Good Popular Bands That Never Did It For You

Led Zeppelin - a bunch of studio musicians that cold barely come up with their own ideas. Oasis have nothing on this lot when it comes to borrowing ideas.

Queen - I understand the appeal, I understand why those songs are so big, it just doesn't do much for me. It's not unlistenable though, I just wouldn't choose to.


I would say the Stones, but I do really like about 5 or 6 tunes, but I think their body of work (even in their prime) is pretty mediocre if you consider they're meant to be one of the greats.

U2. Awful. Everything about them.
 
Crooked_rain said:
Led Zeppelin - a bunch of studio musicians that cold barely come up with their own ideas. Oasis have nothing on this lot when it comes to borrowing ideas.

Queen - I understand the appeal, I understand why those songs are so big, it just doesn't do much for me. It's not unlistenable though, I just wouldn't choose to.


I would say the Stones, but I do really like about 5 or 6 tunes, but I think their body of work (even in their prime) is pretty mediocre if you consider they're meant to be one of the greats.

U2. Awful. Everything about them.
Click to expand...
It's funny you should say that about Led Zeppelin. When I first listened to them, The Small Faces was screaming at me..with a large smattering of Kinks and Stones to boot.
 
Kiss - hated...

No!

Psyche!

I love Kiss - they get a really bad wrap for their unnecessary showmanship - but if you like hard rock and roll and can look beyond the commercialism - I think you'll like Kiss. Listen to, "Rock and Roll Over," if you think you dislike Kiss but have an open mind.
 
danielwood5 said:
The Beatles weren't even that talented, they were just the first pure 'pop' band. They just played watered down pop versions fpr the masses of what was popular a couple of years earlier i.e. started off playing rock'n'roll inspired by Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc moved on to 60s pop inspired by The Kinks, etc then had their psychedelic period a couple of years after all the real underground stuff was going on. The only thing they did was have better PR and more money than other bands so they could experiment more in the studio with better producers than others.

Meatloaf makes me want a bath in Dettol, overproduced, overly flamboyant tosh. Seemed like a nice guy though.

Metallica also make me unfathomably angry, probably for the same reason The Beatles do in that they're a watered down version for the masses of the real thing. Too much posturing and bullshit with them.

The other big name bands mentioned on here all come under the heading of things I dont like the genre of so not interested in any of it. The appeal of Red Hot Chilli Peppers and Foo Fighters baffles me though.

Morrissey is another one that gets on my tits, there are few people around more in desperate need of a pint and a blow job than that miserable racist prick.
Click to expand...
I can totally relate to all of that ;)
To me, the Beatles were a boyband, nothing more.
 
Anyone that thinks The Beatles were just a boyband doesn't understand a thing about music, composition, harmonic and melodic structure etc etc..

They were phenomenal writers. It's not hype.

Not enjoying them much is one thing, but they are not overrated

yes you can say things like the early Beatles were influenced by the likes of Buddy Holly and the rock n roll they grew up with, but those Beatles songs are so far ahead in terms of chord progressions and melodic and harmonic information compared to early rock n roll and it's I IV V progressions

There's a reason why pretty much any writers or composers of any genre have been singing their praises and massive influenced by their writing ability for over half a century.
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
Kiss - hated...

No!

Psyche!

I love Kiss - they get a really bad wrap for their unnecessary showmanship - but if you like hard rock and roll and can look beyond the commercialism - I think you'll like Kiss. Listen to, "Rock and Roll Over," if you think you dislike Kiss but have an open mind.
Click to expand...
I like a lot of 'rock' stuff from all the various genres that encompasses, however, I've never got the appeal of Kiss. I've heard quite a lot of them too as I used to work with a guy who loved them and we used to take turns playing albums through the day.
Having said that they were always a band I'd have gone to see live if I could have got cheap tickets as I reckon they'd put on a great show. I think the same about Status Quo too, not a fan of the music but I bet the shows were great.
 
danielwood5 said:
The Beatles weren't even that talented, they were just the first pure 'pop' band. They just played watered down pop versions fpr the masses of what was popular a couple of years earlier i.e. started off playing rock'n'roll inspired by Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc moved on to 60s pop inspired by The Kinks, etc then had their psychedelic period a couple of years after all the real underground stuff was going on. The only thing they did was have better PR and more money than other bands so they could experiment more in the studio with better producers than others.

Meatloaf makes me want a bath in Dettol, overproduced, overly flamboyant tosh. Seemed like a nice guy though.

