The Bands You Like Suck.

Ben · Post by **Ben** » Wed Jul 31, 2002 4:08 pm

I'm probably not going to make many friends in this thread, but then again, I was unlikely to make many friends in any other threads either, so no big loss.

The time has come to inform you of the fact that the bands that you like, and that you think are totally brilliant, actually suck. What follows is my top (something -- we'll see when it's done) list of bands which are popular and that lots of people love, and that are secretly lame, and suck ass.

(Note: My only exposure to these bands is what gets played on the radio, and before you tell me, "Well, you gotta hear the stuff they don't play," here's a little rule of thumb: If whatever they play on the radio sucks, then the band always sucks. No band has ever had nothing but bad stuff on the radio and has actually been any good.)

So, here we go:

#1. REM -- Everybody, and I mean, EVERYBODY I know loves REM, and probably everybody else in the entire world. Here's a little secret, though, and I'm sorry I have to be the one to tell you: They suck. How many whiny, sing-songy, wishy-washy, faux-integrity, droning, wimpy, poorly-sung songs in a row can they come out with? Dude can't sing, and that music is a perfect substitute for a shotgun to the head in terms of effectiveness in putting one to sleep. Man. They suck. And so do you, for liking them.

#2. The Ramones -- I forgot about this one until the Desert Island thread brought it up. Why is everyone afraid to say that this is a band without musical talent? How did "not being able to sing or play instruments" magically become "brilliant and culturally significant"? You wanna be sedated? How about listening to your own music, you (dead) losers.

#3. The Doors -- Here's a little secret, which you might not have picked up on, but I'm a musical genius, so I feel confident in spilling the beans to you about this right now: The Doors only played two notes in their entire career. Every single song is the same two notes. "riders ON THE storm" "mo jo RII sin'" "won't you TELL ME YOUR name". "got myself a BEEeerr" TWO FUCKING NOTES. Sung poorly, and played even worse. "No, man, it was about the ATMOSPHERE." Well, good, because it certainly wasn't about the music.

#4. U2 -- See "REM".

#5. Creed -- Well, I bet nobody here likes Creed, but if you were able to measure the amount of annoyance that one of those Carl's Jr. commercials engenders in the viewer, then multiple it by 100, that's about as annoying as that dude's voice is. "Worst Voice Ever." - Comic Book Shop Guy

#6. Nirvana -- Hey, that's great. Learn how to play an instrument and get back to me, would ya?

#7. Smashing Pumpkins -- What? I swear, I just don't get it. Every one of my friend(s) has come up to me at some point and said, "DUDE, you GOTTA hear this song, they are SO BRILLIANT", and without fail, the song blows, and just reiterates to me how overrated these people are (were? what?)

#8. Limp Bizkit/Kid Rock/Korn/All other rap-metal white boys -- No, no, no. Wrong. You do not understand anything. You suck. You blow. Off my case, toilet-face.

#9. A bunch of others that I can't remember right now. They all suck. The bands you like suck.

Glad I could help.

loafergirl · Post by **loafergirl** » Wed Jul 31, 2002 7:05 pm

To each there own opinion, but if you are basing that opinion purely on the #1 singles, I can suggest numerable other good songs by REM to listen to, such as Gravity's Pull, which most REM fans I know hate, but I personally find rather kick ass.
It's also very easy to not take your coments to heart if I think of the Primus perspective on bands sucking.

-LG

Eric · Post by **Eric** » Wed Jul 31, 2002 8:29 pm

Ah but talking about music in terms of how many notes and whether someone can sing is like saying Van Gogh sucked because he couldn't draw a straight line. Totally irrelevant. Lots of people can draw straight lines but they're not Van Gogh. Plenty of guys can play tons of notes but can't make music.

Eric

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Wed Jul 31, 2002 9:25 pm

Ben wrote: #1. REM
#2. The Ramones
#3. The Doors
#4. U2
#5. Creed
#6. Nirvana
#7. Smashing Pumpkins
#8. Limp Bizkit/Kid Rock/Korn/All other rap-metal white boys

Phew. Well, I guess I got off scot-free. (Though I do own RamonesMania, The Doors: Greatest Hits and Nevermind.)

#9. A bunch of others that I can't remember right now. They all suck. The bands you like suck.

DAMMIT, I'm OFF SCOT-FREE NO MORE.

(Annnnnnnnd I swear I didn't pick URT because no-one had heard of them. Go to www.urt.net (presuming they are still there). You can download most of their songs. )

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Wed Jul 31, 2002 9:27 pm

Also: Jesus Christ, Pinback, all that coming from the Rage Against The Machine Guy? And you chastise the Doors for playing just two notes??!

