The Bands You Hate thread

[stevew]

Fuck edie brickell


Also Nickelback, Matchbox 20(did everyone else forget how bad these guys fuckin suck?), Rhianna(solo artist but I hate her), Billy Joel.

[stevew]

Beyonce too.

[Karlifornia]

Haha I love the U2 hate in this thread.

Not so much the Nirvana hate

Off the top of my head, I'll go:

Jay-Z
Linkin Park
The Decemberists
The Offspring

[samifan24]

It seems like we could make a group list. It's interesting that even in this small group of people, the same bands would come up again and again.

U2
Dave Matthews
Nickelback

[stevew]

The Kidz Bop Kidz.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by sabotai

U2

All of those "latin invasion" singers. Marc Anthony, Ricky Martin....why the fuck do they only have first names!?

You could have had the decency to actuall yput a singer with just a first name


Beastie Boys
Rage Against the Machine

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

You could have had the decency to actuall yput a singer with just a first name

They both have 2 first names!!!

[Lathum]

Nirvana
Pearl Jam

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

The Offspring

I'm surprised you dont like The Offspring, they seem to be right up your alley

[Oilers9911]

Bon Jovi - top of the garbage pile.
U2
Nickelback
Matchbox 20
Def Leppard
Eagles - especially that pompous prick Don Henley.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I'm surprised you dont like The Offspring, they seem to be right up your alley

Agreed. Shitty music is up Karl's alley. Kurt Cobain was a god damned hack.

MUDHONEY FTW

[Kodos]

It's amazing how much better the Foo Fighters are than Nirvana.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Kodos

It's amazing how much better the Foo Fighters are than Nirvana.

Ack. I agree with you on something.

[stevew]

I can only assume that you guys all like Matchbox 20 since nobody else has mentioned them.

Anyways, does anyone else use bands in some slight way as a litmus test when you're meeting new people? Like for instance, if you catch a ride with someone and they have Nickleback playing in their CD player or iPod they better be really cool other than that. I mean, that's hella strike one there.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by stevew

Anyways, does anyone else use bands in some slight way as a litmus test when you're meeting new people? Like for instance, if you catch a ride with someone and they have Nickleback playing in their CD player or iPod they better be really cool other than that. I mean, that's hella strike one there.

Yeah fo' sho'.

[Galaxy]

Billy Joel.

[DanGarion]

Rush and Nirvana.

You people that say Beatles and Rolling Stones are on crack.


-edit - Dave Matthews Band, Sublime, any current pop/dance female singer (especially the currently hot Duffy, I mean come on what the fuck????)

[BYU 14]

Hanson (They played Ummm Bop at halftime of our game tonight, WTF?)

[stevew]

That Pink chick is pretty damned annoying too.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Pavement

You are dead to me.

Seriously.

[B & B]

Soul Asylum

System of a Down

B-52s

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

You are dead to me.

Seriously.

co-signed

[Cork]

Bob Dylan tops my list as well as the Grateful Dead and Phish.

-Cork

[Kodos]

Whoever said the Red Hot Chili Peppers was right on. I have a theory, that no matter how bad a group might be, anyone can come up with one good song. Hell, even Nirvana did (All Apologies). The Chili Peppers are one of the bands that has never managed one good song so far. Utterly hate everything I've ever heard of theirs. The Doors would be another group in that category. So I guess my theory is ruined right there...

[Julio Riddols]

Linkin Park, Nickelback, Puddle Of Mudd, Saliva, Kid Rock, Limp Bizkit, basically anyone who fits the redneck/white trash/suburban teenage angst playlist.

I don't think I am the only one that notices the correlation between this music and douchebags.

[Kodos]

Luckily, I don't listen to the radio very much, so I have only a very passing acquaintance with Nickelback. But for what little I know, they do suck.


Has someone mentioned Creed? They are horrible.

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by stevew

I can only assume that you guys all like Matchbox 20 since nobody else has mentioned them.

Anyways, does anyone else use bands in some slight way as a litmus test when you're meeting new people? Like for instance, if you catch a ride with someone and they have Nickleback playing in their CD player or iPod they better be really cool other than that. I mean, that's hella strike one there.

Music and movies are two major identifiers of a persons personality for me. It reveals a ton about someones thought process i think.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

Music and movies are two major identifiers of a persons personality for me. It reveals a ton about someones thought process i think.

While that can be true for some people, it's not so far others. I know a lot of people, some of my friends for example, whose identity is very much tied up in the music they love. They are really into music, get into bands, all that stuff.

For me personally, I'm not really a music guy. It doesn't really define me in anyway. My likes and dislikes are all over the map. I'd be the first to admit that my musical tastes are very suspect. I like what I like at that's about it. I went to multiple Lilith Fairs back in the day, I've seen Sarah Mclachlan several times, Toris Amos a few times, Sinead O'Connor, but I've also seen Judas Priest, Queensryche, Ozzy Osbourne, Rage Against The Machine, etc. live. I've bought/downloaded all of 2-3 albums over the last 6 or 7 years. Most of the music I buy/download is music I hear in commercials or happen to catch on the radio the few minutes a month that I listen to something other than talk radio.

