Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by heycal, Oct 28, 2012.
This is the worst era for music. Much, MUCH worse than the 80's, and that's saying a lot.
lol, ye, exactly
WOW, the thread is still alive....
Good Pick, OP
Muse, as it happens. They won a few years ago, best rock album, maybe? something like that
Uh Oh -- move over Christopher Cross, Celine Dion, Taylor Swift and Toto: Muse belongs among your hallowed ranks as a best album grammy winner!!
the beautiful irony is that you will never understand why what you just said is so funny...
Muse actually does suck.
Depressed emo songs mostly.
Most of their songs really aren't that great, but they are still an alright band.
Compared to a band like , say , Menudo , well they are monumental.
Muse is a great band. One of the best of the last decade for sure.
Any hip hop is easily the worst **** ever to hit the airwaves!
Well, I think we've settled that one. Thanks, fellas.
Now what's up with this other haircut band that's been touted, Radiohead? Equally bad, or worse?
radiohead is so ridiculous. In rainbows is one of the most amazing albums i've ever heard. Miles ahead of everyone. They will stand the test of time.
By the way, Murmur was one of my favorite albums ever, and I listened to Mothers Milk when it came out probably a hundred thousand times in a row.
So not sure why this thread exists
Radiohead makes beautiful music, but they're no Sophia Loren . . .
Radiohead is still the greatest band in the world. So much so that when they release an album that isn't very good, that album will get automatic 5-star critical treatment . . . because the Radiohead "brand" is that strong.
Are you suggesting they should have been included in the poll?
Worst band ever is a strong claim. You could have at least made it more entertaining by being less serious.
Example: Poll; Who is better, Eurythmics or Ace of Base? Why?
Eurhythmics are critically acclaimed because Dave Stewart is smart and it is basically illegal to disparage Annie Lennox. But I can give them the nod...as Ace of Base isn't even a band.
So, I heard an REM song at a party on Friday. Next 'song' was some awful noise by a band called Limp Bizkit, making the likes of Radiohead, REM and the Chili Peppers sound like virtuosi. The pairing made me think about this thread, and heycal's frustrations, haha.
THat said, I really liked the Bends and OK Computer. Then they started to lose me.
On solo trips, I used to listen to The Bends all the way through. Their successes on those two 'albums' are why any noises they make are certified 'hits'. Thom York farts while his iPhone indicates an incoming email...and the critics swoon. That gives me an idea.
What do you mean AoB isn't a band? Ace of Base is something like, the third most successful Swedish band, dude. 30 million+ album sales, 9 times platinum for the Sign.
One of the more interesting things I find about today's music is just how disposable the artists seem to be.
The pretty pop girls get replaced as soon as someone younger and prettier is found.
People listen to so many different music delivery systems now that real bands actually get less exposure.
I remember specifically when Simon Cowell formed One Direction. Bands like these are the real winners because the kids only need to be attractive and know how to follow instructions. How easy is that job? Ride around in the bus/plane, smile, sign some autographs, get blowed while your stylist makes you pretty for the show, go out and dance in front of 30,000 screaming 13 year old girls who want nothing more than to marry you and have your babies, go to the studio where the music is already there, written by experts who know how to write a song specifically designed to target the hearts of said 13 year old girls, record the whole album in one take bc auto tune will do most of the work anyway, go home, spend your paycheck as quickly as possible before you're replaced by the next boy band.
That begs the question... I wonder how many of these pop singers/bands actually just get a plain old paycheck while someone else collects the royalties.
Great stuff, Swedes know their pop, for sure, and...Flight of the Conchords were New Zealand's 4th most popular comedy/folk duo, haha.
Yes, bow ties are indeed cool.
I meant that Ace of Base is not really considered a band in the traditional sense. I'd call them more of a studio act, which is a step above a boy 'band'.
Fair enough. I honestly can't stand both them AND annie lenox but that's just my taste... growing up on guys like Chopin, and Hendrix.
Chopin was a hack and Hendrix was a no-talent poseur.
Fredi Chopin and Jimi Hendrix? Wow, your excellent taste puts this thread into perspective, iLaughing. Thanks.
Worst composer of the 19th century, Chopin or Lizst?
Hector Berlioz or Richard Wagner
Wagner's bloated, caterwauling self-aggrandizement ranked him as Musical Director of Hell. This inflated posseur could be described as the Jon Bon Guido of classical music while Berlitz was really only noted for his chain of language schools.
Chopin & Hendrix ain't no Seals & Croft.
Dedans, what is the source of your long obsessive hatred of Jon Bon Jovi? Is there an interesting back story there perhaps?
Don't get me wrong: I know he sucks too, but I never think to post about him or even think to think about him at all. But he's sure on your radar...
Enjoy, and remember, good boys don't impregnate their sisters......(ie; be careful where you are sticking that blade Siegmund).
DP, yes...I cannot believe Looney Tunes devoted so much time and space to him. Wagner, not Bon Jersey.
