Jump to content

Popular Singers/Bands You Can't Stand

cabowabo

By cabowabo
in Music

 Share

Recommended Posts

cabowabo

cabowabo 4484

Posted
Posted (edited)

I fucking hate Dave Matthews with every fiber of my being.  It's a shame we lose bands like SRV and Lynard Skynard to aviation accidents, and this mother fucker probably flies around the world in his GV without issue. 

Edited by cabowabo
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52484

Posted
Posted

Dave Matthews and Neil Young have such horribly shitty vocals that no quality of lyrics or music can make up for (not that their lyrics or music could be considered high quality).  It always surprises me when someone confesses to being a fan of either. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patricio Swayze

Patricio Swayze 17058

Posted
Posted
Lulz wut? They had the biggest influence in birthing the nu metal genre. Vulgar Display Of Power is a nu metal sounding album. They embody everything about that genre.

Disagree. Just because other bands are influenced by a particular band, that doesn’t make that band part of the genre. To my ears, and most anyone else who likes heavy music, pantera doesn’t sound anything like Korn or Limp Bizkit, etc. Stick to fat cholas dude, you are without a doubt an expert on that subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nole-4-Life

Nole-4-Life 803

Posted
Posted

Metallica

Bruce Springsteen. (one of the worst singers ever)

Neil Young...I like some of his songs, but his voice grates on me. How he hooked up with songbirds Crosby, Stills and Nash is beyond me. It's like their mom made them put their shitty brother in the band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45909

Posted
Posted

I used to think Springsteen was a terrible singer, but then I started paying attention.  He does have a somewhat constipated tone, but he's actually pretty accurate.  It's not for everybody, but I would hardly say he's one of the worst singers ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tokamak

tokamak 6425

Posted
Posted

REM is a big one that has never done anything at all for me.

 

And taking it in a different direction from the thread so far, a lot of the hip hop that is huge right now does absolutely nothing for me. Migos, Cardi B, Post Malone, etc. It all sounds exactly the same to me for some reason, and it's not a sound that's interesting to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ollie Slatt

Ollie Slatt 289

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Nole-4-Life said:

Neil Young...I like some of his songs, but his voice grates on me. How he hooked up with songbirds Crosby, Stills and Nash is beyond me. It's like their mom made them put their shitty brother in the band.

What?  I get that not everyone likes Neil's voice.  But he was so much more talented than anyone else in that band that it is not even funny.  Its not a coincidence that he was on by far their best record.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nole-4-Life

Nole-4-Life 803

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ollie Slatt said:

What?  I get that not everyone likes Neil's voice.  But he was so much more talented than anyone else in that band that it is not even funny.  Its not a coincidence that he was on by far their best record.  

His voice is shit and Stills can play circles around him IMO. That solo on Ohio sounds like a 3 year old played it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45909

Posted
Posted

Wait, what?  Neil Young was "so much more talented" than David Crosby, Graham Nash, and Stephen Stills?  

I'm not a big CSN/CSNY fan, but I'd put Neil behind at least one other member on both voice and guitar.  As a songwriter, yes, I'd say he was the most talented, but in terms of the sheer physicality of being a musician, well . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ollie Slatt

Ollie Slatt 289

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wait, what?  Neil Young was "so much more talented" than David Crosby, Graham Nash, and Stephen Stills?  

I'm not a big CSN/CSNY fan, but I'd put Neil behind at least one other member on both voice and guitar.  As a songwriter, yes, I'd say he was the most talented, but in terms of the sheer physicality of being a musician, well . . .

Songwriting and the ability to convey emotion in your music count for a lot.  The "sheer physicality of being a musician"  is wasted if you can't convert that into compelling music.  Consider John Mayer's talent on a guitar . . . its immense, but I have no interest in any of his shitty music.  Neil's singing and guitar playing are raw and rich with emotion.  Its why he made at least 4 or 5 solo records that are considered classics and guys like Nash and Crosby did not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45909

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Ollie Slatt said:

Songwriting and the ability to convey emotion in your music count for a lot.  The "sheer physicality of being a musician"  is wasted if you can't convert that into compelling music.  Consider John Mayer's talent on a guitar . . . its immense, but I have no interest in any of his shitty music.  Neil's singing and guitar playing are raw and rich with emotion.  Its why he made at least 4 or 5 solo records that are considered classics and guys like Nash and Crosby did not.  

So your example is John Mayer who you acknowledge has immense talent . . . when we're discussing talent?  OK.

I think you are vastly overstating the ineptitude of CS&N.  Whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ollie Slatt

Ollie Slatt 289

Posted
Posted

No.  The point of the Mayer example is that "talent" or technical skill playing an instrument (or singing) does not necessarily make you a talented overall musician.  What matters is your ability to make music that is worth listening to. 

I don't discount that Stills is a talented guitarist or that Crosby has a great voice . . . they just are not the equal of Neil when it comes to an all around ability to make great music.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tonedeaf

tonedeaf 56

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, PW119 said:

I can't stand The Beatles.  Their music sucks.  And don't tell me how influential they were! I don't care about that when I'm listening to music.

Not a musician are you. Everytime someone says that, I am always amazed what they do listen to.   I promise you,  the bands you do listen to have a great respect for them.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vic Mackey

Vic Mackey 47027

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, tonedeaf said:

Not a musician are you. Everytime someone says that, I am always amazed what they do listen to.   I promise you,  the bands you do listen to have a great respect for them.   

What the hell does that matter? Just because your favorite bands and musicians have respect for bands before them, does not mean you have to like their music. One of my favorite bands is Metallica. A lot of their influences were New Wave Of British Heavy Metal bands. They looked up to them and respected them. But a lot of their shit sucks to my ears and I'm not going to listen to it just based on the fact one of my favorite bands respected them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45909

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Ollie Slatt said:

No.  The point of the Mayer example is that "talent" or technical skill playing an instrument (or singing) does not necessarily make you a talented overall musician. 

It is possible to subjectively distinguish the difference between, say, Yngwie Malmsteen and Stevie Ray Vaughan, and assert that the latter was a better musician.  I'm not going to dispute that.  (I would happen to agree.)  But you spoke of "talent", not "better".  At some point I think it's important to at least recognize that technical facility enters into the equation.  Is it the complete descriptor?  No, but it has to be recognized.

Otherwise, the argument essentially reduces to the absurd proposition that most classical musicians aren't talented.  Furthermore, Neil Young could NEVER survive as a classical artist, except perhaps as a composer (and of that I am not sure, because I don't think he's tried).

 

Quote

 

What matters is your ability to make music that is worth listening to. 

I don't discount that Stills is a talented guitarist or that Crosby has a great voice . . . they just are not the equal of Neil when it comes to an all around ability to make great music.   

 

That is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and you're arguing with someone who is steadfast in his view that The Replacements were a far better and more important band than Yes.

Edited by jimmyjazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al_4_ISU

Al_4_ISU 12461

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, South Austin said:

Dave Matthews and Neil Young have such horribly shitty vocals that no quality of lyrics or music can make up for (not that their lyrics or music could be considered high quality).  It always surprises me when someone confesses to being a fan of either. 

 

 

This is half accurate and half sacrilegious.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...