That said, I do take my movies quite seriously.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

Music and movies are two major identifiers of a persons personality for me. It reveals a ton about someones thought process i think.

It does? That seems like an odd link; taste in arts tied to thought process? "You like Nickelback? Really? Have you thought that one through? Weighed the pros and cons? I don't think you have!"

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

Music and movies are two major identifiers of a persons personality for me. It reveals a ton about someones thought process i think.

I totaly disagree with this.

I think some people allow their lives to revolve around the music they listen to and they allow it to define them, but I don't think it always does.

Me and Saldana have VERY different musical tastes but still are best friends.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I totaly disagree with this.

I think some people allow their lives to revolve around the music they listen to and they allow it to define them, but I don't think it always does.

Me and Saldana have VERY different musical tastes but still are best friends.

That's like my wife and I. She likes a lot of the stuff here that others hate (including me), such as Matchbox 20, Bare naked Ladies, Celine Dion (shudder), etc., but we get along famously. I don't think her personality reflects her taste in music.

I am getting through to her a bit though. She likes some of my stuff now, and I convinced her that Nickleback is probably the worst band of the past decade.

[Mustang]

Have to add another one - Starship.

Ugh

[Hurst2112]

I'll vote for The Flaming Lips

I'll throw in a U2 and Nirvana

Dylan
Toby Keith

[Sun Tzu]

I'm going to have to join the "music and movies don't make you who you are" team. With my old lady and I, there are some bands that we both agree on, and just as many bands that we completely dissagree on. The same goes for movies. For example, if you lined up all 6 Star Wars movies, or all 6 Rocky movies, I'd be set for an entire day. Meanwhile, if you lined up "Joy Luck Club" along side "Beaches" and a few other god awful movies, then she'd grab a tissue box and be on the couch all day long. I think the important thing is that you both enjoy listening to music or watching movies just in general. Even if they aren't the same ones all the time.

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

It does? That seems like an odd link; taste in arts tied to thought process? "You like Nickelback? Really? Have you thought that one through? Weighed the pros and cons? I don't think you have!"

yeah there are some very specific variables that prove his theory wrong.

I'm not a Nickelback fanboy but working in the music field, I wish I could be part of the process of song creating as successful as what they do.

this was the whole Creed issue several years ago. I was one of the few that dug Creed for their songwriting and hooks. Most people, haters I should say, were too blind to see the talent or didn't care to learn about such talents (choosing to focus on Stapp's obvious issues with grandeur)

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by Hurst2112

I was one of the few that dug Creed for their songwriting and hooks. Most people, haters I should say, were too blind to see the talent or didn't care to learn about such talents (choosing to focus on Stapp's obvious issues with grandeur)

Yeah, I still have a good amount of Creed licks on my mp3 player. It's not bad music at all. Sure it's not super complicated music but christ, who cares?

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Hurst2112

I'm not a Nickelback fanboy but working in the music field, I wish I could be part of the process of song creating as successful as what they do.

I can see that. Of course they probably have talent to get where they are, but when I listen them and their "hooks" all I hear is commercialism, not a love of music, or the courage to step outside of the box a bit.

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I can see that. Of course they probably have talent to get where they are, but when I listen them and their "hooks" all I hear is commercialism, not a love of music, or the courage to step outside of the box a bit.

wait. are we talking about nirvana or nickelback? haha

sometimes commercialism isn't a bad thing. It's harder than it appears to write a successful song. If it wasn't, there would be a bigger selection of artists on the radio.

Nickelback stepped outside the box when they first came into the scene. They've found a formula that works. Same with Bon Jovi. I don't like listening to their new music but if I could make buttloads of money, creating music, I'd love it.

[Senator]

Drop Dead Fred

[jeheinz72]

I find that my top-shelf friends all share movie/TV/music taste with me. It's not a must, but for an inner-circle type of friend it is.

Which is kind of ironic really, considering I'm a huge Dave Matthews Band fan posting in this thread.

[Qwikshot]

Okay, reading this list, I have to ask...

What is it that we hate about the bands we hate? I can understand that bands like Buckcherry, Jet, Nickelback, Matchbox 20, Dave Matthews, Creed and the like.

But the Beatles? the Rolling Stones (...every song sounds the same?..."? Bob Dylan?

So I guess, to ponder the question, do we hate these bands because of the style of music...I would assume guys like Dave Matthews and Bob Dylan are on this list because their voice can detract from the music (but comparing Dave to Bob is apples to oranges).

I can state that the pre Some Girls Rolling Stones are just awesome to hear, and there are several styles in there...the blues was always evident, but you can hear a bunch of other influences (including country).

