Jump to content

post your nominee for the shittiest "great" band ever

Gil Bang

By Gil Bang
in Music

 Share

Recommended Posts

HenryJames

HenryJames 67128

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I find The Scorpions supremely unlistenable.  I'm sure somebody thinks they're great.

They're like the Larry to Darrell (Bon Jovi) and Darrell (Def Leppard).  Not sure where Aerosmith fits in there, but they're awful too, which is a shame, because they had a couple of good songs in them.

tumblr_inline_oob6xlOQ2H1tc2f3l_500.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beantown Express 2.0

Beantown Express 2.0 6586

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Red Five said:

So let me get this straight. Bob Dylan, Neil Young, David Bowie, The Rolling Stones, REM, U2, Radiohead. Got it.

 

I would remove Radiohead and then add in The Beatles, Led Zeppelin and The Who.  At least then we will have the greatest bands/musicians ever on this supposed "shittiest musicians" list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beantown Express 2.0

Beantown Express 2.0 6586

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

I think if you are going to say shit like the stones or Led Zeppelin sucks, you should also post who you think is awesome so we can really know what kind of a moron you truly are.

If you are referring to my post check your sarcasm meter.  If not, you are absolutely correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 26859

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Music critics like Elvis Costello because music critics look like Elvis Costello. - David Lee Roth

Rock music criticism is one of those jobs that has yet to mature in the way that, for example, movie criticism has, in the sense that with movie criticism you have to (1) actually know shit and (2) have a methodology for your critique. Rock music criticism is one of those fields where you can know absolutely nothing other than how to write a good rant, and bands are judged on things like "authenticity." What the fuck is authenticity? It's like they confuse "authenticity" with "artistic merit" and "illiteracy" with "charm." * 

So any band considered "great" by critics I'm going to immediately be suspicious of. When you look at a list of bands that it literally took decades for any self-loathing** critic to recognize, and even then only reluctantly, and it includes bands like Black Sabbath, Rush, and AC/DC***. If the band sounds like shit, no amount of critical screed is going to change my mind.

If you want to know who the best bands are, you have to ask actual musicians. When every goddamned musician in the early 80s is talking about how turned on the are to The Police, that fucking says something. And if you still don't believe me, go try to jam to "Walking on the Moon" with your buddies. It sounds so simple...

OK, so your guy has three chords and sings weird things off-key. 

I remember idiots trying to sell me on how the Pixies were somehow a good band from the 1980s. Pleeeeeease... go take some music lessons before you embarrass yourself further ya damned hipster.

 

* He uses that line in the recorded version on the album Revisited, not the Copenhagen performance, but fuck it, let's use this one.

** Is there even such a thing as a self-respecting rock music critic?

*** "I'm sick and tired of people saying that we put out 11 albums that sound exactly the same. In fact, we've put out 12 albums that sound exactly the same." --Angus Young.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RDCanecutter

RDCanecutter 26856

Posted
Posted

I grew up driving around slowly on first dates blasting "Kashmir", so all respect there, but I will tell you that if you listen to at least 4 Led Zeppelin albums straight through as a full-grown man, at some point your mind peeks to see the men behind the green curtain, and they look like junkies sleeping on mattresses in a garage apartment squat, attempting to seduce 14-year-olds out of their lunch money so they can buy their next fix.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, tbone_ said:

I think if you are going to say shit like the stones or Led Zeppelin sucks, you should also post who you think is awesome so we can really know what kind of a moron you truly are.

Do we really need to see any further of or their moronityness ?  How many props for the Bee Gees, Toto, REO speed wagon and Journey can we take ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
justinjc7

justinjc7 153

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Red Five said:

I don’t know if the Red Hot Chili Peppers qualify but they sure have made a bunch of garbage.

I'm in on this one too, I just don't get them.  

Some of ya'll are crazy saying Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, Rolling Stones, etc.  My first thought when I saw this thread was to respond with Pink Floyd.  But then I realized the thread was asking for shitty bands, not bands that you don't like.  I've never been able to get into Pink Floyd at all, just not my cup of tea.   When other younger people hear I like classic rock (I'm 27), they always go to "oh so you like Pink Floyd".  But no, they're just not my cup of tea.  However, I'm not going to make a fool out of myself and come on here and claim they are a shitty band, I don't like them but can recognize and can appreciate the fact that they are super talented.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, justinjc7 said:

I'm in on this one too, I just don't get them.  

