GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-23-2005, 16:08   #1
Aphotic
happy-go-lucky
 
Aphotic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,021
Bands that suck... and why!

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?
__________________
"You kids know what DOG FOOD tastes like?! Well I do. It TASTES just like it SMELLS! Delicious!" -Dave Chappelle
Aphotic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2005, 19:04   #2
Berto
woo woo
 
Berto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 28,661


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
__________________
...Then I found a place it's dark and it's rotted
it's a cool, sweet kinda-place where the copters won't spot it.
-T Hip
Berto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2005, 19:05   #3
Berto
woo woo
 
Berto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 28,661


edited for weirdness.^8
__________________
...Then I found a place it's dark and it's rotted
it's a cool, sweet kinda-place where the copters won't spot it.
-T Hip
Berto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2005, 21:19   #4
BrassInPocket
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 761
The Offspring - Every song has to be a joke, it's pretty annoying!
BrassInPocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2005, 07:23   #5
84S
Senior Member
 
84S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 3,791
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.

Last edited by 84S; 06-24-2005 at 07:28..
84S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2005, 10:03   #6
pellertpale
ReMember
 
pellertpale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Fort
Posts: 1,296
Send a message via AIM to pellertpale
I'm getting the broad brush out.......

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.
__________________
Big Dawg #3800
BladeRunner #970
F OPEC

Pass here, and go on. You are on the road to heaven. - Jack Kerouac
pellertpale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2005, 22:47   #7
Goldendog Redux
Shut your mouth
 
Goldendog Redux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Nevada
Posts: 5,994
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
__________________
In Omnia Paratus
Goldendog Redux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2005, 10:49   #8
mudfootball
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: lehigh valley PA
Posts: 261
Send a message via AIM to mudfootball
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
mudfootball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2005, 14:09   #9
Goldendog Redux
Shut your mouth
 
Goldendog Redux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Nevada
Posts: 5,994
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
__________________
In Omnia Paratus

Last edited by Goldendog Redux; 06-25-2005 at 14:13..
Goldendog Redux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2005, 14:37   #10
russ2400
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sc
Posts: 17
Send a message via AIM to russ2400
add simple plan, every song has the same crappy sound..
russ2400 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2005, 17:14   #11
Berzerker10mm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Antigo, Wi
Posts: 103
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.
__________________
I need a new sig line.....
Berzerker10mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2005, 15:16   #12
Aphotic
happy-go-lucky
 
Aphotic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,021
Quote:
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.
Quote:
The Offspring - Every song has to be a joke, it's pretty annoying!
Amen.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Staind-Whiny
I forgot about them. Right on!
Quote:
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."
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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!
__________________
"You kids know what DOG FOOD tastes like?! Well I do. It TASTES just like it SMELLS! Delicious!" -Dave Chappelle
Aphotic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2005, 17:57   #13
84S
Senior Member
 
84S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 3,791
Quote:
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.
84S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2005, 19:38   #14
BrassInPocket
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 761
Yeah, Blind Melon was a great band. Shannon Hoon's vocal range was awesome!
BrassInPocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2005, 21:13   #15
Goldendog Redux
Shut your mouth
 
Goldendog Redux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Nevada
Posts: 5,994
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
__________________
In Omnia Paratus
Goldendog Redux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 11:42   #16
Kanos
Why yes.
 
Kanos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 607
I Love the lead singer of SOAD. Hes intresting. The only reason i dont like the bamd is i think there libral.;Q
__________________
Me like guns.

O.A.F.#-30.06
Kanos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 14:35   #17
Aphotic
happy-go-lucky
 
Aphotic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,021
Quote:
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.
__________________
"You kids know what DOG FOOD tastes like?! Well I do. It TASTES just like it SMELLS! Delicious!" -Dave Chappelle

Last edited by Aphotic; 06-28-2005 at 14:40..
Aphotic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 18:39   #18
84S
Senior Member
 
84S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 3,791
Quote:
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 18:42   #19
84S
Senior Member
 
84S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 3,791
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.
84S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 20:50   #20
Hobear
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 260
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.

Last edited by Hobear; 06-28-2005 at 21:33..
Hobear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2005, 17:50   #21
pellertpale
ReMember
 
pellertpale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Fort
Posts: 1,296
Send a message via AIM to pellertpale
Ohh yeah..

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
__________________
Big Dawg #3800
BladeRunner #970
F OPEC

Pass here, and go on. You are on the road to heaven. - Jack Kerouac
pellertpale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2005, 21:59   #22
BrassInPocket
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 761
Re: Ohh yeah..

Quote:
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
BrassInPocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2005, 17:40   #23
Bullwinkle J Moose
Quick! Duck!
 
Bullwinkle J Moose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SC
Posts: 3,275
Quote:
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.
__________________
Bullwinkle J Moose
Bullwinkle J Moose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2005, 12:48   #24
PennGlock
Senior Member
 
PennGlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,942
All that Jack Johnson, John Mayer, Guester, I-need-my-balls-reattached stuff, man. Stuff college chicks listen to...
PennGlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2005, 13:59   #25
Hobear
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 260
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
Hobear is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:48.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,421
383 Members
1,038 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42