Sleaford Mods but...................
This is amazing
Sex Pistols - totally cynical manufactured garbage, I'm always amazed how many people are taken in by a band whose singer was auditioned in a trouser shop by the manager with no other band members present
glad someone else mentioned the Libertines as well (and the xx)
I don't agree about Frank though, everyone's dad tries to sing like him because he was so good at what he did, his timing and phrasing were faultless (yeah he wasn't always a saint, that's a separate discussion)
Couldn't agree more with Frankis comments about the radio. I think only Radio 6 is worth a listen these days.
Mobius bands.
With one little twist you can create a one-sided piece of paper. WTF?
With a few notable exceptions U2 are just awful. Given the choice i'd have silence for the rest of my life.
The Libertines. Dreadful. The Vaccines (who i really like) are the band the Libertines could have been.
Coldplay first 2 albums I quite like. They went rapidly downhill after that. Why they insist on writing songs that Chris Martin cannot actually sing I have no idea. They could choose any key they like but they always seem to write in a key he can't actually sing live.
Rolling Stones. Loads of really mediocre songs and now are just a parody of themselves.
There are loads more.
Bands and drinks I don't get...
The Beatles - cheap big brand lager - mass produced ultimately tasteless and full of preservatives, needs sponsorship of major events to keep them relevant
AC/DC - Sambuca - a wee hit once in a while at the end of an evening is OK
Pink Floyd - Tequila - niche, and overblown
U2 - like a decent Port that has now gone off
Coldplay - own brand diet lemonade
Elbow - tepid water
Bruce Springsteen - Bulgarian Wine, some of it is very good, most of it tosh.
I just don't get the utter fan worship of the 'Boss'. Simplistic tosh Brucie Baby, some things do indeed hurt more than cars and girls.
I need a bigger sheet of paper.
Back in the 70s though I was a massive fan of Pink Floyd. These days the only Floyd album I reach for with any sort of regularity is Ummagumma. Dark Side and onwards is a bit meh.
But as someone said, so what? There is a huge selection of music available for all tastes. But we all like a good whinge don't we?
But we all like a good whinge don't we?
No but Dez does!
😉
DezB- I agree but I'm not listening to the music of my youth- that was a mixture of U2, Bob Dylan, Talking Heads, Big Country and various other stuff
Re. The edge, he may not be van Halen but to say he's a poor guitarist is wide of the mark. I would actual say he pushes the guitar beyond typical three chord blandness but yes he does fall short of sweep picking and tapping. His use of scales and tones is actually pretty excellent and the technology he uses to augment his sound is really good.
Bono is a helmet though
Can I vote for The Stone Roses
I just don't get it. I think they're abysmal but I was never a fan of British indie music
Can I vote for The Stone Roses
No. You can't. How very dare you. 😕
[i]Big Country[/i]
Ooh, now! that's a band I could never get... godawful. As for without Stuart Adamson, even more ridiculous. Loved The Skids.
But we all like a good whinge don't we?
No but Dez does!
Is someone mistaking 'having an opinion' for whinging? 😛
I can't decide who I hate: Coldplay or U2, but I suppose U2 has The Edge. Ah thankew!
Another vote for Coldplay, but also Paul Weller and Foo Fighters.
I really liked the first few albums from the foos, but now they just churn out e same old garbage.
Same with Paul Weller, Peacock suit, was probably the last great song from him. Now just dull dull dull...
I just don't get the utter fan worship of the 'Boss'. Simplistic tosh Brucie Baby, some things do indeed hurt more than cars and girls.
Me neither! Not a clue what appeals about his music.
The Beatles - cheap big brand lager - mass produced ultimately tasteless and full of preservatives, needs sponsorship of major events to keep them relevant
I know you're having a laugh, but I can't say I agree with your analysis there, apart from not remaining relevant - although how a band who broke up more than 40 years ago could, and why they should, be relevant is a moot point imo.
As I've mentioned in an earlier post, I'm not really a fan, well probably I like them on the same level as I do Oasis, I can listen to a song or two, but never manage to make it through a whole album.
BUT
mass produced ultimately tasteless and full of preservatives
No, no and no. Like the stuff or not (and largely I don't) surely you have to respect a band who went from the screaming-teen-girls-drowning-out-the-sound of "Yeah Yeah Yeah She Loves You, ooooh", stopped touring, and went into the studio with the level of ambition that they did, at the time they did it. Maybe the stuff hasn't aged well, but they really were breaking new ground with the way they harnessed what was, at the time, the cutting edge of what it was possible for a four piece rock'n'roll band to go into a recording studio and produce.
If nothing else, unlike most "mass produced" pop music they used their power to go into the studio and do whatever the hell THEY wanted to. Want to loop a tape? Sure. I am the eggman? Why not. Number 9? Alright. Unnecessary Italian? Throw that in there.
