List All The Bands You Can't Stand... LoL

I don't know, the bands I dislike are the wanna-bee's that beat everything new into the dirt by copying it to death. Having worked in radio for a while many moons ago, I appreciate all sorts of different music from classical to metal. About the only exceptions are angry gangsta-rap, and this new bee-bop bubblegum S# a lot of artists put out right now bereft of any talent and replete with auto-tune. Auto-tune is at the top of my hate list for music. And the absolute Queen of auto-tune and copycat can be no other than Shania Twain!! The other thing I dislike immensely is when bands "try" too hard to maintain a gimmick which made them famous. Some bands can pull it off, but most can't and wind up with a very tired sound.

Some of the bands and genres listed here so far are kind of surprising. To throw all the so called hair bands under the bus, in my opinion, is wrong. Bands like Motley Crue were the real deal with songs like Shout at the Devil and Live Wire. Kiss in the early days were excellent too. But here are two perfect examples of bands who tried to maintain that sound too long and lost. They sell out to a certain sound or style.

An example of a band who survived this trap is none other than AC/DC. I mean, c'mon, who hasn't rocked out to more than just a couple AC/DC songs in their lives??? AC/DC is probably the only band I can cite who not only survived, but they did so even after losing their legendary front man Bon Scott (something unheard of really). They even rose to greater fame after Bon Scott which I didn't think even possible. I mean, how do you top songs like Long Way to the Top, Highway to Hell and '74 Jailbreak?

And then there's ZZ Top.

I can't stand the Beatles overall, but some of their early stuff was really good when it truly was a group, but then John Lenon took over and the whole band took on this dark tone which was their demise. In any case, it's hard to deny that the Beatles had a revolutionary effect on music culture.

On the flip side some bands got better with age. In my opinion early Led Zepplin stuff was crap, but In Through the Out Door was probably their finest album. Pink Floyd is another; you can stuff most of their music before Wish You Were Here in my book.

I generally dislike rap as a whole, but who can deny guys like Kurtis Blow and groups like Sugarhill Gang or the Beastie Boys weren't an influence on a generation. Heck, I'd bet that most people reading this could probably sing the lyrics of Sugarhill's Rapper's Delight in their sleep!

Now, hip-hop was a total joke musically. Hip hop was for people who couldn't rap, couldn't sing and couldn't play. Same goes for Grunge and Grunge Metal.

Punk was an interesting era too. Some of the music was great, and some of it was absolutely devoid of talent. Punk was one of those genres were it had to mature a little bit. Sex Pistols pretty much sucked, but bands like The Clash were fantastic.

Then there's the whole much maligned 80's genre. People loathe the 80's because it was probably one of the greatest eras of music and the one with the most variety. Sure you can hate people like Michael Bolton (gack), but who can deny guys like Mark Knopfler and bands like Dire Straights weren't GREAT bands! And guys like Eric Clapton, incredible. And say what you will about the 80's, but more than just a few people have tapped their feet to guys like Michael Jackson and George Michael.

The fun thing about music is the variety. If I had to pick a favorite it would probably be Blues. You can have Jazz, but the Blues are pure music in my opinion. The greats like BB King, and John Lee Hooker along with guys like Stevie Ray Vaughn.

Hate, you say? I have mostly love. My only hate is when someone tries too hard to fit into a certain genre just because it's cool. My ears area always open for something new.

That's my .02

I guess there's always Elvis.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

AC/DC is probably the only band I can cite who not only survived, but they did so even after losing their legendary front man

On the flip side some bands got better with age. Pink Floyd is another; you can stuff most of their music before Wish You Were Here in my book.

Pink Floyd started with Syd Barrett who went insane and got replaced with David Gilmour giving the sound to the band we all know, so you can name 2 bands that survived losing the front man and got even better after

a reply to: Indigent

Yep...excellent point!

I missed that one.



ETA - Well, on second thought, Pink Floyd never really garnered the same level of success AC/DC did with Scott with Barret as the front man of PF. So I'm not sure it's really an apples to apples comparison. Barret's story sure is an interesting one though, even to this day.

Now if the OP were to ask my greatest disappointment in music, that might be different.

Were I to answer that question I'd have to say it would be two things:

1.) The death of SRV at what was probably the pinnacle of his career. (That one hurt) (And just to think Clapton almost got on that same helicopter!)

2.) The failure of Kenny Wayne Shepard to pan out and evolve into what he could have been. He likely could have become the next SRV, but instead he just got off the elevator for some reason. I guess he felt he couldn't sing, and that's probably a good reason, but it's still a bummer.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Pink Floyd never really garnered the same level of success AC/DC did

Really ?

Considering Pink Floyd have sold 50 million more albums than AC/DC

a reply to: alldaylong

Album sales... you know, the measure of musical success is at least a decent percentage of the problem with the record industry.

How many units sold there have been of a particular album, is no measure of whether or not the album is actually good. I mean hell, mumble rap sells, but no one on this entire planet can say with honesty that they think there is any talent in it.

a reply to: TrueBrit

The post i was replying to, was not about quality. It was about success.

I would say a band that had sold 50 million more albums than the other band mentioned had managed, was indeed more successful.

Would you not?

In no particular order,
Sting,
Phil Collins,
David Byrne,
Beatles,
Dave Matthews,
Phoebe Snow,
Carrol King,
Streisand

ANY of these pop up on the radio and I both want to rip the radio out an smash it, or slit my wrists with a dull ballpoint pen. I give most (disliked by me) Artists a chance. Being exposed to things you dislike is just as important as immersing
yourself into what you do like and risk being "musically stuck".