THERE'LL BE NO SHELTER HEAAAAH AWWW THE FRONT LINE IS EVERY WHEEEEAAAAH

I count 1 ("one") note. A singular note. A single -- count 'em -- note. Where Jean-Luc Picard would state, after listening to the Battle of Los Angeles, "THERE. IS. ONE. NOTE!"

Ben · Post by **Ben** » Wed Jul 31, 2002 9:52 pm

Rage play(ed) five notes. The pentatonic scale. The very foundation of rock and roll. And they play(ed) the five notes very very loud, and very very well.

And, okay, let's say singing and being able to play an instrument well don't make one a decent musician. Well, you know what does? Playing with a little soul. Van Gogh had soul.

That's "soul", not "pretense". So many bands seem to confuse the two. (I'm looking at you here, REM/U2!)

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 1:44 am

I don't like U2 either, but I'll throw this out there: isn't the height of pretention being, in fact, a multi-millionaire while screaming about "the Machine"?

That may seem like a "softball" question. And perhaps it is. But, still, one that a Rage fan probably gets all the time, so if that is the case you at least get to reduce me to a quivering pile of non-man with your answer.

(I'd also say that I don't know if REM is pretentious -- Michael Stipe, maybe (OK, definitely) but I don't know that the other three members of that band are particularly objectionable.)

Eric · Post by **Eric** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 7:48 am

Fighting over music. Great stuff.

I've always been involved in different kinds of art, but a few years ago I did some running and I found runners as a group a lot more pleasant than artists. And I think partly it was because, with running, you know where you stand. The clock doesn't lie. If you take ten minutes longer to get to the finish than the winner it is pretty hard to maintain any pretense so people just have to go out and enjoy whatever they can do for what it is or find something else to do. A guy I knew dragged me down to Writers and Books in Rochester -- open readings -- that was something else. There were all these poets who were pretty clearly back of the pack but they sure had champion egos on them. With art sometimes it seems egos are in inverse proportion to talent.

But, here's the rub, who is to say? There's no clock in art, no rules. So that's both good and bad. Art is subjective. It is a person trying to make some kind of connection with other people, evoke some sort of response, emotional, intellectual whatever. Really, there's no telling why exactly connections are made or not between artists and audience. But when the connection is made, or not, we want to talk about it -- explain it -- and all of us, I think, tend to fall into talking about what we are able to talk about -- rules sorts of stuff - which has little or nothing to do with why the art worked for us or didn't, but hey, it is something to talk about.

We talk about art as if it were a game, but it isn't, because not everyone agrees on the rules. So maybe in figure skating you get more points for a triple axel than a double but for music who's to say you get more points for more notes? Critics formulate rules for art as if there were objective measuring sticks but you can't measure that weird connection between artist and audience. Scientists measure real things, critics, however much they try to disguise it are only dealing in opinions.

Mind you, this isn't an attack on Ben, but more an observation. I'm always looking for reasons why what I like is worthy and what I don't isn't. And probably, the stuff we talk about, lack of complexity or singing ability for example, does help explain why a piece of music doesn't work for us personally. To be fair, Jim Morrison agreed with Ben. He was reluctant to front the Doors because he reckoned he couldn't sing well enough. My own favorite group is the Kinks and Ray Davies has a terrible voice, but he can do a brilliant job of vocal "acting" when he wants. I guess you can go to any community theatre production and find folks who can sing better, technically, according to a music teacher, than half the rock stars out there.

Anyway, what's both cool and madening about discusions of art is that there's never gonna be an ANSWER.

Eric

Ben · Post by **Ben** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 12:21 pm

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:I don't like U2 either, but I'll throw this out there: isn't the height of pretention being, in fact, a multi-millionaire while screaming about "the Machine"?

Well, if you wanna get technical about it, only two of the members were really all that into politics, and they excused the above "contradiction" by explaining that in order to fight the machine, you have to use it to get the word out. That's not a wholly satisfying answer, but that misses the entire point. I was not referring to the various pretension of the band members, as I don't particularly care about any various flaws of the artists themselves (hey, I listen to Eminem, remember?) but rather the pretension of the music. You know, music that just exudes "this song is so important, and I am so passionate about it, and my feelings, and puppy dogs and ice cream". I ain't buying it. It's just a friggin' song, you uppity, self-important douchebags!

One thing you can't say about Rage is that their music was pretentious. It was the exact opposite. Raw, vitriolic, uncompromising, furious; like one giant synapse firing in your ears.

