[Closed] Bands who wouldn't be famous if they weren't already famous

The Killers

BoardinBob

The Killers

+9000

Perversely, I like the recent Killers stuff and think the early stuff is really average

Sorry? So a band becomes 'famous' for writing decent music, then the output declines so they are not worthy of being 'famous'.

That question could be levelled at almost any band ever - I think the more pertinent question would be 'which bands have improved the quality of their music with every release?'

IHN -
[b]Perversely, I like the Killers stuff[/b]

You got that right.

It has to be U2, utter pants since ...............god knows when.

Now its all oversized sun spex and saving the rain forests, pants I say ! (mini rant)

mastiles_fanylion I think the more pertinent question would be 'which bands have improved the quality of their music with every release?'

Clutch. Tool.

[i]So a band becomes 'famous' for writing decent music, then the output declines so they are not worthy of being 'famous'.[/i]

Yes, that is exactly the question. Some bands maintain the quality of their output, give or take, throughout their careers. Some, few, continously improve. Others, probably rightly, achieve enormous fame through quality output but then just churn out sheer averageness that is lapped up by the press/fans simply because it was produced by that band, rather than because of it's intrinsic quality. U2 are a case in point.

Rock stars should make 3/4 amazing albums and then die in a pool of their own vomit at 34 with large amounts of highly addictive drugs spread around, at least eight "gas cookers" in attendance and the last unpublished first song of the never to be published 5th album on top of a piano ..............oh and a 1976 rolls royce bobbing in the swiming pool.

Pop stars today have not got a clue...............

I agree with Monty.

Didn't Robbie Williams once claim he had a dream that saw him going out that way? He wishes.

williams as a child, bring back

[img] ?v=0[/img]

I don't know much about U2 - they've always been a bit meh in my book but I actually liked one of their new tracks played on last night's Zane Lowe show - seem to have gone in a bit of a post-rock direction (I was a bit drunk however, so my critical faculties weren't set to maximum).

How about the Rolling Stones?

Oasis (but skipped the being-good-in-the-first-place part)
Elton John

Has Beck not tried to sue U2 over their new song yet? If not, he should do.

Nickelback (ducks for liking early stuff)

How did Nickelback ever become famous in the first place with their sub-Nirvana derivitive pointless crap?

U2, Coldplay and the Kaiser Chuffs

Always have been, and always will be utter utter arse.
i realise i dont have to listen to them, and i can happily ignore most crap music.
but those three bands offend me by thier existance, and i would be positivley happier if they didnt exist

Again, I'll raise my head above the parapet and say that I like Coldplay.

Kaiser Chiefs are, as someone on here so brilliantly put it, simply 'landfill indie'.

juliet and the licks are pretty poor

lilly allen is only out there coz her dads famous and shes ****in awful

keanu reeves and russle crowe also have cr@p bands crowes is particularly ****

Radiohead wouldn't make it big if any of their recent albums were their first releases. Nothing to do with the quality of their current work, but if it wasn't for the broader appeal of early stuff like Creep and songs from The Bends they'd probably be an obscure band with a fanatical following rather than a band that can do big open air concerts.

Would the Foo Fighters be famous at all if it wasn't for Nirvana?

I only ask as I can't recall a single one of their tunes.

wings

Wings were quality. Lot of musical content in there.

Cold play. But I'm not sure how they go famous in the first place.

The singer married a celebrity or something

rolling stones cant even do decent covers of their own music and last decent album was decades ago.

Yeah, but that's just cos they're old. Stones can be forgiven for that on the ground that they were one of the best bands ever.

Radiohead wouldn't make it big if any of their recent albums were their first releases. Nothing to do with the quality of their current work, but if it wasn't for the broader appeal of early stuff like Creep and songs from The Bends they'd probably be an obscure band with a fanatical following rather than a band that can do big open air concerts.

I dunno.

Every album's improved on the last but it's fair to say that the more recent stuff will have alienated a lot of fans expecting a re-hash of Creep.

And Kid A and Amnesiac were bizarrely the albums that really got them noticed in the US. OK Computer only reached 21 in the US charts whereas Kid A went straight into number 1 over there and Amnesiac, although it didn't reach number one, outsold Kid A in it's first week on sale.

In Rainbows is on near constant repeat on my iPod at the moment 8)

rolling stones cant even do decent covers of their own music

:confused:

Saw them in concert a couple of years ago and they were flawless!