Some of ya'll are crazy saying Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, Rolling Stones, etc.  My first thought when I saw this thread was to respond with Pink Floyd.  But then I realized the thread was asking for shitty bands, not bands that you don't like.  I've never been able to get into Pink Floyd at all, just not my cup of tea.   When other younger people hear I like classic rock (I'm 27), they always go to "oh so you like Pink Floyd".  But no, they're just not my cup of tea.  However, I'm not going to make a fool out of myself and come on here and claim they are a shitty band, I don't like them but can recognize and can appreciate the fact that they are super talented.  

This, is a proper response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ztejas said:

Good lord no. You might as well add The Beatles if we're going to go down that road. 

In fact, I would actually bet more people dislike The Beatles than Velvet Underground. 

Well yeah, like 500 people know who the Velvet underground were when considered on a global scale against the Beatles. Even your grandma knows who the Beatles were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ztejas

ztejas 44114

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Well yeah, like 500 people know who the Velvet underground were when considered on a global scale against the Beatles. Even your grandma knows who the Beatles were.

Good point. Should have added the qualifier "of those who have listened to both extensively"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 26859

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, BoomMF said:

1234ccf619149f43bb6a743d22f2fc30946d.jpg

Look, there's a difference between "like/don't like" and "sucks/doesn't suck."

You can like things that suck and hate things that do not suck. 

Let's graph this shit.

Like-VSuck.png 

 

On the vertical axis, you've got "good vs. bad." This is stuff where you can apply some methodology to talk about the cultural impact of a band, the level of songwriting/showmanship/performance, whether the band helped to reinvent a genre or instrument or something like that. Things where you can almost (or completely) objectively describe the quality and impact of a band. 

On the vertical axis, you expect that most people will put a given band in a reasonably similar location, and you can make a legitimate point to change someone's point of view.

On the horizontal access, you've got "I like it" or "I hate it," which is entirely subjective. There is absolutely no logic involved here. It either floats your boat, or it doesn't. So a band one person puts on the far right-hand side of the graph, another can put on the far left-hand side, and there's really nothing you can do about it.

If you graph everyone's opinions of a band on the horizontal axis, you get a measure of their popularity. But for any one person, there's nothing you can do or say to change their point of view except maybe play them a song they've never heard before.

The interesting thing to me are the "guilty pleasures" -- for me, I'd put a good half-dozen cheese-metal bands like Threshold in there -- and then the "begrudging respect" -- bands that are pretty much objectively great, but I just can't bear to listen to. In my case, I'd stick the Beatles somewhere in that upper-left quadrant; close to the Y-axis but way up high on it.

NOW...

Getting to the topic at hand.

To me "great" bands that suck means bands that have been mistakenly ranked high on the vertical axis by too many people, and belong a lot lower on the pole. NOT popular bands that suck (like Bon Jovi) or great bands that you personally don't like (like the Beatles for me), but bands like Bruce Springsteen that are patently mediocre but somehow get the critics sucking every last bit of pus oozing from their fetid ballsacks' pores because critics, like us, tend to overrate the bands they like (on the horizontal axis) when they put them on the vertical axis.

Edited by Rimbo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46986

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

LTo me "great" bands that suck means bands that have been mistakenly ranked high on the vertical axis by too many people, and belong a lot lower on the pole. NOT popular bands that suck (like Bon Jovi) or great bands that you personally don't like (like the Beatles for me), but bands like Bruce Springsteen that are patently mediocre but somehow get the critics sucking every last bit of pus oozing from their fetid ballsacks' pores because critics, like us, tend to overrate the bands they like (on the horizontal axis) when they put them on the vertical axis.

The first litmus test to determine who wrote a song is "melody & lyrics".  It gets hazy after that.  I seriously doubt 1% of the rock 'n roll "greats" could ever write a lyric like this, so take your ill-advised Bruce Springsteen dismissal and save it for Bryan Adams:

 

 