Metallica also make me unfathomably angry, probably for the same reason The Beatles do in that they're a watered down version for the masses of the real thing. Too much posturing and bullshit with them.

The other big name bands mentioned on here all come under the heading of things I dont like the genre of so not interested in any of it. The appeal of Red Hot Chilli Peppers and Foo Fighters baffles me though.

Morrissey is another one that gets on my tits, there are few people around more in desperate need of a pint and a blow job than that miserable racist prick.
Click to expand...

The Kinks bit is a bit untrue. The kinks might be my favourite band but they were still very much in their rock n roll and rhythm and blues early phase by the time The Beatles were onto stuff like Rubber Soul. It wasn't really until 66 that The Kinks moved into their pop stuff with very British themed lyrics. The Beatles were already onto Revolver by then.

Let's not rewrite history here
 
Crooked_rain said:
Anyone that thinks The Beatles were just a boyband doesn't understand a thing about music, composition, harmonic and melodic structure etc etc..

They were phenomenal writers. It's not hype.

Not enjoying them much is one thing, but they are not overrated

yes you can say things like the early Beatles were influenced by the likes of Buddy Holly and the rock n roll they grew up with, but those Beatles songs are so far ahead in terms of chord progressions and melodic and harmonic information compared to early rock n roll and it's I IV V progressions

There's a reason why pretty much any writers or composers of any genre have been singing their praises and massive influenced by their writing ability for over half a century.
Click to expand...
The thread is about which bands didn’t do it for you, I don’t listen to the Beatles there was to many other bands around at the same time. The structure of a song is more a discussion on George Martin a musician, producer, and composer, who played on many Beatles records earning him the title of the fifth Beatles.

I can’t say I don’t listen to the Beatles without saying why, ? too many other bands with better songs IMO.
George Harrison solo wrote the best songs IMO. Noel Gallagher is a great songwriter that’s why I listen to Oasis. I don’t listen to a bands chord progressions? if the music speaks to my soul then that’s my basket.
 
Depeche Mode, find them really depressing.

Stevie Wonder, he irritates the life out me.

I Am Kloot, used to work with Andy Hargreaves the drummer, nice bloke. Really wanted to like them. John Bramwell's voice is awful, he doesn't sing he drones.
 
danielwood5 said:
The Beatles weren't even that talented, they were just the first pure 'pop' band. They just played watered down pop versions fpr the masses of what was popular a couple of years earlier i.e. started off playing rock'n'roll inspired by Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc moved on to 60s pop inspired by The Kinks, etc then had their psychedelic period a couple of years after all the real underground stuff was going on. The only thing they did was have better PR and more money than other bands so they could experiment more in the studio with better producers than others.

Meatloaf makes me want a bath in Dettol, overproduced, overly flamboyant tosh. Seemed like a nice guy though.

Metallica also make me unfathomably angry, probably for the same reason The Beatles do in that they're a watered down version for the masses of the real thing. Too much posturing and bullshit with them.

The other big name bands mentioned on here all come under the heading of things I dont like the genre of so not interested in any of it. The appeal of Red Hot Chilli Peppers and Foo Fighters baffles me though.

Morrissey is another one that gets on my tits, there are few people around more in desperate need of a pint and a blow job than that miserable racist prick.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on every word, apart from the Beatles
 
Crooked_rain said:
Anyone that thinks The Beatles were just a boyband doesn't understand a thing about music, composition, harmonic and melodic structure etc etc..

They were phenomenal writers. It's not hype.

Not enjoying them much is one thing, but they are not overrated

yes you can say things like the early Beatles were influenced by the likes of Buddy Holly and the rock n roll they grew up with, but those Beatles songs are so far ahead in terms of chord progressions and melodic and harmonic information compared to early rock n roll and it's I IV V progressions

There's a reason why pretty much any writers or composers of any genre have been singing their praises and massive influenced by their writing ability for over half a century.
Click to expand...
I agree with this - I never thought the music itself was worth the hype, and I’d only listen to a few songs, but in terms of what The Beatles did for music as a whole, I couldn’t put them down as a musician as they’re too influential.
 
Radiohead
Coldplay
Joy Division
Queen
Bruce Springsteen
Muse
Metallica
Primal Scream (Scremedelica aside)
Kinks (Great singles in 60s aside)
Bob Dylan (Apart from 3 albums in mid 60s)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top