i know i'll leave some out but these are some bands i get sick of hearing about and are in my opinion way overrated....
1. sublime
2. green day
3. nirvana
4. grateful dead
5. u2
6. incubus
7. dave matthews band
8. phish (seems to me that much of their fan base is kids on drugs who would be listening to rap music if they didn't think it was the cool thing to be into phish).....musically they're actually very talented, yet overrated and the 30 minute jam sessions are just unnecessary. give me more than 2 fucking songs before i get disinterested)
I agree... I know in hindsight they're important for obvious reasons, but I'm really not a fan of 80% of their stuff. Andy was a pretty shitty songwriter except for a select few songs.
It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win
U2,RHCP,Arctic Monkeys(probably not their fault),Bloc Party,White Stripes,Franz Ferdinand,Razorlight,Aerosmith,Metallica and especially Maximo Park as they are utter steaming shite and have the worst most deluded singer(live more so)in the entire known cosmos!.Key thing here is that there are decent bands in that list but I have no idea they have the followings they have and they all seem to get disproportionate levels of praise/love IMO.There are others but these all sprang to mind instantly.
'All the rusted signs,we ignore throughout our lives,
Choosing the shiny ones instead'
And so contrived!! Everytime I saw Scott Stapp in the film clips, with the fan blowing his shirt open and him flicking his hair about I just wanted to smash him! He WISHES he was Eddie!!
Maybe when you look at them as part of the musical landscape that exists today they don't seem that essential. But Dylan, the Dead, the Beatles? Look at the type of music/songwriting that was around before them and after them. Each of them did something new, or unheard of at the time and took music in a whole new direction.
exactly, to the original poster i say, have you heard about the Newport '65 concert? or go listen to the '66 royal albert hall boot, he went electric, and it set the folk crowd in a blaze of anger, on the 66 boot someone actually calls hum judas, to which he of course rocks harder than ever. dylan had a comment on every social and political comment of the times, he was incredibly sharp and relevant.
the dead were a fantastic experimental band and talented musicians doing stuff that noone had ever done before, although i do understand that not everyone digs them
i do agree with the sting/beach boys comments, but the rest of them, especially bowie, nirvana, and the beatles, go look at the music that was around then, and the political/social climate of the times and tell me that they weren't revolutionary
No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it.
Albert Einstein
U2,RHCP,Arctic Monkeys(probably not their fault),Bloc Party,White Stripes,Franz Ferdinand,Razorlight,Aerosmith,Metallica and especially Maximo Park as they are utter steaming shite and have the worst most deluded singer(live more so)in the entire known cosmos!.Key thing here is that there are decent bands in that list but I have no idea they have the followings they have and they all seem to get disproportionate levels of praise/love IMO.There are others but these all sprang to mind instantly.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..............interesting. Well, White Stripes were certainly over-hyped, but the sad thing is that they are consequently under-rated. Jack is a guitar talent on a par with the best of em. The music is old-style Delta blues, which you may not dig, but I do.
And as for Metallica, show me another band who not only defined and dominated their genre to extent that they have, with successful evolution in style, but ,maintained their substance througout the changes. In addition, the S&M concert in particular shows a class and complexity beyond what all but a few other contemporary bands have achieved. And they are just plain good. Riffs,ideas, lyrics, solos, just fantastic. If Metallica are over-rated, I would be interested to see who you do think is deserving of high accolade. They have the foloowing the have because their music and miusicianship is solid. I know people hack on Lars for his drumming these days, but that is like hacking on a 40yr old athlete, complining his performance is not what it was in his 20's.
nobody is an idiot for having an opinion. Other than that, here are some bands/performers that I consider overrated with added text:
1. Jack Johnson
I've written extensively on Jack Johnson before, but no criticism of Jack Johnson is ever complete. This man is so unabashedly lacking in talent that his next album should be titled 'I Can't Believe I'm Still Getting Away with This Shit--Volume 6'. With 2006's 'Sing-A-Longs and Lullabies For The Film Curious George' the ever-confused sounding Johnson proves once again that a 2nd grade piano recital can pack more passion than his entire catalog of lazy guitar-patting filth. J.J. goes for that 'passed out in the midst of a keg stand and was shaken awake at 11 AM the next morning in a pool of my own vomit by my roommate who needed me to drive him to the airport' vocal approach, which so far has only worked for Van Morrison. And what's worse than sending the message that mumble-ridden, directionless crap can score you a record deal to college students? Why, sending the same message to the preschool demographic.
