Bands that should not have been as big as they are or were

[knapplc]

Shinedown, Disturbed, Three Days Grace...pretty much most "modern rock" bands whose songs all sound the same. Most modern rock is terrible.

-oh, and Fall Out Boy/Panic At The Disco/My Chemical Romance and other emo-type bands that are popular with 14-yr-old girls. Ew.

 

Nickleback - that goes without saying.

 

Radiohead - Radiohead fans are the worst. "The lyricism is incredible" "You're a mouthbreather if you don't understand their music" etc. No, they just suck.

 

AC/DC - all of their songs are exactly the same. Ride the high hat, play some power cords, and drown it all out with screechy lyrics. All songs on all albums. Same.

 

Mumford & Sons - even critics hate their songs for all being the same. GET LOUD AND PLAY BANJO and then get quiet so that it sounds like you're building tension and then GET LOUD AND PLAY BANJO AGAIN TO RELEASE THAT TENSION. The lyrics are just plain dumb. Catch the common thread here? If all your sh#t sounds the same, you're probably terrible!

 

U2 - I like a couple of their songs and I don't think they're bad by any means but I don't understand how they are the highest-grossing tour band of all time. Most of their songs are pretty boring, I can't imagine being excited to go to a show of theirs. Might just be a European thing, idk.

 

 

 

Bands that definitely do not deserve to be mentioned in this thread but have been:

Nirvana (I know they are huge, but they deserve to be huge. Underrated songwriting and musical talent; tons of creativity. Very important band for social & cultural reasons)

Rush - Rush is awesome. They also have the most technically sound and creative drummer to ever pick up the sticks. Neil Peart is incredible!

Green Day - Their album that came out ~3 years ago was terrible, but their earlier stuff was fun and catchy and American Idiot is the best concept album of all time IMO

Offspring - incredibly deep discography; their music has evolved a lot and they're very talented. I don't think they're really *that* popular either.

Chili Peppers - should go without saying

The Doors - come on, you trolling?

 

just my 2 cents!

 

I +1'd this post because of the places you're right. I didn't detract where you're wrong. Everything above in bold is correct. Anything not in bold is incorrect, and you should feel bad.

 

U2 should be in the same category as Green Day. If you like Green Day for their earlier work then U2 should get the same benefit of the doubt. Every album between Boy and Rattle & Hum is great. Just about everything from Achtung Baby forward is crap.

 

Radiohead is schlock, with the exception of Creep. They should be a one-hit wonder. Not sure why they're still around.

 

I don't know much about My Chemical Romance, but I have a couple of their songs on the mp3 player and they're OK. Modern Pop, sure, but not horrible.

[NUinID]

Achtung Baby is a great album IMO probably their last really great one. The problem with most bands is that they start out angry and rebelleous and it shows in their music. As bands age and gain success they lose their edge becauase its hard to be angry when you are rich and pampered and get whatever you want.

[BigRedBuster]

Interesting. I like songs from just about every band listed in this thread (other than some that I have never heard of before).

 

I find it also interesting when someone says a band like AD/DC sound the same on all their songs. I find that to be true with 95% of musicians. Even some that are viewed as icons.

[gobiggergoredder]

Limp Bizkit was and is horrible

[tschu]

Thought you liked Rush, knapp

[sd'sker]

so no one has said bruce springsteen, yet?

[knapplc]

Whoops. I screwed that up. I should have put Rush, Green Day and The Offspring in bold, too. Bugger.

[BigRedBuster]

Isn't it safe to say that no musician (or any famous pop culture person) deserves to be idolized and as big as they actually are?

[knapplc]

Isn't it safe to say that no musician (or any famous pop culture person) deserves to be idolized and as big as they actually are?

 

That's a question that delves into societal mores and individual and group psychosis areas. A short answer would be "yes," but the iceberg you're referencing is immense underneath the waterline.

[BigRedBuster]

I ask the question because just about every popular band from the 80s on has been mentioned in this thread.

[NUinID]

I ask the question because just about every popular band from the 80s on has been mentioned in this thread.

 

Na uh, haven't seen any Motley Crue.

[BigRedBuster]

I said....just about

[sd'sker]

definitely motley crue.

[Ulty]

I never said "simple = bad", its more "endlessly repetitive = bad" Which even Angus will admit to. Making a comment that they pretty much just change the album cover. Like I have said before, its not that the songs are 3 chords (most songs are) its they never change up which 3 they are using.

 

The Ramones were hugely influential, largely due to the simplicity. They inspired tons of people, with a "Hey, I can do that" thought, and they went out and picked up gear and started bands.

 

AC/DC is simple, the Ramones are simple, if you really get down to it, they're both repetitive, but what you're saying doesn't really make a point...

Timing is part of the point. When the Ramones came up, there was nothing like it. The popular music was more complex and maybe a bit overwhelming to newbies, and the Ramones were not. AC/DC had a few big songs, but they were not 'ground breaking' It looked, and sounded, like something anyone could do. And for the record, I don't really care for either. For exactly the same reasons.

 

I have enjoyed reading this discussion. I also hate AC/DC, although I love most of the other "classic rock" bands from the same period and genre. I don't find much musical talent or creativity in AC/DC's work, and I think the "simplicity" often referred to is their necessity to hold back because they actually aren't musically capable of doing more. One thing that AC/DC does have, though, is the ability to rock. Just flat out rock. It doesn't have to be pretty, or good, but AC/DC has a couple anthems and notable riffs that give them their place in rock history. They deserve that place, but I am otherwise not impressed with them at all.

 

However, since the Ramones were brought up, it made me think twice. I actually like the Ramones. I really like them. Really Really. Hey Ho, let's go! But the same things can be said about them as AC/DC. Not necessarily creative or much variation, they just brought it. So it's all subjective. AC/DC just doesn't appeal to me. The Ramones do. It turns out that there are bands that I like that aren't that talented, and I dislike some groups that clearly do have talent.

 

But fuque Bruno Mars.

[JJ Husker]

definitely motley crue.

 

And the Boss, Bruce Springsteen. LOL