In the day we sweat it out on the streets of a runaway American dream 
At night we ride through the mansions of glory in suicide machines 
Sprung from cages out on highway nine, 
Chrome wheeled, fuel injected, and steppin' out over the line
Baby this town rips the bones from your back 
It's a death trap, it's a suicide rap 
We gotta get out while we're young 
`Cause tramps like us, baby we were born to run
Yes, girl we were
Wendy let me in I wanna be your friend 
I want to guard your dreams and visions 
Just wrap your legs 'round these velvet rims 
And strap your hands 'cross my engines 
Together we could break this trap 
We'll run till we drop, baby we'll never go back 
Will you walk with me out on the wire 
`Cause baby I'm just a scared and lonely rider 
But I gotta know how it feels 
I want to know if love is wild 
Babe I want to know if love is real
Oh, can you show me
Beyond the Palace hemi-powered drones scream down the boulevard 
Girls comb their hair in rearview mirrors 
And the boys try to look so hard 
The amusement park rises bold and stark 
Kids are huddled on the beach in a mist 
I wanna die with you Wendy on the street tonight 
In an everlasting kiss
One, two, three, four!
The highway's jammed with broken heroes on a last chance power drive 
Everybody's out on the run tonight 
But there's no place left to hide 
Together Wendy we can live with the sadness 
I'll love you with all the madness in my soul 
Someday girl I don't know when 
We're gonna get to that place 
Where we really wanna go 
And we'll walk in the sun 
But till then tramps like us 
Baby we were born to run
Oh honey, tramps like us
Baby we were born to run
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
smuggs

smuggs 9394

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The first litmus test to determine who wrote a song is "melody & lyrics".  It gets hazy after that.  I seriously doubt 1% of the rock 'n roll "greats" could ever write a lyric like this, so take your ill-advised Bruce Springsteen dismissal and save it for Bryan Adams:

 

 

In the day we sweat it out on the streets of a runaway American dream 
At night we ride through the mansions of glory in suicide machines 
Sprung from cages out on highway nine, 
Chrome wheeled, fuel injected, and steppin' out over the line
Baby this town rips the bones from your back 
It's a death trap, it's a suicide rap 
We gotta get out while we're young 
`Cause tramps like us, baby we were born to run
Yes, girl we were
Wendy let me in I wanna be your friend 
I want to guard your dreams and visions 
Just wrap your legs 'round these velvet rims 
And strap your hands 'cross my engines 
Together we could break this trap 
We'll run till we drop, baby we'll never go back 
Will you walk with me out on the wire 
`Cause baby I'm just a scared and lonely rider 
But I gotta know how it feels 
I want to know if love is wild 
Babe I want to know if love is real
Oh, can you show me
Beyond the Palace hemi-powered drones scream down the boulevard 
Girls comb their hair in rearview mirrors 
And the boys try to look so hard 
The amusement park rises bold and stark 
Kids are huddled on the beach in a mist 
I wanna die with you Wendy on the street tonight 
In an everlasting kiss
One, two, three, four!
The highway's jammed with broken heroes on a last chance power drive 
Everybody's out on the run tonight 
But there's no place left to hide 
Together Wendy we can live with the sadness 
I'll love you with all the madness in my soul 
Someday girl I don't know when 
We're gonna get to that place 
Where we really wanna go 
And we'll walk in the sun 
But till then tramps like us 
Baby we were born to run
Oh honey, tramps like us
Baby we were born to run

Incredible song.

Now if only Bruce Springsteen didn't sound like he was hooked to electrodes while receiving a blumpkin after eating a Sonic Fritos chili-cheese coney.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 26859

Posted
Posted

And there's so much more to music that you can rate objectively beyond melody and lyrics. There's harmony, beats and tone selection. Then there's performance; intonation, rhythm, timbre and phrasing.

Then there's historical and cultural impact: Did the band invent a new style of playing, a new genre? Did the work or performance cause a ruckus? Start a movement? Do other groups and works that rank objectively high point to them as influential?

These aren't merely measures that can be used; they are measures that must be used, and leaving so many of them out is Bad And You Should Feel Bad levels of Criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46986

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

And there's so much more to music that you can rate objectively beyond melody and lyrics.

I wasn't rating anything objectively.  I made a subjective claim that those are some of the greatest lyrics ever written in rock music.  I mean, besides "No sleep 'til Brooklyn".

 

Quote

There's harmony, beats and tone selection. Then there's performance; intonation, rhythm, timbre and phrasing.

OK, sure.  You're talking about arrangement, which can be judged as "objectively" as melody and lyrics.  I'm not even sure what your point is about objectivity (i.e., pro or con), but I think what you're trying to say is that performance and arrangement count as much as songwriting, and to a certain extent I agree.

 

Quote

Then there's historical and cultural impact: Did the band invent a new style of playing, a new genre? Did the work or performance cause a ruckus? Start a movement? Do other groups and works that rank objectively high point to them as influential?