The Beatles, man, they are ground zero. Sure you can dislike the 60's pop of it, or the acid influence, the guys didn't play a mean guitar, and were a bit, well, British, but they influenced a bunch of things.

Nirvana, okay, you may hate the voice, the pretentiousness of it all, the overhype, but Cobain was the guy who flicked the light switch off on the overblown hair band style rock (which may be why some of you hate Nirvana) but seriously, the idea of Warrant or Jackyl epitomizing rock and roll is shuddering. Nirvana were the colon cleanser for rock in the 90's (for better or worse).

I think though that the above bands did their things because of the fame, but also the music. I can't vouch that Nirvana is essential, but Dylan, the Stones and the Beatles are were a marked influence of everything that has been spit into the rock and roll world.

I find it more amazing you could hate the above three beause they have such a large volume of work that /something/ from it could be rendered listenable.

Now for the commercial bands of today, I agree, I cannot stand them, but I've listened to them. I can hate a band like Nickelback because it's bland, or Creed for the over the top seriousness. But bands like Nickelback and Creed will fade out, for those of you who hate Dylan, the Stones or Beatles, you have no such luck.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Nirvana
Pearl Jam

You're livin' in the wrong place, pal. I don't get the Nirvana hate in this thread at all, but like an old boss of mine used to say, that's why they've got different colored jellybeans in the jar.

My list I love to hate:

John Mellencamp
Sting (solo)
The Doors
Dave Matthews Band

[jeheinz72]

I think Music just boils down to opinion and how you listen to music (the lyrics, the singers' voice, the drums, etc.)

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

But bands like Nickelback and Creed will fade out, for those of you who hate Dylan, the Stones or Beatles, you have no such luck.

I have a feeling that, although talented (except for the Stones), bands/singers like that were only popular because of their times, and the lack of choices that we have nowadays. I have a feeling that if the internet existed (for everyone) even 20 years ago, a majority of the legends out there would be just run-of-the-mill. There are bands that would be legends regardless, because they were innovators or genre creators, but that would only be a handful.

[Hurst2112]

The Beatles, man, they are ground zero. Sure you can dislike the 60's pop of it, or the acid influence, the guys didn't play a mean guitar, and were a bit, well, British, but they influenced a bunch of things.

I don't know how much you know about the musicianship of the guys but Harrison is considered one of the greatest guitar players to ever live. His influence runs rampant in today's mean guitar players.

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

I think Music just boils down to opinion and how you listen to music (the lyrics, the singers' voice, the drums, etc.)

great, short answer. spot on

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by path12

You're livin' in the wrong place, pal. I don't get the Nirvana hate in this thread at all, but like an old boss of mine used to say, that's why they've got different colored jellybeans in the jar.

Yeah, I haven't said it yet, but I still like Nirvana. Maybe it's because I was in high school at the height of their success, but I really "got" their music back then.

One thing that cracks me up though: When Pavement released "Crooked Rain Crooked Rain", they were counted on to be the next Nirvana. Nothing could be further than the truth. They weren't close in style as far as tone, lyrics, etc. I have no idea what the music critics and insiders were listening to back then. Hell, I don't know what they're listening to now.

(Sorry for another Pavement reference. I've been obsessed since 1992)

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Hurst2112

I don't know how much you know about the musicianship of the guys but Harrison is considered one of the greatest guitar players to ever live. His influence runs rampant in today's mean guitar players.

I didn't say he was horrid, but there are a bunch ahead of George (I was always partial to the riff from "Something"). But that was kind of my point though, the Beatles are hard to hate because they did influence so many bands, some too much (see anthing by Oasis after "Definately Maybe")

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I have a feeling that, although talented (except for the Stones), bands/singers like that were only popular because of their times, and the lack of choices that we have nowadays. I have a feeling that if the internet existed (for everyone) even 20 years ago, a majority of the legends out there would be just run-of-the-mill. There are bands that would be legends regardless, because they were innovators or genre creators, but that would only be a handful.

True, but the internet didn't exist. But I think lack of choices, is the wrong word, lack of exposure is probably better. Probably a bunch of bands that died on the vine. But to say a band like the Beatles would be run of the mill, or Dylan for that matter is, difficult to defend.

I can understand if you hate the sound, the voice, or even the value of the band (Phil Collins, Journey, Boston, White Snake, Tom Petty).

It is a benefit that we have the internet because it allows for more exposure, a band can prove themselves to the fan base (like Dave Matthews did) instead of trying to sell themselves to record exec. That is a benefit to our time.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

I didn't say he was horrid, but there are a bunch ahead of George (I was always partial to the riff from "Something"). But that was kind of my point though, the Beatles are hard to hate because they did influence so many bands, some too much (see anthing by Oasis after "Definately Maybe")

I think that, even though Queen is one of the most celebrated bands, Brian May is perhaps the most underrated guitarists ever. He is amazing as a musician and as a song writer. No one gives him credit for his playing or his huge part in the band. His stamp is on everything, yet Freddie gets all of the credit.