That's what Universal Studios decided to do when they picked this guy up off the floor of a fraternity basement and had him write the soundtrack to the Curious George movie in exchange for a few resin hits.
I almost hate JJ. Sorry.
2. The Red Hot Chili Peppers
Anthony Kiedis is so inept at both singing and rapping that the listener is often hard-pressed to determine which one he's attempting. "Dani California" is perhaps the greatest example of his utter failure as a vocalist to date, with lazy, half-sung verses, a go-nowhere chorus and Chili-Peppers-by-number lyrics that could have been transplanted from any other song in their entire catalog. In many cases, the musical prowess of his backing band can at least hold my attention with their funkiness, but they fall far short of the mark on "Dani California," choosing to simply perform an undisguised cover of Tom Petty's early-Nineties hit, "Mary Jane's Last Dance."
But their plagiarism is old news, and it's beside the point: it would be far too complimentary to make it seem like their Petty theft is what makes this track bad. In fact, "Dani California" is bad on its own terms and a failure on its own level. Tom Petty sucks, but let's not besmirch his good name by implying that it's his fault that the Red Hot Chili Peppers put out a shit single. They've been doing it for decades without his help, and, god help us, they'll probably be doing it for decades to come.
Just so long as they switch up their singles between "ballad" and "funk rap," people will never realize that they've been releasing the same two songs every couple of years since forever. One day, the public will catch on, and the jig will be up… actually, I suppose people never figured out that Aerosmith was doing it.
If you're one of the people who still listens to the Chili Peppers, I have special words for you: you have no taste. You do a great disservice to rock and roll by tolerating mediocrity, either because you are lazy or because you are mediocre yourself. Maybe both.
3. Nirvana
Sorry but Kurt's death is what made this band into what it is today. The music was good and valid, I will not argue that, but they are 100% overrated. Anyone that thinks this band deserves the credit that they get are just wrong, IMO. Good but not this great by any means.
Now for some bands that haven't been around long enough to even be called overrated:
1. Blue October
This is some of the most spineless, lowest-common-denominator rock and roll I've ever heard. The music industry has once again managed to outdo itself by propping these jerks up and passing them off as anything other than sand filled vaginas flapping in the wind. Even The Peppers managed to not make music as bad as this in 06, despite their best effort in doing so this decade. The vocal production, which is the fucking same on every song I've heard (which is their radio hits. I won't dignify being asked why I haven't heard any of the other album cuts with a response) sounds like a chipmunk and a poltergeist doing coke and having sex in your attic, but somehow less climactic. If the world thought that Nickelback had completely killed mainstream rock, they were right, but Blue October bent right the fuck over and shit all over the body's face in a glorious stream of formulaic, clichéd and overproduced diarrhea with their album Foiled. I think if you look closely at the album cover, then you've looked too closely. Run while you can, and scrub your hands vigorously in gasoline to wash away this horror of corporate rock from your hands. Never tell anyone what happened
2. My Chemical Romance
The only people these dicks can fool into thinking they're a legitimate rock band are 14-year-old Hot Topic dipshits and the 21 year olds who still want to be. A concept album, some Brian May noodling, and a cancer haircut does not make this band amazing. They are borderline awful.
3. Fallout Boy
Oh, man, where to begin? This band is SO awful that I cannot even waste my life counting the ways. So, I will just speak about Pete Wentz.
He looks like Swarthy Val Kilmer, he's the "frontman" of a band that is void of any actual bass in which he's the bassist, he designs horrible screen printed t-shirts, and we've all seen his dick. I'd call him this year's Pete Doherty, but Pete Doherty is still kinda this year's Pete Doherty until he finally overdoses.