Ben · Post by **Ben** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 12:30 pm

I've always been involved in different kinds of art, but a few years ago I did some running and I found runners as a group a lot more pleasant than artists.

Scrotal rash is more pleasant than artists (and only slightly less annoying than golfers!)

But, here's the rub, who is to say?

Me.

there's no telling why exactly connections are made or not between artists and audience.

Oh, I agree, and believe me, I harbor no sense of ill will against any artist, regardless of what I think of their work, and irregardless of their intentions behind it. I think the finest thing a human being can do is try to bring some sense of beauty to the world through art.

No, it's the audience I hate.

Mind you, this isn't an attack on Ben

Jesus Christ, what the hell does a guy have to do around here to get attacked? HEY!! YOU ARE UGLY!! MELTBEAST DID SIT ON SOME HAM!!!

Jim Morrison agreed with Ben.

We were like this.

Anyway, what's both cool and madening about discusions of art is that there's never gonna be an ANSWER.

How about this:

The bands you like suck.

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 12:45 pm

That's not really an answer, as much as it is just random abuse heaped towards the first individual you could hit "reply" to, though, right?

Eric · Post by **Eric** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 12:47 pm

Well hell, I've always heard people had a need for love and now you're telling me some people have a need for hate! Sounds like some kinda comic book super villain psychology to me.

Eric

Who asks what's so funny bout peace love and understanding?

But doesn't expect an answer.

Angroid · Post by **Angroid** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 12:51 pm

I AM THE ANGROID!!! GRRRRRR!!!!

GUESS WHAT I HATE:

1. THE DELECTABLE ORGASMIC SENSATION OF INTENSE HATRED!

2. THE VISION OF MY ENEMIES' BLOODIED (AND DEAD) HEADS LYING BEFORE ME IN A LARGE PILE!!

3. YOU.

IF YOU GUESSED "3", THEN YOU ARE AS SMART AS YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE CRUSHED UNDER MY LARGE, METALLIC FOOT!! GRRRRRR!!!

-- ANGROID --

(NOT AFFILIATED WITH GAYBOT)

Eric · Post by **Eric** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 1:42 pm

Wow. Angroid thinks I'm smart. I can't tell you what a warm cozy feeling that gives me.

Eric

msherwin · Post by **msherwin** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 1:48 pm

Not an attack on you Ben or anything (plus my attention span is three lines of text), but this topic reminds of when people used to tell me the music I listen to sucks.
If you don't like bands like Rem/U2 Doors etc.. you can't turn around as say you like Rage Against the Machine. Rage is on the radio and want to make money blahblahblah so they are forced to make songs that fit in to 3 and 4-minute slots just like everyone else.
Now true, every good song is somebody whining about something. If your not whining about something then you get songs like "Shiny Happy People" or annoying crap like "Hootie and his Blowfish"
Usually when someone talks about how everything on the Radio sucks they try and tell you about some band that only "they" know about. It usually has a name like Cumrag,Dog Feces for Dinner,Angry Postal Workers or Teenage Acne. The best part is when this ultra-cool underground collection of hippies gets a hit record like Butthole Surfers did a couple years back, which just blows the mind of the asshole who told you all of your favorite bands suck. But by the time this obscure band has "made it" Mr. Music Snob is now listening to Middle Eastern Sitar rock and trading in his Che Guerva shirt for Dead Afghan Babies gear.

BTW Ben, how my favorite band Radiohead didn't make your list stuns me. I love this band and most of their material to death but I would still like to smack their pasty pretentious British asses back to Liverpool or wherever the fuck they're from.

Angroid (& Ben!) · Post by **Angroid (& Ben!)** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 2:58 pm

Hello, msherwin. Are you related to Robb? RRRRrrrr!! YEAH WHAT IS THE DEAL!?!??!

msherwin wrote:Not an attack on you Ben or anything (plus my attention span is three lines of text), but this topic reminds of when people used to tell me the music I listen to sucks.

GEE, I WONDER WHY THEY USED TO TELL YOU THAT. MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE THE BANDS YOU LIKE SUCK!! Rrrrrr!!

Well, I would have been a little nicer about it than that, but I gotta go with my cybernetic friend on that one.

> turn around as say you like Rage Against the Machine.

Of course I can. I don't understand your point. I AM GOING TO CRACK YOUR SKULL LIKE A "3-D" DORITO!!!

Rage is on the radio and want to make money blahblahblah so they are forced to make songs that fit in to 3 and 4-minute slots just like everyone else.

