Why Do You Dislike The Bands That You Dislike?

Hmmm.... I can't think of many bands with no songs.What the hell do you mean?

Most of the time I end up loathing a song/band mainly because they get so heavily overplayed. Thanks to Clear Channe alll I hear on the radio is Creed,Lynard Skynard,Pink Floyd, Puddle of Mudd, Nickelback, AC/DC's Black Album and ZZ Top.


Oh, I do like AC/DC but I'll take Dirty Deeds and Raor's Edge over the Black Album anyday.

Come on, let's admit it: we've all started to turn against a band once they started getting big and garnering fans who didn't "get" them. Take Tool, for instance. On mainstream radio stations and on television they're typically lumped in with bands like Limp Bizkit and Korn, both of which have absolutely nothing to do with what drives Tool (not that I know, but lachrymology anyone? Rennes-le-Chateau?), and it frustrates me to be associated with people who put Maynard and Fred Durst on equal footing. The same thing has happened to me recently with Glassjaw being written up in the NY Times in an article that called punk rock "the new pastime of energetic teens" (excuse the paraphrase). I know it's snobby, but it's a pretty knee-jerk reaction when the scene/feeling you had about a band is completely changed by the pop-culture music industry.

In response to ticktocks "i'm not sure why I don't like metal". I don't like most metal because it seems more like masturbation with intruments then artistic expression. That and most of the lyrics are completely nonsensicle. What the hell does it mean to be "MASTER OF DEATH!!!" anyway? It's like a bunch of people just angry not at anything in particular that are for the most part unable to articulate anything relevent to well... anything. Oh yeah, then there is there "look what I can do" moment solos every few minutes. I do like some bands that could be considered Metal, but for the most part, if I'm not in the mood to laugh at it's sheer absurdity, I steer clear of the metal.

Edited because I got myself all worked up.

[Edited on Aug 12, 2003 by handle]

[Edited on Aug 12, 2003 by handle]

i hate bands that
1. are obviously and consciously derivative, or
2. seem to care more about their haircuts and getting chicks than making music.

unfortunately, almost every band falls into one of these two categories.

A sense of humor is pretty important. Humorless bands get very little latitude with me....

1. Heart is the biggest factor, so many fakes out there fakin it for fake fans and phony famem bullshit!

2. I am sorry, but a band has to be talented to some degree, i am very into punk and all, but you have to be able to play

3. they are the dave matthews band, these guys seem genuine and boy can they play, but damn do they suck-diddly-uck

oh and to the 2 folks who sound like my momma talkin smack on the metal tip, you don't get it, i feel sorry for you, really i do...

I hate boring bands like the Rolling Stones.
Nothing but commercials for themselves.
BOORING!

And I hate bands that ape someone else and act like they just made it up, like the Strokes. WORRA BUNCHA FREAKING FRAUDS!

And I hate anything that's been shoved down my throat, like the Beatles. Yes, true, I hate the Beatles. I've never voluntaily listened to a Beatles song. Ever. And I hate 'em. And I double hate, with a captial HEY, Neil Young.

Also, I love to hate things.

I also hate baseball caps,.

hold on cowboy... just put the breaks on here. you should really try and re-evaluate a few of your "hate" selections. rock and roll in general probably wouldn't stand where it does today if you removed any of the above that you have mentioned! jesus... your also Canadian - don't fuck around with mr. young.

just because they started it all, doesn't mean you have to like them

me, I only like the beatles later stuff

I hate bands that rattle on forever and sound the same song after song after song...
I saw Mars Volta open for Red Hot Chili Peppers and it was one of the most painful experiences of my life. I swear their set was one fucking song that went on for 30 minutes.

Creed is another example. I loved "My Own Prison", like the second album but now everything is a gawd damned ballad!

Please God, make the new A Perfect Circle album not suck. We need some solid music from and for unstable people!

Damn straight. My basic qualifier for whether I hate a band is: are they obviously Beatles-lovers? With rare exceptions (like maybe the Ramones?), I loathe any music tainted by the Beatles' influence.
Two down, two to go!