Somebody please shoot him with the same bullet that takes down Gerard Way. If "his music" was not bad enough, he has to be the biggest douchebag in music today.
He is every ego-inflated high school kid you knew who got credit for other peoples shit just because he was popular for some unknown reason. He was the kid who got credit for throwing an awesome party even when it was at your house. He was the kid that had tons of friends but talked shit about them behind their backs in order to make more. Fuck this asshole. Fuck this band.
nobody is an idiot for having an opinion. Other than that, here are some bands/performers that I consider overrated with added text:
1. Jack Johnson
I've written extensively on Jack Johnson before, but no criticism of Jack Johnson is ever complete. This man is so unabashedly lacking in talent that his next album should be titled 'I Can't Believe I'm Still Getting Away with This Shit--Volume 6'. With 2006's 'Sing-A-Longs and Lullabies For The Film Curious George' the ever-confused sounding Johnson proves once again that a 2nd grade piano recital can pack more passion than his entire catalog of lazy guitar-patting filth. J.J. goes for that 'passed out in the midst of a keg stand and was shaken awake at 11 AM the next morning in a pool of my own vomit by my roommate who needed me to drive him to the airport' vocal approach, which so far has only worked for Van Morrison. And what's worse than sending the message that mumble-ridden, directionless crap can score you a record deal to college students? Why, sending the same message to the preschool demographic.
That's what Universal Studios decided to do when they picked this guy up off the floor of a fraternity basement and had him write the soundtrack to the Curious George movie in exchange for a few resin hits.
I almost hate JJ. Sorry.
quote]
This is hilarious and solid gold truth. I never bought JJ, but was given burnt copies by people who raved about him. They should not have stopped at mere laser beams, but should have just kept burning til there was nothing left. I think people like the idea of a cool surfer who can sing, but he can't. Can't sing, can't play, can't write songs, living possibly breathing, though we can't be sure, cos he sounds dead, proof that you can sell turds to a sewer rat if you market it right.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..............interesting. Well, White Stripes were certainly over-hyped, but the sad thing is that they are consequently under-rated. Jack is a guitar talent on a par with the best of em. The music is old-style Delta blues, which you may not dig, but I do.
And as for Metallica, show me another band who not only defined and dominated their genre to extent that they have, with successful evolution in style, but ,maintained their substance througout the changes. In addition, the S&M concert in particular shows a class and complexity beyond what all but a few other contemporary bands have achieved. And they are just plain good. Riffs,ideas, lyrics, solos, just fantastic. If Metallica are over-rated, I would be interested to see who you do think is deserving of high accolade. They have the foloowing the have because their music and miusicianship is solid. I know people hack on Lars for his drumming these days, but that is like hacking on a 40yr old athlete, complining his performance is not what it was in his 20's.
Firstly The White Stripes headlined Reading Festival a couple of years back(ahead of Morrissey)so I don't know about the states but here in the UK they are bummed to the extreme .If Jack White farted taking to the stage it would be described by the NME as the definitive QUALITY ROCK FART ,and possibly described as 'MOMENT OF THE FESTIVAL'!Also they were shit live and he was a total indulgent dick onstage rambling off for ages at a time on positively mediocre guitar solos hitting bum notes all over the place.In addition their drummer has the skill level of a half decent 12 year old IMO.
Metallica are a good band but not THAT good ,and their singer is fucking rubbish ,he is so affected stylewise that I can't take him seriously.(sorry if stylewise is not a proper word).
'All the rusted signs,we ignore throughout our lives,
Choosing the shiny ones instead'
1. U2 - Can't stand 'em
2. Green Day - Kiddie crap
3. Oasis - they are OK but all the same
4. R.E.M - Great band but you only need the 'best of...'
5. Kieser chiefs - in 5 years it will be 'Kieser who?'
6. Red Hot Chilli Peppers - Blood sugar was great but everything else get's repetive, songs about california and no tops on basically.