So, in this thread...
bon jersey : DP's radar :: REM and RHCP : heycal's radar
So, in reading this thread, I have learned the following:
1) The Beatles are far and away the greatest band of all time, with only the Rolling Stones coming anywhere close to them.
2) The Beach Boys were a decent band, but no where near The Beatles/The Rolling Stones.
3) Every single other band/musician in the history of time has been/is varying degrees of awful.
4) Every single band/musician since 1980 has written pure crap and are/were completely talentless hacks.
5) There is a clear and definitive way to determine if one band is better than another and that is based on the opinion of our resident music genius, the OP.
6) The OP reached a certain age sometime around 1980 where his brain function started to deteriorate rapidly, and he was no longer able to understand and appreciate newer sounds and music.
7) With each passing year since 1980, the OP has become more and more senile.
Thanks all for the interesting and highly educational read. For the record, I abstained from the vote since both RHCP and REM are great bands. I personally do not care for REM, but I recognize that they have written some good songs. Merry Christmas!
I don't care for REM because most of their music is too mellow for my tastes. While I do not like most of their music, I can still recognize that they are a great band and a lot of people like them a lot and for good reason. I do like a few of their heavier songs quite a bit, although I don't know the names. I disagree with the premise of this joke troll thread, which is that since the music of REM and RHCP do not appeal to your tastes, they are overrated and horrible.
I like hard rock and I do not like the Jonas Brothers. I prefer modern music, although I do like Pink Floyd.
Your band sucks.
Being from NJ,,do Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band and Franki Valli and the 4 Seasons get any props from this thread?
Led Zeppelin is the greatest rock and roll band of all time in my opinion and it is just an opinion. Just my two cents as far as rock music goes. Seriously, if you are still under 40 or so and like rock music, do yourself a big favor and discover Led Zeppelin if you haven't already. They influenced every rock band that followed to a big degree.
No. Frank Valli ain't good enough, and Bruce Springsteen is really more of a solo artist who wouldn't qualify for this thread even if his music was good enough.
Way up there, for sure. Not Stones or Beatles territory, but among the greatest.
Worst "band" ever = Any of these DJ's out there. Kids these days going to concerts with no instruments?
Both bands are great, disagree wholeheartedly with the OP
ok How about The Eagles?
Ok but as far as Springsteen, he like Freddie Mercury just overshadowed his E street guys over time. But when Clarence Clemons (when he was alive) and the band were in concert they were a rockin cohesive unit..
Frankii Valli and the 4 Seasons still live on Broadway and all over the world with "Jersey Boys"..not many bands can say that
I guess you don't believe in global warming either.
Very different situations. For one thing, it wasn't called "Freddie Mercury and Queen". I'm also doubtful that Mercury wrote all the music and lyrics and that the band members were his employees, like in Springsteen's case. I'm no Springstreen expert, but I thought from the start it was pretty much "Bruce Springstreen and a bunch of guys he needs to play the back-up stuff".
An easy rule of thumb here: If the the guy's name goes in front of the band, he moves into the soloist category. You could replace members of the Heartbreakers, Crazy Horse, and the E Street band and still go on, but you can't really replace Tom Petty, Neil Young, and Bruce Sprinstreen in those bands.
Or would want to.
I basically agree, Chic were excellent though, and there was some rubbish in the 60's, although great overrall!
The first 5 REM albums are superb, once they signed to Warners, not so good. Californication is excellent, apart from that am a not a huge fan of the Chili Peppers.
4 Non Blondes
Hootie & The Blowfish
Black Eyed Peas
Don't even get me started naming more from other genres because it really goes downhill from there.
Bee Gees were in the 70's disco scene
Freddy and the Dreamers from the 60's weren't so good:cry:
Those broke,drugged out guys with arthritis and no medical or dental plan would want to
Neither the Stones or the Beatles could make music as great as these songs in my opinion, so I'd say that the Stones and the Beatles make great music, but they are not in Led Zeppelin territory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CRt-h4IrEQ (No Quarter)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHJH0ETi8D4 (Battle of Evermore)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II_ZNPKRGoA (For Your Life)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj_iWsLwF-U (Four Sticks)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pPvNqOb6RA (Stairway to Heavern)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4v-_p5dU34 (The Rain Song)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J8-xmbfBWc (How Many More Times)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8x0jIP9EPY (Celebration Day)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WzG64syKHA (Rock and Roll)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXbLlxJO5Uc (That's the Way)
...and the list goes on and on for Led Zeppelin. They were so varied and had such range as a rock band. Ask any great rock musician today and they'll say they listened to and learned a lot from Led Zeppelin.
Sure. And then they'll turn around and admit that the Stones and Beatles were better.
Zeppelin has maybe half a dozen great songs, including Misty Mountain Hop. Beatles and Stones have dozens. It's like comparing Agassi to Federer.
Separate names with a comma.