Things that "grew on me"

Curt Vile & Courtney Barnett
Beck
Bjork

Talked to a friend who builds Tele's an is more musically educated then myself an discovered it's the tone, key, pitch and most likely the switch to 440Hz from 432hz that I'm finding offensive overall.

globalnews.ca...

Most of them.

Justin Beiber included.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: alldaylong

Album sales... you know, the measure of musical success is at least a decent percentage of the problem with the record industry.

How many units sold there have been of a particular album, is no measure of whether or not the album is actually good. I mean hell, mumble rap sells, but no one on this entire planet can say with honesty that they think there is any talent in it.

Their talent is having the ability to sell rubbish and make it appear like the best thing eva; to brainwashed children.

a reply to: alldaylong

You took my statement totally out of context!

That was not what I was saying at all! My point was, PF with Syd Barret had not sold as many albums as AC/DC did with Bon Scott. In total, I'm sure PF's The Wall album alone eclipsed practically ALL AC/DC sales.

Try to read the whole statement next time, not just part of it.

ETA - Do you work for CNN perhaps?

originally posted by: LoneCloudHopper2
Wow, a lot of rock haters here.

Op specified 'bands' which means music

hip hop / rap / modern R&B isn't music. shouting angry men and crooning women are not music.

in re; bands losing fronts; Fleetwood Mac reached its greatest success with Linsey Buckingham (and Stevie Nicks). not sure who 'fronted' the band before. presumably Mick Fleetwood was always the leader?
not saying FM under Buck/Nicks were *better* but more commercial success (Rumors).

+1 on Phil Collins. screeeech. Genesis was great with Peter Gabriel.

a reply to: alldaylong

That entirely depends on what their intention is in making the product. There has never been a piece of music written JUST for money, that had any worth at all. You can tell the difference between music written and performed for the love of doing it, and music written and performed because someone wanted a paycheck. It will NEVER matter how many albums someone looking for a pay day sells, their work will remain inferior to that of pure artists, and therefore, with regard to their "success", no, album sales and dollars made mean nothing. Its a crap way to measure the importance, quality of, or talent expressed in an album.

I would also say that music made by instrumental virtuoso's, accompanied by songs sung or otherwise vocalised by people with obscene levels of skill in both lyricism and the delivery of those lyrics to music, is automatically superior to any output which is created by artless morons, regardless of album sales.

Now, in the case of Pink Floyd, they were an AWESOME band, wrote moving, interesting music, with deep and powerful lyrics which were not just important to the period in which those songs were written, but also relevant to society as it stands today, so they were a band which were both gigantically talented, AND had massive album sales. But the reason they were great has nothing to do with the number of album sales they made.

I would say that measured by quality of output and strength of fandom, theres not much to pick between the two.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Ah yes, I should have noted Fleetwood Mac in my first post here too. Another great, game changer, band also.

As for the front, I'm not really sure you could say FM really ever had a single front person. Nicks and Buckingham both pretty much alternated in that role. Nobody really ever heard of FM before those two. I'm sure some knew of them, but their real mainstream following came with Buckingham and Nicks.

The Eagles were kind of the same way, and they went through lots of people over the years. And look how many former Eagles members went on to storied careers both solo and as part of other bands.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I agree on Kenny Wayne Shepard. I remember when he hit the scene, and thinking about how exciting that was. Still listen to that early stuff, and then *poof* ... gone.

Blink 182 suck badly. And all that high school fake scar punk rock. There was nothing punk about it.

Bon jovi gets on my nerves nts why

Elvis; whilst I liked in the ghetto, amazing grace etc. songs like that he preformed and did not write. I think he was highly overrated and there where other musicians of that area that were much more talented.

And a lot of new school pop/hip hop.

I loved some hip-hop in the 80's and 90's there were urban poets. Tupac, Bone n Thugs and a few others. I do not listen to much music in general lately and my taste has changed to a lot of older music, alternative, classical and country. But I hear some rappers today in passing on tv shows and I would be f@kd if I knew what they where on about it is repetitive, and lacking a hook or melody. And a lot of their voices are synthesized the same to cover their lack of talent. It is a verbal enema that gives me the sh#ts. I want some of the substances the people are on that buy that # they must be zombified.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I agree on Kenny Wayne Shepard. I remember when he hit the scene, and thinking about how exciting that was. Still listen to that early stuff, and then *poof* ... gone.

He put out new music in 2016.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Trivium is a hit and miss band. Shogun was awesome but the previous album was crap.

Avenged sevenfold? who the hell are they? just kidding but they do nothing for me.

Creed? yeah that band that reintroduced 'yarling' e.g 'with arrrms waard operrn, urrnderr therr surnlirght, welcerrm to therrs plerrce i'll show you errverytherng.'

And for the beatles, no effs given.

originally posted by: ElGoobero

in re; bands losing fronts; Fleetwood Mac reached its greatest success with Linsey Buckingham (and Stevie Nicks). not sure who 'fronted' the band before. presumably Mick Fleetwood was always the leader?
not saying FM under Buck/Nicks were *better* but more commercial success (Rumors).

That would be Peter Green of Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac

Green was a major figure in the "second great epoch"[2] of the British blues movement. B.B. King commented, "He has the sweetest tone I ever heard; he was the only one who gave me the cold sweats."
en.wikipedia.org...(musician)

Gary Moore recorded "Blues for Greeny", a whole album of Green's compositions and Santana had huge success covering another Green song, Black Magic Woman.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Bluntone22

They certainly have had influence. Almost any interview from an artist will reveal one of those two bands. This doesn't bolster their place IMO.

I get that many love em. I for one can not get into them, at all.

See. We catch hell for that one opinion. But I stand behind it. The Dead sound like a high school jazz band in their parents garage and the Bettles were one of many bands in that era. They just happened to make young girls throw away inhibitions. The Stones were better in every way.