7. Mozart - Ain't got shit on Beethoven
8. Good charlotte - doesn't need an explanation
9. Limp Bizkit - Fred Durst is an arse to put it politley
10. Arctic Monkeys - British music is pretty shit at the minuite.
Firstly The White Stripes headlined Reading Festival a couple of years back(ahead of Morrissey)so I don't know about the states but here in the UK they are bummed to the extreme .If Jack White farted taking to the stage it would be described by the NME as the definitive QUALITY ROCK FART ,and possibly described as 'MOMENT OF THE FESTIVAL'!Also they were shit live and he was a total indulgent dick onstage rambling off for ages at a time on positively mediocre guitar solos hitting bum notes all over the place.In addition their drummer has the skill level of a half decent 12 year old IMO.
Metallica are a good band but not THAT good ,and their singer is fucking rubbish ,he is so affected stylewise that I can't take him seriously.(sorry if stylewise is not a proper word).
Does having a style that you don't like detract from the quality of the music or the musicianship, or is style over substance your thing ??
I have to disagreee that they are not that good. I'm not sure if you have tried playing Master of Puppets, but just playing it is hard enough, without singing at the same time. James does not pretend to be a great techical singer, but he sure gets the job done anyway.
I'm still interested to see who you think is better and why. I suspect that you have not really listened closely to a thorough sampling of Metallica's albums, or that your listening skills are not that great.
James is also one of the top three riffmeisters of all time, Stone Gossard and Keith Richards being the other 2 IMHO.
Does having a style that you don't like detract from the quality of the music or the musicianship, or is style over substance your thing ??
I have to disagreee that they are not that good. I'm not sure if you have tried playing Master of Puppets, but just playing it is hard enough, without singing at the same time. James does not pretend to be a great techical singer, but he sure gets the job done anyway.
I'm still interested to see who you think is better and why. I suspect that you have not really listened closely to a thorough sampling of Metallica's albums, or that your listening skills are not that great.
James is also one of the top three riffmeisters of all time, Stone Gossard and Keith Richards being the other 2 IMHO.
Look up contradiction in the dictionary before you question my listening skills if you don't mind.You are suggesting I may put style over substance whereas I am probably suggesting exactly the opposite if anything.Your reference to Master of puppets suggests that you are the style over substance merchant.I mean what does how difficult a song is to play have to do with whether its a good song or not.Nothing actually.Listen to Hey Jude by The Beatles,or indeed Light Years or Black by PJ which IMO are all technically far inferior to most if not all of Metallicas catalogue but are all far superior 'songs'.
'All the rusted signs,we ignore throughout our lives,
Choosing the shiny ones instead'
Look up contradiction in the dictionary before you question my listening skills if you don't mind.You are suggesting I may put style over substance whereas I am probably suggesting exactly the opposite if anything.Your reference to Master of puppets suggests that you are the style over substance merchant.I mean what does how difficult a song is to play have to do with whether its a good song or not.Nothing actually.Listen to Hey Jude by The Beatles,or indeed Light Years or Black by PJ which IMO are all technically far inferior to most if not all of Metallicas catalogue but are all far superior 'songs'.
I think how difficult the music is, is one way to measure how good a band is, yes. People are surely quick to use a lack of musical excellence as a yardstick for failure. Personally, I just like Metallica, just as I like PJ, and TBH I think they are more similar than different.
If you like the Beatles, then we are at opposite ends of the galaxy as far as musical taste is concerned. There is more likely to be an end to the war in Iraq today than there is to be agreement bewtwen us here, so maybe we agree to disagree.
I think how difficult the music is, is one way to measure how good a band is, yes. People are surely quick to use a lack of musical excellence as a yardstick for failure. Personally, I just like Metallica, just as I like PJ, and TBH I think they are more similar than different.
If you like the Beatles, then we are at opposite ends of the galaxy as far as musical taste is concerned. There is more likely to be an end to the war in Iraq today than there is to be agreement bewtwen us here, so maybe we agree to disagree.
Fair enough,but IMO which is clearly diometrically opposed to yours,PJ have far more in common with The Beatles than they do Metallica.
