Bands you just can't stand...

clarke2001 wrote: However, there are two hints: a) forehead, and b) Titanic.

emdiar wrote: limeyrob wrote: Well Pete Dougherty for a start   You have every right to dislike him if you like, and I respect that, but for what it's worth, here's my opinion:   It's not an artist's job to set an example. Should we stop teaching Byron's poetry in schools just because he was a raving opium addict? What about Syd Barret? I hate the goody two shoes sanitization of art. All that would be left would be those damn awful christian rock bands if some folk had their way. I love the Paintings of van Gogh but I'm not about to chop my ear off. Artists are not responsible for the sheep who follow in their footsteps, there's such a thing as free choice.

All the commercial brit and american indie-rock-pop bands....the killers...mika...snow patrol etc etc.  And the hip hop dude Akon...saw him perform live on top of the pops he was absolutely terrible.  It seems you don't have to have talent to be famous.

Haha! This thread has given me a good laugh! 

Some of the posts indicate that "The 'make yourself look dumb, ignorant and judgmental' thread" would be a more suitable name.

"HEY, look at me! I can talk sh*t about genres I really don't even have a shred of knowledge about!"



But by all means, keep on, it's good entertainment.


As for me, like I said earlier, I don't really hate any bands, because I do my best to ignore bands which do not appeal to me. If you look closely enough, there's at least fractions of talent/quality present in (almost?) all music.

I just realized this was the non-prog music section. I do think Ayreon is a progressive rock band, just to be clear. On that note, I would like to say that some non-prog stuff I hate is: Stockhausen, pop, grunge, Stockhausen, modern rock, the 80s (and that's not even limited to music), and Stockhausen. 

magnus wrote: Haha! This thread has given me a good laugh!  That was one of its purposes...So it worked.... Some of the posts indicate that "The 'make yourself look dumb, ignorant and judgmental' thread" would be a more suitable name. Some of the POSTS... but the title very clearly says "bands you CAN'T STAND".... so this was not about talking sh*t, but about mentioning bands that, well, you can't stand.... "HEY, look at me! I can talk sh*t about genres I really don't even have a shred of knowledge about!" I've heard music from every one of the bands I've said I can't stand... and a lot.... and so, I guess, have most of the people here who took this for what it is: a useless thread.... But by all means, keep on, it's good entertainment. As for me, like I said earlier, I don't really hate any bands, because I do my best to ignore bands which do not appeal to me. If you look closely enough, there's at least fractions of talent/quality present in (almost?) all music.  You obviously haven't heard reggaetton....

emdiar wrote: limeyrob wrote: emdiar wrote: limeyrob wrote: Well Pete Dougherty for a start   You have every right to dislike him if you like, and I respect that, but for what it's worth, here's my opinion:   It's not an artist's job to set an example. Should we stop teaching Byron's poetry in schools just because he was a raving opium addict? What about Syd Barret? I hate the goody two shoes sanitization of art. All that would be left would be those damn awful christian rock bands if some folk had their way. I love the Paintings of van Gogh but I'm not about to chop my ear off. Artists are not responsible for the sheep who follow in their footsteps, there's such a thing as free choice.   Agree to a point. But not certain Byron is a good example here. With today's media and instant accessibility one can hardly say that Byron was as well known as some of the seedier merchants in today's society. Blame the media if you want but if people want fame they shouldn't go for it by bad behaviour. It's usually a substitute for lack of talent. Artists may not be responsible for the sheep but there are also social/moral standards to maintain.   Are there? Who do you suggest decides what these standards are?  Yourself? The Moral Majority? The Council of Islamic Ideology? Mary Whitehouse (god rest her soul)? What do you suggest we do? Censor  the media to protect our mortal souls? That's a very dangerous road to go down. So called "morality"  is an ever changing concept. Even in my lifetime "society" has witnessed many changes of values and norms, some for the better, some for the worse.  Imagine a world in which a politician could be sacked for his/her sexuality, sending out a message to society that homosexuals are fair game for discrimination and victimisation. That sort of thing was common place in the 70's. Nowadays it's the homophobes who are looked upon with distaste, a 180 degree shift. This may appear to you to have nothing to do with your stance on Pete Dougherty, but hopefully it will open your eyes to the dangers of "maintaining moral standards" for the sake of it.     You say that people who want fame use bad behaviour as a "substitute for a lack of talent", which would seem to be the opposite of what you would like to imply. Surely you mean "as a substitute for talent"? This may be pedantry on my part but in the interest of clarity......   George Best, John Lennon, Syd Barret, Jimmy Hendrix, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Chet Baker, Miles Davis, John Bonham, Alex Hurricane Higgins, etc etc etc etc etc .....None of them could be accused of setting a good example. Millions of talented people behaving badly and enriching the world in the process. Maybe you want to live in Cliff Richard World but I, for one, certainly wouldn't thank you for it.   love and peace. Em.

We should get our moral standards from the Bible... Oh yea I am serious about that and the world would be a better place if everybody actually followed it.

Anyway... A lot of people are making bold statements about music without backing it up with facts. I like Billy Joel, he is an accomplished pianist and he has a knack of musically portraying slices of life (Piano man, New York state of Mind etc...) His love songs are very pure and heartfelt and his voice is very authentic. His work is very original and not derivative of others work. His characters are relevant and a lot of people can identify with them. His songs are well crafted and not sappy.

Nickelback on the other hand is derivative and very boardroom rock. They seem to be interested in putting out a product rather than music. Their songs have the same tempo and structure based on pre-established templates without a hint of authenticity. I personally can not tell the difference between any of the songs. 12 year olds like them but I am not in that peer group.

The Wasp and Kiss. 

Crash Test Dummies ... what a voice.

Creed, Almost any punk rock, Pearl Jam, GooGoo Dolls, Linkin Park, Fallout boy and their counterparts, Godsmack (and all them heavy rock soundalikes), and Im sure there are more but thats it for now.