These aren't merely measures that can be used; they are measures that must be used, and leaving so many of them out is Bad And You Should Feel Bad levels of Criticism.

And Springsteen rings the bell on almost every metric you have proposed, but because you don't particularly LIKE Springsteen, you're diminishing his influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 26859

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

OK, sure.  You're talking about arrangement, which can be judged as "objectively" as melody and lyrics.  I'm not even sure what your point is about objectivity (i.e., pro or con), but I think what you're trying to say is that performance and arrangement count as much as songwriting, and to a certain extent I agree.

 

And Springsteen rings the bell on almost every metric you have proposed, but because you don't particularly LIKE Springsteen, you're diminishing his influence.

No, I'm not talking merely about "arrangement." "Arrangement" is what people singing other people's songs do. "Composition" is what people who write their own songs, or symphonies, or tribal chants, or sea shanties, do.

And nonsense on Springsteen, because I actually like Springsteen. I just know better than to confuse my enjoyment of his songs for thinking he's in any way "great."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NWBuck

NWBuck 8621

Posted
Posted

The Beach Boys.

Brian Wilson is a freaking genius, and Pet Sounds is one of the greatest albums evar.

But the rest of it is from a bunch of Jan and Dean rip offs who've milked boomer nostalgia into county fair prominence across 'Merica.

 

Tune in next week when I go in on Elvis Presley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mole

Mole 4338

Posted
Posted
On 12/12/2018 at 1:26 PM, BrickHorn said:

This.  Good lord, Springsteen is such a bland beating.

I’ll go with Pink Floyd.  Great insomnia treatment, though.

Asbury Park and The Wild, the Innocent, and the E Street Shuffle are beautiful. Much of his later music turned pretty bland, but he made up for it with killer live performances and a great band.

 

19 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

Forgot to add Neil Young. Absolutely terrible. Kinda feel the same way about Bob Dylan.

Neil Young suffers from a musical restlessness that I find admirable. His discography is all over the map, which can give a bad impression but man he turned out some great music. Even his most stylistically different album, Trans, has some fantastic moments.

My vote goes for Aerosmith. I'd also agree that for as great as Led Zeppelin was, they can turn into a beating after a while. Is Metallica "great"? For as influential as they are, how many great songs did they actually have?

If we flip the question, the greatest shitty band ever has to be the Replacements, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dolemite

Dolemite 143

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Look, there's a difference between "like/don't like" and "sucks/doesn't suck."

You can like things that suck and hate things that do not suck. 

Let's graph this shit.

Like-VSuck.png 

 

On the vertical axis, you've got "good vs. bad." This is stuff where you can apply some methodology to talk about the cultural impact of a band, the level of songwriting/showmanship/performance, whether the band helped to reinvent a genre or instrument or something like that. Things where you can almost (or completely) objectively describe the quality and impact of a band. 

On the vertical axis, you expect that most people will put a given band in a reasonably similar location, and you can make a legitimate point to change someone's point of view.

On the horizontal access, you've got "I like it" or "I hate it," which is entirely subjective. There is absolutely no logic involved here. It either floats your boat, or it doesn't. So a band one person puts on the far right-hand side of the graph, another can put on the far left-hand side, and there's really nothing you can do about it.

If you graph everyone's opinions of a band on the horizontal axis, you get a measure of their popularity. But for any one person, there's nothing you can do or say to change their point of view except maybe play them a song they've never heard before.

The interesting thing to me are the "guilty pleasures" -- for me, I'd put a good half-dozen cheese-metal bands like Threshold in there -- and then the "begrudging respect" -- bands that are pretty much objectively great, but I just can't bear to listen to. In my case, I'd stick the Beatles somewhere in that upper-left quadrant; close to the Y-axis but way up high on it.

NOW...

Getting to the topic at hand.

To me "great" bands that suck means bands that have been mistakenly ranked high on the vertical axis by too many people, and belong a lot lower on the pole. NOT popular bands that suck (like Bon Jovi) or great bands that you personally don't like (like the Beatles for me), but bands like Bruce Springsteen that are patently mediocre but somehow get the critics sucking every last bit of pus oozing from their fetid ballsacks' pores because critics, like us, tend to overrate the bands they like (on the horizontal axis) when they put them on the vertical axis.

1

Top Right Quadrant = Led Zepplin 

Botton Right = Brittany Spears

Bottom Left = Bon Jovi

Top Left = Beatles

  • 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...