'All the rusted signs,we ignore throughout our lives,
Choosing the shiny ones instead'
I think how difficult the music is, is one way to measure how good a band is, yes. People are surely quick to use a lack of musical excellence as a yardstick for failure........................................................
If you like the Beatles, then we are at opposite ends of the galaxy as far as musical taste is concerned............
Fair enough,but IMO which is clearly diometrically opposed to yours,PJ have far more in common with The Beatles than they do Metallica.
Nah, not even close to teh Beatles.
PJ and Metallica have these point in common.....
BOth primarily GUITAR BANDS, multi guitar approach
CHarismatic lead singers/lyricists with fucked up childhoods
Awesome riffmeisters, JAmes and Stone, great songs with great riffs
Wonderful lead guitarists, neither of whom can sing for shit, neither of which need to, cos their guitar says it all, both heavily influenced by Hendrix, even though their individual styles are not obviously similar
Personally, they both had to deal with grief within the band and loss of band members, Cliff for Metallica, Denmark for PJ, both produced amazing music as part of the grieving process
Both amazing live, bvoth kick serious ass, both are still around despite major evolutions as they age and avoid becoming dinosaurs
Don't you think that it is a tribute to Pearl Jam that they can attract such opposites as fans,as I can't think of many bands that could bring us together.Also incidentally it sounds like you are only a fan of their heavier stuff.I could list many a PJ track that has fuck all in common with Metallica(Thin Air,Present Tense,Light Years,Thumbin,Man of the Hour,Nothingman,Lowlight.............etc,etc).
'All the rusted signs,we ignore throughout our lives,
Choosing the shiny ones instead'
Don't you think that it is a tribute to Pearl Jam that they can attract such opposites as fans,as I can't think of many bands that could bring us together.Also incidentally it sounds like you are only a fan of their heavier stuff.I could list many a PJ track that has fuck all in common with Metallica(Thin Air,Present Tense,Light Years,Thumbin,Man of the Hour,Nothingman,Lowlight.............etc,etc).
No, not sure that I gave that impression, but you just listed some of my favourite tracks.
I can honestly say that neither band has ever played a note that Idon't love.
Consider though, the similarities between Thumbin' and Tuesday's Gone, which they didn't write, but did record.
It is true that Metallica would usually be considered to on the whole "heavier" than PJ, but I don't really pay attention to that as much as I do to the rhythms and melodies, which they both have in abundance.
Maybe I'm sick, but "heavy" guitar tone is soothing and easy on my ear. I listen to Metallica as a bed-time lullaby.
But you are right about PJ being a band that attracts a big variety of people wiht broadly differing tastes.
MAybe that is why people seem to disagree so much, maybe PJ is all we have in common ??
No, not sure that I gave that impression, but you just listed some of my favourite tracks.
I can honestly say that neither band has ever played a note that Idon't love.
Consider though, the similarities between Thumbin' and Tuesday's Gone, which they didn't write, but did record.
It is true that Metallica would usually be considered to on the whole "heavier" than PJ, but I don't really pay attention to that as much as I do to the rhythms and melodies, which they both have in abundance.
Maybe I'm sick, but "heavy" guitar tone is soothing and easy on my ear. I listen to Metallica as a bed-time lullaby.
But you are right about PJ being a band that attracts a big variety of people wiht broadly differing tastes.
MAybe that is why people seem to disagree so much, maybe PJ is all we have in common ??
Yeah maybe that is the only thing,but fuck its a good thing nonetheless,don't you think?
'All the rusted signs,we ignore throughout our lives,
Choosing the shiny ones instead'
Comments
1. sublime
2. green day
3. nirvana
4. grateful dead
5. u2
6. incubus
7. dave matthews band
8. phish (seems to me that much of their fan base is kids on drugs who would be listening to rap music if they didn't think it was the cool thing to be into phish).....musically they're actually very talented, yet overrated and the 30 minute jam sessions are just unnecessary. give me more than 2 fucking songs before i get disinterested)
MOTHER LOVE BONE!