I was only thinking the same thing about an hour ago when they had a trailer for U2 day on Radio 1. Can't think of a single song that I like. Remember though, as Steve Martin once said, talking about music is like dancing about architecture

LOL i've been reading stories about u2's demise since about 1989! I think they should keep going until the grave just to irritate the u2 haters out there like you lot!!

I do think the riff off the new song is the same as vertigo mind!

Another vote for U2 and Coldplay. And how about Eric Clapton? I am a devoted fan but he is still playing/recording and recent stuff is just lift music.

Joke (I think this was from Luis whatsit the talent show judge)
Q - what's the difference between God and Bono
A - God doesn't walk down Merrion St thinking he's Bono

Bob Dylan

Yep, Coldplay. Pants.

How bad were they on the Brits (& every other time I've heard them live)

I think Coldplay wish they were Elbow at the moment. One Day Like This is better than Coldplay's entire catalogue. I am somewhat biased, mind. The Foos? The Nirvana connection helped to start with, but they're an infinitely better band, with songs that actually have melody lines and aren't just repetetive dirges. Tori Amos did a stunning version of ...Teen Spirit, and was slagged off by the fans. Curt Cobain dead? Never mind. I love the Foos, great rock songs that work just as an acoustic solo as well.

Metallica?

+9001 for Upoo

And who appointed Bono as spokesperson for a generation?

We like bands when they are young and full of energy, angst and white lightning 🙂 Once they get a bit older and have been successful, the youthful exuberance is gone, and that my internet friends is what Rock is all about 🙂

In no particular order.

U2. War was a good album. Thats been about it.

Radiohead, utter, utter shash!

Arctic Monkeys, Kooks, Keane etc.

Perversely I quite like the first couple of Coldplay albums. Pulpy music has its place X&Y and the new one are crap though. Propbably more to do with the time rather than admiring the music.

I think Beck is getting better with age, but then the albums are all so different, thats the trick I reckon.

Queens of the Stone Age have been knocking out good albums for the last 10 years or so. Foo Fighters peaked at one by one.

Soundgarden quit at the right time.

Surprisingly, the latest Rush album is remarkably good...

Oh, and Bono is a ****er. I'm sure Paul is a decent enough bloke.

Conks

Oasis definitely, the last two albums have been trash

And radiohead

Bon Jovi. I never could say I was a fan of their music, but I did and still do like the song dead or alive, but having had the displeasure of hearing some of their latest offerings i am absolutely amazed people still pay to watch them.

Muse are one of the few bands that are still making good album after good album.

Ooooh, I made myself forget about Oasis.

I feel a bit dirty now

Big up to Elbow, Not a bad album yet, and seem to be a decent bunch of blokes, Guy Garveys 6 music show is good.

Conks

Radiohead, utter, utter shash!

I could sort of see where you're coming from with some of your suggestions, but that dear fellow is bollox. One of the most influential bands of the nineties are utter utter shash??? So The Bends and OK Computer, albums which get into the all time top ten in Q Magazine year after year are shash? Two mould breaking, era defining records are shash? Maybe in your esteemed opinion...to which you have a right, but maybe you're just not getting it.

Their later stuff, I admit was a bit up the bum but each album was always an attempt to move on, push boundaries rather than resting on the laurels of those two fantastic albums. And on all of those albums, there are two or three stand-out tracks. Many of your likes had already made their minds up about In Rainbows even before it was released. It's actually by far and away their best offering since Ok Computer.

So, I don't really like Bowie, I've never been gone on the Beatles (actually thought the Kinks were better but that's another thread) but then I read interviews of bands I really like and they all say they were influenced by some artists I don't like...Bowie, Beatles, Stones. But to say that any of those are shash would just be ridiculous.

Would the Foo Fighters be famous at all if it wasn't for Nirvana?

I only ask as I can't recall a single one of their tunes.

Burn the heretic!

The Foo Fighters are famous for being far more than just the band that the drummer from Nirvana started though if you don't 'get' them there is little point in trying to convince you otherwise.

[url=

]'Learn To Fly'[/url] is probably one of their most famous songs, though I guess primarily because of the video.

85,000 in Hyde Park the other year certainly shows their fame isn't something based purely on past deeds.

Offspring, Greenday, RHCP's, Foo Fighters all died creatively or sold out along the way.