ;)

Like I said, I have no musical talent myself, but I can only imagine having to write multiple pieces for that many different instruments that will in turn play on top of each other without sounding like a musical train wreck. That has got to be some of the hardest writing in music. Then when you figure that some of the great classical masters could literally just bang some of the scores out in one sitting and in the case of later Beethoven, while deaf. That is some muscial mastery IMO.

Back to the "crap". ;f

Any of these fake pop singers/groups. The ones that are made by the record company, not themselves.

I pretty much have to give respect to any band/singer/musican/whatever that prety much does the music they want to do and can do it well. And doing it "well" doesn't necisarrily mean being popular.

nickg
03-10-2006, 09:11
Originally posted by epsylum

And doing it "well" doesn't necisarrily mean being popular.

and being "popular" doesn't necessarily mean it's "good", as proof can be seen in the rap/hip-hop crap that sells.

the idiots that produce this crap are smart only because they know they'll make a buck off of it. once one cash cow is dropped another one is signed and milked until their time is up as well.

but rap/hip-hop has done more to hurt the credibility of the music business more than anything. put a drum loop together, sample (steal) other people's musical parts, put a half-assed rhyme together and you have this week's hot hit.
;Q ;Q

the rock and roll hall of fame is a big joke to begin with, but as soon as the first rap artist gets inducted (as compared to their usual "indicted") then you know the world will be coming to an end soon. ;f

epsylum
03-10-2006, 22:11
Originally posted by nickg
and being "popular" doesn't necessarily mean it's "good", as proof can be seen in the rap/hip-hop crap that sells.

the idiots that produce this crap are smart only because they know they'll make a buck off of it. once one cash cow is dropped another one is signed and milked until their time is up as well.

but rap/hip-hop has done more to hurt the credibility of the music business more than anything. put a drum loop together, sample (steal) other people's musical parts, put a half-assed rhyme together and you have this week's hot hit.
;Q ;Q

the rock and roll hall of fame is a big joke to begin with, but as soon as the first rap artist gets inducted (as compared to their usual "indicted") then you know the world will be coming to an end soon. ;f

Agreed.

As I mentioned earlier, I listen to some technoish stuff like drum and bass (my personal favorite). Again DJs aren't technically musicians, but some are extremely talented at what they do. Nobody can just grab some records and turntables and start scratching like Q-bert. That would be like someone grabbing a guitar for the first time and playing like *name your favorite guuitarist*. There is a definate skill and rules to follow or break if you are good enough. Many of the best DJs practice 8 hours a day every day, like most talented professional musicians. But, the thing I like most about this kind of music is the "undergroud" mentality. They, for the most part, do not want to be some cash-cow for a record company. Many do not even want to affiliated with a rapper or rap group as that would take away from the skill that they had worked so hard to gain. They would become so and so's DJ and not just themselves. They want to be recognized for their skill and not because people are forced to listen to it over and over like radio air play does.

One thing I noticed. I think a lot has to be said about a muscian and not having a picture of themself(ves) all over the place. Look at Tool for example. I personally think they are one fo the most talented bands out there (although I disagree with their political ideas, I can't refuse to listen to them). Their faces are not platered everywhere. Their logo and name is, but I wouldn't know Danny Carey if he was standing in front of me. Same goes for many good DJs. They are not trying to get noticed by WHO they are, but by WHAT they are (or what they can do) musically. Now rappers on the other hand are in your face all the time, because that is all they, have a face. No talent. They have to rely on people thinking "hey I have seen you" to get any kind of success.

Personally the absolute WORST music is this club rap garbage, like Lil John. It't the same beat over and over (like any stereotypical rap song), but then they don't even rap. They just yell stuff over and over, and it sells millions. I mean, if you think that is good music, please do us a fovor and jam a pencil in both of your ears as you obviously aren't using them.

Now that being said, there are some talented rappers, but the majority of them are not very famous or popular. Why strive to be good when you can put out pure crap, like Lil John, without even trying, and be a millionaire?

I will stick with the lesser listened to stuff. The music is more "real" to me as they are doing what they want, not some stupid record company. I jsut have to put up with the fact that I cannot just flip on the radio and hear something I like (I know, XM and Sirius, but I am poor and I already have a Zen loaded with 20 gigs worth of music that I can listen to).

edited to add:

I have a butt-load of typos and am too tired to fix 'em sorry. ;f

lonewolf01
03-22-2006, 17:37
Originally posted by PoiDog
And how about Lynrd Skynyrd? I may have screwed up their stupid name, but not as bad as they screwed up imitating the Allman Brothers Band. "I know, the Allmans have two lead guitars, let's have THREE!" I've never liked a single song they played. That whiny, screeching, overplayed "Free Bird" makes my skin crawl. Reminds me of the scene in the Blues Brothers at the country bar.


As a musician, I can tell you that those in Skynyrd were great musicians. You have to get away from Freebird and Sweet Home Alabama to see that. Those songs are over played. Listen to songs like The Ballad of Curtis Loew or Simple Man. Also, their style was completely different from the Allman Brothers.

Matter of fact, the were just inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame last Monday!

lonewolf01
03-22-2006, 17:38
double tap

PoiDog
03-26-2006, 05:46
just inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame last Monday!

As someone said above, not exactly a glowing recommendation. However, I'll borrow my friend's discs by LS and check this stuff out.

I wouldn't want it to be said I didn't give them a chance. I'm not optimistic though.

I realize LS was / is popular, I was never a fan of their work that's all. As they say, IMHO.

I like quite a few bands that get no respect from the music press, so I'm used to it. For example, just to open myself up to attack, I love the work of Kansas. Great musicians, great voices, they write their own stuff instead of doing covers, interesting lyrics. They absolutely get hammered by the music press. There's no accounting for taste.

hrminer92
04-13-2006, 23:12
Originally posted by Goldendog Redux

Unfortunately, good or bad really has nothing to do with popularity. Consider Britney spears. She was never a musician/singer but sold millions of albums acting like one. I defy anyone on the planet to justify her music.
That's not too unusual. It's a well known fact in Trashville that Tim McGraw can't really sing, but he's a good performer (ie. looks good on stage & on TV) and he never touches a live mic that isn't going through ProTools to autocorrect his voice or it's lip sync'ed. Not having built up enough of a catalog to lip sync to is the reason Shania Twain (aka the highest paid lap dancer in North America according to Steve Earle) didn't tour at the start of her 'career'.

HalfMoon
04-30-2006, 10:47
Primus Sucks.






These days I spend a lot more time listening to the less commercialized stations on XM, there's some good music out there that (almost) nobody knows about.

I haven't listened to FM radio or the ClearChannel garbage in over 2 years now, and even if my XM feed went down, I'd rather humm a song to myself than listen to the garbage they force feed the public.

metallic
05-05-2006, 17:41
Originally posted by hrminer92
That's not too unusual. It's a well known fact in Trashville that Tim McGraw can't really sing, but he's a good performer (ie. looks good on stage & on TV) and he never touches a live mic that isn't going through ProTools to autocorrect his voice or it's lip sync'ed. Not having built up enough of a catalog to lip sync to is the reason Shania Twain (aka the highest paid lap dancer in North America according to Steve Earle) didn't tour at the start of her 'career'.

I've had the misfortune of listening to Tim McGraw sing the National Anthem live. It was pretty godawful.