EV intro to Chloe Dancer / Crown of Thorns
10/25/13 Hartford
I agree... I know in hindsight they're important for obvious reasons, but I'm really not a fan of 80% of their stuff. Andy was a pretty shitty songwriter except for a select few songs.
Choosing the shiny ones instead'
Reading 06 - Torino 06 - Wembley 07
♪♫♪♫♫
That anybody, anywhere likes them at all astounds me!! :(
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Yeah me too, they're sooo boring!
♪♫♪♫♫
And so contrived!! Everytime I saw Scott Stapp in the film clips, with the fan blowing his shirt open and him flicking his hair about I just wanted to smash him! He WISHES he was Eddie!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
It's all over now though right? RIGHT??? Please tell me it's over!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
exactly, to the original poster i say, have you heard about the Newport '65 concert? or go listen to the '66 royal albert hall boot, he went electric, and it set the folk crowd in a blaze of anger, on the 66 boot someone actually calls hum judas, to which he of course rocks harder than ever. dylan had a comment on every social and political comment of the times, he was incredibly sharp and relevant.
the dead were a fantastic experimental band and talented musicians doing stuff that noone had ever done before, although i do understand that not everyone digs them
i do agree with the sting/beach boys comments, but the rest of them, especially bowie, nirvana, and the beatles, go look at the music that was around then, and the political/social climate of the times and tell me that they weren't revolutionary
Albert Einstein
are you canadian?
cause if you are then you'd understand how they're overrated
Albert Einstein
well, maybe only in canada because I wouldn't know about that, but they should add Rush--only in canada.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..............interesting. Well, White Stripes were certainly over-hyped, but the sad thing is that they are consequently under-rated. Jack is a guitar talent on a par with the best of em. The music is old-style Delta blues, which you may not dig, but I do.
And as for Metallica, show me another band who not only defined and dominated their genre to extent that they have, with successful evolution in style, but ,maintained their substance througout the changes. In addition, the S&M concert in particular shows a class and complexity beyond what all but a few other contemporary bands have achieved. And they are just plain good. Riffs,ideas, lyrics, solos, just fantastic. If Metallica are over-rated, I would be interested to see who you do think is deserving of high accolade. They have the foloowing the have because their music and miusicianship is solid. I know people hack on Lars for his drumming these days, but that is like hacking on a 40yr old athlete, complining his performance is not what it was in his 20's.
1. Jack Johnson
I've written extensively on Jack Johnson before, but no criticism of Jack Johnson is ever complete. This man is so unabashedly lacking in talent that his next album should be titled 'I Can't Believe I'm Still Getting Away with This Shit--Volume 6'. With 2006's 'Sing-A-Longs and Lullabies For The Film Curious George' the ever-confused sounding Johnson proves once again that a 2nd grade piano recital can pack more passion than his entire catalog of lazy guitar-patting filth. J.J. goes for that 'passed out in the midst of a keg stand and was shaken awake at 11 AM the next morning in a pool of my own vomit by my roommate who needed me to drive him to the airport' vocal approach, which so far has only worked for Van Morrison. And what's worse than sending the message that mumble-ridden, directionless crap can score you a record deal to college students? Why, sending the same message to the preschool demographic.
That's what Universal Studios decided to do when they picked this guy up off the floor of a fraternity basement and had him write the soundtrack to the Curious George movie in exchange for a few resin hits.
I almost hate JJ. Sorry.
2. The Red Hot Chili Peppers
Anthony Kiedis is so inept at both singing and rapping that the listener is often hard-pressed to determine which one he's attempting. "Dani California" is perhaps the greatest example of his utter failure as a vocalist to date, with lazy, half-sung verses, a go-nowhere chorus and Chili-Peppers-by-number lyrics that could have been transplanted from any other song in their entire catalog. In many cases, the musical prowess of his backing band can at least hold my attention with their funkiness, but they fall far short of the mark on "Dani California," choosing to simply perform an undisguised cover of Tom Petty's early-Nineties hit, "Mary Jane's Last Dance."