And to think that they did it, start to finish in seven years? Wow, just wow. Can you imagine one of today's boy bands doing anything even remotely comparable?
Has anyone mentioned the Who?
Muse - I just don't get what they are or what they have done. They don't have a style or genre and from what I can gather are not good musicians. If someone could enlighten me please?
The Who should have had more mentions
Muse - I just don't get what they are or what they have done. They don't have a style or genre and from what I can gather are not good musicians. If someone could enlighten me please?
I actually rather like Muse, having seen them being excellent live a while before they got successful, but, rather like Coldplay (who I really DON'T like) I too am confused as to how they've become as massively successful as they have..
Dare I say Neil Young?
Kasabian, The Jam, The Enemy, Jake Bugg
I can't stand any of those 'we're so working class' whining tossers
I really don't want to listen to songs about everything being grim, and tough, and scoring weed
I'm not rich btw, just gets my back up 😀
vickypea - Member
Dare I say Neil Young?
Hey! He's from my hometown!
And besides, who could resist this?
followed by this?
8)
Genesis.
I know people who go into raptures over them. Some people who's taste in music I'd go along with. But to me it just sounds like overlong, twee, self-indulgent tripe.
Mind you... I think that about most 'Prog' stuff. Genesis just seem to epitomise it more than anyone else, just because it seems to take itself so seriously. At least Rick Wakeman knew he was ridiculous.
So many people happy with the limits they impose on their own minds.
Some who even wear their small-mindedness as a badge of honour.
😛
So many people happy with the limits they impose on their own minds.
The thing I object to, is having to put up with other people imposing limits on what I get to listen to. I really have a problem with the radio at work. No matter what station is decided upon, there is so little diversity in the music they play that it makes my blood boil on a daily basis. I can kind of understand the latest releases being on heavy rotation, but why when an artist may have 20 / 30 / 40 years or more's worth of material to choose from, do they play the same one or two oldies over and over again????
There's so much amazing music out there that I'm passionate about, it kills me to have to be force-fed stuff I don't like.
[i]So many people happy with the limits they impose on their own minds.
Some who even wear their small-mindedness as a badge of honour.[/i]
Nah. If there's one thing that's about as personal as it can get, one's taste in music shouldn't be the thing you feel the need to apologise about.
I know what I like, but I am very open minded about music and will acknowledge, even when its not my cup of tea, if a song is a good song. As Franki says though, why are all radio stations the same. Why can't I tune in, on my FM radio in the car, to a station that plays rock music. There is classical radio, so why not jazz radio, rock radio, reggae radio etc.
Pink floyd
I would have said Coldplay and then i had to take the missus to watch them in Manchester and they were utterly brilliant!
Any band formed after 2006, and coldplay. But that may just be because I can't stand them.
Any band formed after 2006,
I don't think that most posters on here are aware of music from after 2006. Most from after 1980 by the look of it.
Beatles
Rolling Stones
Velvet Underground
Neil Young
Led Zeppelin
Are we all just naming massively famous/popular bands from the sixties and seventies in an attempt to look jaded and cool? Can I play?
The Jimi Hendrix Experience
I mean, all they did was play really good tunes that people really liked
🙄
Neil Young - no, but there is rather a lot to work through.
Beatles - no, still sound fresh to me today
Radiohead - certainly don't look grumpy live, and have made some great records.
Libertines - right. never got it, but I was not of that generation.
Frank Sinatra - Nail firmly on head. Drivel. When Robbie Williams copies you and comes off better, you are starting from a bad place.
Royal Blood - Their best bits sound like the first 30 seconds of a Nu Metal track and the rest of their stuff goes downhill from there.
The Jimi Hendrix ExperienceI mean, all they did was play really good tunes that people really liked
But they were so boring and derivative compared to the bands who came after them. Don't judge them by the standards of the time. 🙄
😆
I love the psychedelic Beatles songs (but not their early poptastic ones,) and most of Led Zep's music.
Stones - only really like "Paint It Black," Velvet Underground, I'm not that familiar with, but I like some of Lou Reed's work, despite the fact that he can't sing in tune. Neil Young - don't get him at all.
Jimi Hendrix - still one of the most original guitar players ever. Decent catalogue of songs too.
[i]Frank Sinatra - Nail firmly on head. Drivel. When Robbie Williams copies you and comes off better, you are starting from a bad place. [/i]
Funniest joke ever! Well done brassneck! 😆
So many people happy with the limits they impose on their own minds.
Some who even wear their small-mindedness as a badge of honour.
Or how about this: It's easy to have an opinion about other people's opinions without having one of your own...
