I can find some good in bands that will mostly be remembered as awful.
Even The Bee Gees had a killer bass line in Jive Talkin’.
Band you can't stand
- Thread starter Nitt1300
- Start date
Even The Bee Gees had a killer bass line in Jive Talkin’.
Hah! You’re a good man. We can disagree about music civilly as long as humor is involved.
I am SHOCKED at this response from someone with such musical chops. I look past maybe the technical to more of the attitude and message. Just like Dylan before and Nirvana after. Maybe the anger and dissatisfaction lent itself to over aggression and you could become very popular without great playing, but I think the Ramones captured that period nicely.
Some of the early BeeGees stuff is okay if you're into poppy music with good harmony. The guys could really sing.
Yes, you’re entitled to your opinion, even though it would probably be voted as the least popular one of all that are listed. The Beatles rocked on so many levels.The Beatles were a boring, overproduced, boy band.
I realize that is an unpopular opinion, but I really don't give a shit. The Rolling Stones were/are better. I won't debate the matter. It is, after all, just opinion. Time to move on. I had a hard day's night and I need some rest.
If I ever hear Foghat (Slow Ride) again, it will be too soon. I think they have at least one better song, but it's escaping me.
Christina Aguilera, Mariah Carey, Gwen Stefani, they took female vocals and drove it into the ditch with warbling and trying to carry notes way to long. Diana Ross, Ann Wilson, Linda Ronstadt, Yvonne Elliman are more pleasant on the ears.
Rock ----- Prince, i don't get the hidden mystery genius with Raspberry Beret etc.
Michael Mcdonald , annoying voice , drove the Doobies in another direction.
Blood , Sweat and Tears, just didn't like them.
Rock ----- Prince, i don't get the hidden mystery genius with Raspberry Beret etc.
Michael Mcdonald , annoying voice , drove the Doobies in another direction.
Blood , Sweat and Tears, just didn't like them.
Third Time Lucky and Fool for the City are both way better Foghat songs.
Yeah he's beat. He sung a little bit for Steely Dan and Little Feat too but didn't ruin them like the Doobies.
The problem with that line of argument is as follows>The Beatles were a boring, overproduced, boy band.
I realize that is an unpopular opinion, but I really don't give a shit. The Rolling Stones were/are better. I won't debate the matter. It is, after all, just opinion. Time to move on. I had a hard day's night and I need some rest.
The beatles were indeed a boring, overproduced boy band. But the Stones were simply followers and wannabees vis a vis such boring overproduced boy band.
I am probably in the minority but I liked the direction he took the Doobies. I like the old Doobies too. MM Doobies was different but I still liked it.
Stones started life as a blues band, not a pop or rock band. They were contemporaries, but not really doing the same thing
I just love The Captain and Me and What were were vices so much. Deep rock albums with hit singles.
They sold a ton of records with him I think so you're not alone.
That is sort of the point. They discarded styles like my wife throws away perfectly good leftovers. Two words: Emotional Rescue.
This is so spot on. Technical range is by no means the mark of a quality vocalist. There's a little thing called "timing" that makes all the difference in the world: As Aretha, ask Gladys, ask Billie, ask Francine Reed. Hell, ask Sinatra.
George Clinton once said something to the effect that the Bee Gees were to music what one (and only one) position was to sex.
That is why I don't like them. I think their musical chops are extremely limited. The vocal range was limited and melodies very simple. Chord progressions also very simple, mostly limited to 3 power chords - very rarely an actual minor chord. Rhythmically very uninteresting. Most songs have a very straight forward drum beat with a simple fill (at best) here or there. Same with bass lines. I can only think of one guitar solo and it was one note through the whole thing (perhaps there are some that I don't know about).
I don't fault anyone for enjoying them and I give them their due for helping to start the punk movement. I just don't think very highly of punk music.
I actually have a hard time identifying a band that I truly detest, though as my comments note, there are plenty that are wildly undeserving of their reputations in rock history.
So I'll just go with Slim Whitman. Unless of course it's Joe Flaherty imitating Slim Whitman.
So I'll just go with Slim Whitman. Unless of course it's Joe Flaherty imitating Slim Whitman.
Any 80's eurotrash pop band sprouted from the MTV generation...i.e. thompson twins, culture club, human league etc..etc..
Thank you for the detailed lesson. That is what I figured given that it’s very basic and technically not very skilled. I find punk for the most part to be substandard but I feel that the angst, disillusionment, and isolation inherent at that time to be relevant on a societal basis. As such, I give it the place it deserves poor play notwithstanding.
I like the Sex Pistols even though I know they were absolutely terrible musicians. It is the attitude that I like.
Yes, another reason why I always liked the Velvet Underground and Lou Reed as a solo artist. It’s the grit and grime even though Lou Reed had virtually no vocal ability. Every time I saw him I never knew what to think but I knew it was interesting and authentic.
I've certainly mellowed my stance over the years on certain artists, and I do respect talent of certain singers or players in genres I don't care for.
But genesis is offensive and horrible. And their fans love to talk schmak on Led Zeppelin for some reason so to the garbage heap with the whole thing.
For me maybe it was overkill on the am radio stations of the 60s but the band I can stand is the Beatles.... imo they are way overrated
Now you’ve done it...be ready for all the lectures on why you’re not allowed to have your own musical taste if it involves anything negative regarding the Beatles.
Maybe that was a bit strong, but I prefer improvisational music. Some bands can pump out tunes and can play them with ease....great songs too. I can appreciate that too.....but I love live music. I love bands that can bend their songs, come in and out of them and do it cleanly. Sometimes it isn't cleanly, but the times it is....it's great. I don't want to see a packages best of show for the most part. I think most decent bands can do that....but not everyone will explore a little or mix it up.
Nobody ever said that you weren't allowed to not like the Beatles. However, you can not like a band and still acknowledge their greatness.
I'll give you an example. I don't like the majority of Elvis Presley's music. However, I can acknowledge that his influence on the development of rock and roll is incredibly significant. Same goes for Chuck Berry.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Football Adisa Isaac finds perfect landing spot in Baltimore- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-