But their plagiarism is old news, and it's beside the point: it would be far too complimentary to make it seem like their Petty theft is what makes this track bad. In fact, "Dani California" is bad on its own terms and a failure on its own level. Tom Petty sucks, but let's not besmirch his good name by implying that it's his fault that the Red Hot Chili Peppers put out a shit single. They've been doing it for decades without his help, and, god help us, they'll probably be doing it for decades to come.
Just so long as they switch up their singles between "ballad" and "funk rap," people will never realize that they've been releasing the same two songs every couple of years since forever. One day, the public will catch on, and the jig will be up… actually, I suppose people never figured out that Aerosmith was doing it.
If you're one of the people who still listens to the Chili Peppers, I have special words for you: you have no taste. You do a great disservice to rock and roll by tolerating mediocrity, either because you are lazy or because you are mediocre yourself. Maybe both.
3. Nirvana
Sorry but Kurt's death is what made this band into what it is today. The music was good and valid, I will not argue that, but they are 100% overrated. Anyone that thinks this band deserves the credit that they get are just wrong, IMO. Good but not this great by any means.
Now for some bands that haven't been around long enough to even be called overrated:
1. Blue October
This is some of the most spineless, lowest-common-denominator rock and roll I've ever heard. The music industry has once again managed to outdo itself by propping these jerks up and passing them off as anything other than sand filled vaginas flapping in the wind. Even The Peppers managed to not make music as bad as this in 06, despite their best effort in doing so this decade. The vocal production, which is the fucking same on every song I've heard (which is their radio hits. I won't dignify being asked why I haven't heard any of the other album cuts with a response) sounds like a chipmunk and a poltergeist doing coke and having sex in your attic, but somehow less climactic. If the world thought that Nickelback had completely killed mainstream rock, they were right, but Blue October bent right the fuck over and shit all over the body's face in a glorious stream of formulaic, clichéd and overproduced diarrhea with their album Foiled. I think if you look closely at the album cover, then you've looked too closely. Run while you can, and scrub your hands vigorously in gasoline to wash away this horror of corporate rock from your hands. Never tell anyone what happened
2. My Chemical Romance
The only people these dicks can fool into thinking they're a legitimate rock band are 14-year-old Hot Topic dipshits and the 21 year olds who still want to be. A concept album, some Brian May noodling, and a cancer haircut does not make this band amazing. They are borderline awful.
3. Fallout Boy
Oh, man, where to begin? This band is SO awful that I cannot even waste my life counting the ways. So, I will just speak about Pete Wentz.
He looks like Swarthy Val Kilmer, he's the "frontman" of a band that is void of any actual bass in which he's the bassist, he designs horrible screen printed t-shirts, and we've all seen his dick. I'd call him this year's Pete Doherty, but Pete Doherty is still kinda this year's Pete Doherty until he finally overdoses.
Somebody please shoot him with the same bullet that takes down Gerard Way. If "his music" was not bad enough, he has to be the biggest douchebag in music today.
He is every ego-inflated high school kid you knew who got credit for other peoples shit just because he was popular for some unknown reason. He was the kid who got credit for throwing an awesome party even when it was at your house. He was the kid that had tons of friends but talked shit about them behind their backs in order to make more. Fuck this asshole. Fuck this band.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Firstly The White Stripes headlined Reading Festival a couple of years back(ahead of Morrissey)so I don't know about the states but here in the UK they are bummed to the extreme .If Jack White farted taking to the stage it would be described by the NME as the definitive QUALITY ROCK FART ,and possibly described as 'MOMENT OF THE FESTIVAL'!Also they were shit live and he was a total indulgent dick onstage rambling off for ages at a time on positively mediocre guitar solos hitting bum notes all over the place.In addition their drummer has the skill level of a half decent 12 year old IMO.
Metallica are a good band but not THAT good ,and their singer is fucking rubbish ,he is so affected stylewise that I can't take him seriously.(sorry if stylewise is not a proper word).