Ohhh how "rebellious" of you. "I hate the Beatles and everyone influenced by them." This satirical stance was slightly respectable and clever in 1976 when a man named John Lydon stated this (simply for shock and frustration value I might add). I guess I can respect if you don't appreciate their music, but you have to be pretty damned ignorant to think that you hate all the bands influenced by them. Do you only listen to Classical and pre 1960' country? Hey I thought the whole "I hate the Beatles" thing was relevent when I was 15 and all patched up with spikes and a mohawk and only listened to the fastest, hardest, most uncreative, self dirivitive form of music on the planet. At your age is just makes you look simple and unlearned.

edited to say I'm responding primarily to Hack's comment.

[Edited on Aug 18, 2003 by handle]

ticktock said:
souljacker said:
Here's my list of shit I don't like:

- NO SONGS In whatever the particular style is, I want actual songs I can hang my hat on and the catchier the better.


Hmmm.... I can't think of many bands with no songs.What the hell do you mean?

--He probably means bands without any particular, perceivable structure behind their music... bands like Joan of Arc or maybe Whirlwind Heat...

and then mydogfarted said:

I hate bands that rattle on forever and sound the same song after song after song...
I saw Mars Volta open for Red Hot Chili Peppers and it was one of the most painful experiences of my life. I swear their set was one fucking song that went on for 30 minutes.

--ok, it's cool if you hate Mars Volta and all, but you can't be implying that the Red Hot Chili Peppers seriously diversify between songs...

There is a huge spectrum of music out there NOT based on the pop of the 1960's and 70's. To imply that Beatles-influenced music comprises the majority of music available is _very_ ignorant. Sure, the mass-media commercial indie rock crap on the radio is all Beatles-influenced, but what about music from non-European cultures? What about JAZZ, for chrissake? In spite of the pervasiveness of the Beatles, I find plenty of amazing music to listen to that mercifully spares me their trite bubblegum jingles. Perhaps by the time you are my age you will have expanded your musical horizons a little bit.

There's only one reason that I ever dislike anything artistic: intention. I don't care WHAT musicians are putting out, because everyone has different tastes, but what matters to me is WHY.

This is why I don't like pop music, it's intention is purely to generate income, particularly from kids who really don't need another reason to feel insecure (i.e.: Britney Spears and her incredibly sexy repulsiveness).

Apply this and see what happens: everytime you hear a song don't assess what it sounds like but why it sounds that way.

Tatu is a great example of this. When I first heard about them I was intrigued, a couple of teenaged Russian lesbians who aren't afraid to flaunt it in everyone's face - sounded great to me. When I heard them, however, I became suspicious; they evinced that all-too-familiar pop tendency to sing about entirely different topics with a similar sound and tone (you know what I mean - everything Rob Zombie does sounds like everything else Rob Zombie does, while Tori Amos' songs about happiness and rape SOUND like, respectively, happiness and rape). A little research revieled why this was: their agent created the image, he was going for "the preteen porno" effect - actual quote - and the girls, who auditioned for the parts, weren't a couple beforehand and in fact both have boyfriends. Listen close enough and you can HEAR this...

So that's my take on it. Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.

handle said:
"I hate the Beatles and everyone influenced by them."
I'm responding primarily to Hack's comment.

I only said I hated the Beatles and why. (I love the Monkees.)

handle said:
Do you only listen to Classical and pre 1960' country?

What's it to ya?

But seriously folks, would there be a Buzzcocks without a Beatles? A Clash without a Beatles. Probably not. So, for that much I'm thankful. However, growing up in the eighties when every hasbeen hippie fucker in creation was playing the Beatles or the -gack- Big Chill soundrtrack, ILEARNED TO HATE.

I haven't unlearned yet. But I ain't trying too hard.

That guys lyrics are SUCH A FUCKING JOKE! Seriously, I mean, those are some of the some the most bluntly obvious, unpoetic, corny, cliche, utterly subtexless, psuedo-angnst ridden, skilless, shallow and callow balls of assholery I've ever heard.

As for the band-those guys riffs and chops are ALSO A FUCKING JOKE. Take a bunch guitar licks Jerry Cantrel and Stone Grossard already articulated better than you 10 years ago, and water them down even worse with boring pop song structures, Pixies/Replacements rip-off volume/distortion shifts, "soaring" (read:I-IV-V/purely triad driven) guitar lines that make their choruses sound more ectasy ridden than some Trance and Breaks tracks, and then over produce it because the band can't actually play together to save their lives, let alone their souls...and-voila!-isntant rock stardom! Sid Vicious and Elvis are spinning around in their graves....


*their music is almost as bad as my typing!*




[Edited on Aug 25, 2003 by deBreard]

Did I mention Creed sucks?