The Who
The Smiths
The Band - never heard anything of theirs but the fil keeps harping on about them and couldn't they think of a name?
Coldplay - Corporate mor rock
Chilli Peppers - the none John years
U2
Probably loads more once I start thinking about it.
Royal Blood - Their best bits sound like the first 30 seconds of a Nu Metal track and the rest of their stuff goes downhill from there.
Funny one for me. Every single riff, and I mean literally every one, I've heard before somewhere else. Every lyric, and I mean every single line of every song, seems to have been written by a random rock cliche generator. You can hear it for the first time, and finish every line before the singer, the lyrics are that hackneyed.
I guess stuff either rocks or it doesn't, and there's only so many chords, and sequences of chords that work. Big dumb riffs and dumb lyrics aren't the worst things in the world. It's currently by far the most played album in my car. I'm absolutely loving it.
The Band - never heard anything of theirs
🙄
Can I also add to the list of bands I don't get, bands who's music I've not heard (yet)?
Weird how the same bands seems to crop up on this thread, but still sell millions of records.. someone must be buying them (or having their music forced upon them, in the case of U2)?!
[i]weird how the same bands seems to crop up on this thread, but still sell millions of records[/i]
Because their music is massively popular, and they have thousands of fans?
IdleJohn - we're talking about what we don't get, so how do you know whether most of us are into stuff post-2006? 😛
SaxonRider- sorry about Neil Young 😆
But "keep on Rockin' in the free world" is sung in such a wimpy voice!
One Direction.... I just don't get it.
Royal Blood? Rock for hipsters.
Beatles - I hear the argument that much of the music I listen to today wouldn't be around without them but if I lived the rest of my life without hearing another Beatles, Wings, Lennon, McCartney, Thomas the Tank Engine, Oasis song it wouldn't worry me in the slightest.
/\ This
and Florence and the Machine
and all the whiney boy singers of the last few years
It's all been said before, but:
Beatles
U2
Libertines
Florence and the Machine
Since seeing them live, really gone off Foo Fighters
The Libertines.
Dire Straits
Fleetwood Mac (not witg Peter Green)
Anything Jo Whiley likes. The more enraptured she is, the more I suspect it's shite. I give you "The Darkness" as an example.
There's lots of great music being made at the moment, always has been I guess. You just don't hear it on mainstream radio very often. Thank god for the internet.
How can you be derivative of the stuff that came after you? Or is that a gag I'm missing?
Shit loads of stuff I don't understand the popularity of: Manics, for one, third-rate student union politicking, and a 'if I shout loudly it'll sound important' style of singing.
Pretty much everything Radio One plays, most dance music; fine if you're dancing in a club, but who could possibly want to listen to one continual, 'doof doof doof doof doof doof'.
Red Hot Chilli Peppers; buy one song off iTunes, stick it on repeat a dozen times, you got every album they ever released.
Other than that, most of the bands people on this thread have been whining about I actually like, because they have something really crucial: tunes.
Even Coldplay; Chris Martin's continual falsetto style of singing gets on my tits, but he can write a decent tune.
My music library goes, literally, from Abba to Zappa, and includes country, folk, prog, rock, metal, punk, Indy, classical, electro, dance, world, roots, and a bunch of stuff I have difficulty classifying, and I feel no need to explain or apologise to anybody for liking any of it.
There's a quote by Aldous Huxley that pretty much says it all: "After silence, that which come nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music".
My library doesn't have any Oasis, Manics or RHCP in it; it does have hundreds of other artists, though.
Not so much a specific band as a genre. Dub step. Even the most whacked space cadets must find it difficult to dance to.
Surely the people who manufacture this drivel can find the arpeggiator button on their synth?
RHCP -never less than tedious (under the bridge excepted cos of the guitar stuff)
U2- still find the Joshua tree a good listen if for the variety of songs and the unforgettable fire is an epic tune.
David Bowie-very hit and miss. Can't understand the beebs fawning over appreciation of him.
Bruce Springsteen- pointless.
Nirvana-ran out of ideas towards the end but the early stuff veers towards rem in its classic alt American rock. And nevermind seemed somehow to articulate the nature of deep platonic friendships (the exception being polly)
It's tough - there are a lot of great 'singles' bands, who produce the odd piece of absolute gold amongst an everlasting flow of formulaic turgid awfulness - bands where you just can't listen to a whole album without hitting the next track button. I am very much looking at Oasis, U2 etc
Any band formed after 2006, and coldplay. But that may just be because I can't stand them.
Totally wrong. I could name plenty. They just don't get to air because they don't compete in a sing off.
Light House Family - surely we can all agree on them.
The Flaming Lips. Just nothing going on there at all to my ears.
Oasis. Average pub band who inexplicably became megastars.