My dislike of U2/REM/etc is not the length of the songs or that they are played on the radio. It's the music that is bad (and that I hate). WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND ADVANCED CALCULUS?? I AM NOT GOING TO BEAT THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS OUT OF ADVANCED CALCULUS!!!

get songs like "Shiny Happy People" or annoying crap like "Hootie and his Blowfish"

The words don't bother me. It's the sound. It's the lack of anything interesting musically going on. Playing three chords over and over again at steady 4/4 for album upon album upon album is boring enough, but when the singer gets that little "whine" in his voice, all bets are off. OOPS, I HATE YOU AGAIN!! RRrrrrrr!!

Usually when someone talks about how everything on the Radio sucks

I didn't say everything on the radio sucks. Perhaps you need to review this thread to get a clearer SENSE OF WHAT HE SAID, BUT PERHAPS YOUR SKULL IS TOO EMPTY TO UNDERSTAND!! HEY I KNOW, I WILL FILL IT WITH MY NICKEL-PLATED FIST!!

BTW Ben, how my favorite band Radiohead didn't make your list stuns me.

I wouldn't know a Radiohead song if someone jammed it up my butt. THAT CAN BE ARRANGED, SMART GUY!!!

If it makes you feel better, though, I'm nearly certain that they suck.

Karma Police · Post by **Karma Police** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 3:02 pm

Arrest this man, he talks in maths!

He buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio!

loafergirl · Post by **loafergirl** » Fri Aug 02, 2002 12:24 am

Ben wrote:Rage play(ed) five notes. The pentatonic scale. The very foundation of rock and roll. And they play(ed) the five notes very very loud, and very very well.

And, okay, let's say singing and being able to play an instrument well don't make one a decent musician. Well, you know what does? Playing with a little soul. Van Gogh had soul.

That's "soul", not "pretense". So many bands seem to confuse the two. (I'm looking at you here, REM/U2!)

Erm, there's soul in REM, not all REM, but many REM songs, Country Feedback being a prime example, or in U2s case try Bad, RATM is a lot of "ooo I'm an angstful rebel who can yell", that is not to say they haven't created some good music, but I'm not feeling the soul you are speaking of. And if you want to talk about bands who adress issues what about REM? Ignoreland, World Leader Pretend, or even removing REM from the subject what about Midnight Oil, a lesser known band that has kick ass music all of it politically oriented, and they played in front of Exxon long before Rage played in front of Wall Street. Or getting into Living Color with Cult of Personality or Letter to a Landlord. I like a lot of music for a lot of different reasons, listen to your crap, I'll listen to mine.

-LG

loafergirl · Post by **loafergirl** » Fri Aug 02, 2002 12:55 am

Ben wrote:Well, if you wanna get technical about it, only two of the members were really all that into politics, and they excused the above "contradiction" by explaining that in order to fight the machine, you have to use it to get the word out. That's not a wholly satisfying answer, but that misses the entire point. I was not referring to the various pretension of the band members, as I don't particularly care about any various flaws of the artists themselves (hey, I listen to Eminem, remember?) but rather the pretension of the music. You know, music that just exudes "this song is so important, and I am so passionate about it, and my feelings, and puppy dogs and ice cream". I ain't buying it. It's just a friggin' song, you uppity, self-important douchebags!

One thing you can't say about Rage is that their music was pretentious. It was the exact opposite. Raw, vitriolic, uncompromising, furious; like one giant synapse firing in your ears.

Uh, you've never been to or watched a live REM concert or read an article about them in your life have you? Their name was picked after having locked theselves in a room with lots of beer and a dictionary. Their remake of King of The Road they say they should be shot for for having made a mockery of it on Dead Letter Office. They forgot the words to It's The End of The World As We Know It... for MTV unplugged admitted they pulled them from a random person on the internet. Self important my ass. Yes, they have done work for charitable orginizations, but not ONCE have I ever seen them use it for publicity, and never have I heard them say that they are all important. They enjoy what they do, and when Bill Berry didn't enjoy it anymore, they said, "okay man, do what you need to". Nor have I seen them follow the collective bullshit, when other bands that have been around as long as them have been clinging to what they have trying to milk a couple more years out of it, they're still playing around with new ideas and doing what they want to.
Jesus, if you're going to pull shit out of your ass, at least research it.

-LG

msherwin · Post by **msherwin** » Fri Aug 02, 2002 9:20 am

Ben doesn't like REM because Michael Stipe is a big flaming queer.

The Bands You Like Suck.

The Bands You Like Suck.

Re: The Bands You Like Suck.