Choosing the shiny ones instead'
Reading 06 - Torino 06 - Wembley 07
2. Green Day - Kiddie crap
3. Oasis - they are OK but all the same
4. R.E.M - Great band but you only need the 'best of...'
5. Kieser chiefs - in 5 years it will be 'Kieser who?'
6. Red Hot Chilli Peppers - Blood sugar was great but everything else get's repetive, songs about california and no tops on basically.
7. Mozart - Ain't got shit on Beethoven
8. Good charlotte - doesn't need an explanation
9. Limp Bizkit - Fred Durst is an arse to put it politley
10. Arctic Monkeys - British music is pretty shit at the minuite.
Katowice 2007
London 2007
Does having a style that you don't like detract from the quality of the music or the musicianship, or is style over substance your thing ??
I have to disagreee that they are not that good. I'm not sure if you have tried playing Master of Puppets, but just playing it is hard enough, without singing at the same time. James does not pretend to be a great techical singer, but he sure gets the job done anyway.
I'm still interested to see who you think is better and why. I suspect that you have not really listened closely to a thorough sampling of Metallica's albums, or that your listening skills are not that great.
James is also one of the top three riffmeisters of all time, Stone Gossard and Keith Richards being the other 2 IMHO.
Look up contradiction in the dictionary before you question my listening skills if you don't mind.You are suggesting I may put style over substance whereas I am probably suggesting exactly the opposite if anything.Your reference to Master of puppets suggests that you are the style over substance merchant.I mean what does how difficult a song is to play have to do with whether its a good song or not.Nothing actually.Listen to Hey Jude by The Beatles,or indeed Light Years or Black by PJ which IMO are all technically far inferior to most if not all of Metallicas catalogue but are all far superior 'songs'.
Choosing the shiny ones instead'
Reading 06 - Torino 06 - Wembley 07
I think how difficult the music is, is one way to measure how good a band is, yes. People are surely quick to use a lack of musical excellence as a yardstick for failure. Personally, I just like Metallica, just as I like PJ, and TBH I think they are more similar than different.
If you like the Beatles, then we are at opposite ends of the galaxy as far as musical taste is concerned. There is more likely to be an end to the war in Iraq today than there is to be agreement bewtwen us here, so maybe we agree to disagree.
Choosing the shiny ones instead'
Reading 06 - Torino 06 - Wembley 07
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Nah, not even close to teh Beatles.
PJ and Metallica have these point in common.....
BOth primarily GUITAR BANDS, multi guitar approach
CHarismatic lead singers/lyricists with fucked up childhoods
Awesome riffmeisters, JAmes and Stone, great songs with great riffs
Wonderful lead guitarists, neither of whom can sing for shit, neither of which need to, cos their guitar says it all, both heavily influenced by Hendrix, even though their individual styles are not obviously similar
Personally, they both had to deal with grief within the band and loss of band members, Cliff for Metallica, Denmark for PJ, both produced amazing music as part of the grieving process
Both amazing live, bvoth kick serious ass, both are still around despite major evolutions as they age and avoid becoming dinosaurs
*edited some typo's
Choosing the shiny ones instead'
Reading 06 - Torino 06 - Wembley 07
hahha absolute truth.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
No, not sure that I gave that impression, but you just listed some of my favourite tracks.
I can honestly say that neither band has ever played a note that Idon't love.
Consider though, the similarities between Thumbin' and Tuesday's Gone, which they didn't write, but did record.
It is true that Metallica would usually be considered to on the whole "heavier" than PJ, but I don't really pay attention to that as much as I do to the rhythms and melodies, which they both have in abundance.
Maybe I'm sick, but "heavy" guitar tone is soothing and easy on my ear. I listen to Metallica as a bed-time lullaby.
But you are right about PJ being a band that attracts a big variety of people wiht broadly differing tastes.
MAybe that is why people seem to disagree so much, maybe PJ is all we have in common ??
Yeah maybe that is the only thing,but fuck its a good thing nonetheless,don't you think?
Choosing the shiny ones instead'
Reading 06 - Torino 06 - Wembley 07