Coldplay. Parachutes was really good, but I can't see why anybody is remotely interested in anything they've done since then.
Rolling Stones. A couple of good tracks from years ago, but massively overrated- maybe you had to be there when they were in their prime?
Stone Roses. Can only think their success was a product of the time and place, doesn't seem to be warranted musically as far as I can see.
The Fall
Kanye - the entourage almost counts as a "band"
I know I shouldn't bite but to say the Rolling Stones are overrated shows total ignorance of the ground breaking importance of what they did in the sixties. Why not just say you don't like them.
Coldplay
The Manic St Preachers (except for motorcycle emptiness)
Muse - just crap
Muse. They have good riffs but the songs go nowhere and matt bellamys voice does my head in.
The Libertines, The Vaccines, Mumford, Bastille, imagine dragons and all that kind of crap. Boring tedious limp shit for boring tedious limp people.
Never got Level 42, yes Mark king is a brilliant bass player, but the songs are as dull as dish water.
Another vote for Muse here to, listened to them thinking I should like this but just doesn't click for some reason.
john_drummer - Member
How can you be derivative of the stuff that came after you? Or is that a gag I'm missing
It was a joke. 😀
There are a lot of people on this thread who seem to be judging bands by contemporary standards. Yes, the Beatles, Stones, Bowie, Led Zep might be boring or dated these days but, seriously, how on earth can people say that they don't get why these bands were successful? Even U2 and Oasis stood out among the music that was around at the time, even if there were plenty of better bands who didn't make it. Just a quick google shows the bands that had number 1s around the time that Oasis broke - East 17, Rednex, Celine Dion, Take That, Livin' Joy, Robson and Jerome. Yeah, htf did Oasis and Blur make it? 🙄
(I'm not an Oasis fan btw, just picked them as an example.)
But anyway, the thread is turning into an'I hate' thread, so this is pretty irrelevant.
CountZero wrote:
most dance music; fine if you're dancing in a club, but who could possibly want to listen to one continual, 'doof doof doof doof doof doof'.
Err... me?
That pretty much describes over 90% of the music I listen to. 😀
Meatloaf, I bloody despise bloody Meatloaf. Bat out of Hell* indeed.
*mid-70s Zeitgeist eponymous album according to one reviewer!
[i]Meatloaf, I bloody despise bloody Meatloaf[/i]
Yay, someone I agree with at last.
Sleaford Mods
Belle and Sebastien
I noticed someone made a comment about Royal Blood and not getting them. They are a 2 piece. Drums and a guy playing a bass guitar. What? It sounds like a separate bass and lead player. Nope. He just puts his bass through different speakers and also an octave effects pedal and it sounds like a separate bass and lead. Some stunning musicianship IMHO. But each to their own...
I'm aware of that, I've seen them live. A clever party trick doesn't make them good...
[img] 
[/img]
LOL.
What? It sounds like a separate bass and lead player. Nope. He just puts his bass through different speakers and also an octave effects pedal and it sounds like a separate bass and lead. Some stunning musicianship IMHO.
That reminds me of another set of musicians that haven't really come up yet, the "widdly widdly" guitar speed merchants of rock. I'm thinking of the likes of Yngwie Malmsteen and Steve Vai. I like rock music, and I like a good guitar solo too, but to me a lot of that kind of playing is just technical showing off, and as a listener, it doesn't light my fire. To my ears BB King could fire off a solo that did more for me using two notes than the likes of Vai do with 27 notes per second.
Kind of the hard rock equivalent of the Mariah Carey school of singing, why sing one note when you can sing 47 different notes in one word? Because it sounds stupid and has much less emotional impact than one well chosen, well sung note does, that's why...
Yeah, Belle & Sebastian. Certainly don't get them.
Alvvays.
Current band, supposedly sound like "classic indie". If 'classic indie' is naff, monotonous songs with drippy girlie vocals, yeah. Awful.
Ha ha, Belle & Sebastian are my favourite band!
I quite like Alvvays but they are pretty bland. There's a lot of that around if you look through the rostas of the likes of Polyvinyl.
Ha ha, Belle & Sebastian are my favourite band!
Someone encouraged me to go and see them at Glasto a few years back. I really, really, didn't get it or the love the majority of the crowd had for them. The music in my opinion was dross to put it politely. Please try and make me get them.
I can certainly agree with Shitehouse Family.
Lightning Seeds. So limp, so lame. I actually shout at the radio before tuning out. The aural equivalent of a weak handshake.
I can certainly agree with Shitehouse Family.Lightning Seeds. So limp, so lame. I actually shout at the radio before tuning out. The aural equivalent of a weak handshake.
All that kind of stuff, I mean - what's the point of it?
My missus likes Belle & Sebastian, but they bore me to tears.