The three themes that recurr in all such instances are a) one or more members of the band being dislikable in their public persona b) the band being lauded as belonging to the rock n roll pantheon when in actual fact their music is decent without being exceptional while paling in comparision to the greats c) their fans being influenced by the phenomon described in point b and having hugely inflated opinions about the band's worth.
In all cases you usually have one side who can't stand the band and an opposing side who love the band and can't fathom anyone thinking otherwise. This is often due to Side A being made up of elitist music snobs who worship Velvet Underground and whom, in addition to hating the band due to the reasons described above, also have a tendancy to assume that anyone who belongs to Side B isn't well informed about the classics or non-mainstream music to know better.
Anyway, without further ado
1) Coldplay- The only thing more tedious than the legion of twats who think Coldplay are our generation's answer to Led Zeppelin is the legion of twats who respond to the first legion of twats by overemphasising how crap they are. While they may be formulaic and over-polished, they also have great arrangements and make perfectly good pop-rock ballads.
If you want examples of polished mainstream bands that are truly awful, see the likes of Nickelback and Keane. Coldplay are a definite cut above.
2) Oasis- 15 years ago the British musical press were lauding them as the modern successors to the Beatles. Of course, they were wrong. Oasis are nothing more than a decent pop-rock act who get a lot of milage out of the three chord/big chorus formula. The problems start when people start pretending they're anything more, or for that matter, anything less. Their lyrics are horrible but their first two albums had some great tunes, while the B sides album had gems like 'The Masterplan'. Their subsequent albums have been fairly average but all have had one or two songs that were worth singing along to. All in all, a decent band, and anyone claims they're anything more, or less, is over-reaching
3) U2- Right up there with Coldplay when it comes to inspiring legions of twats to dub them genius, or awful. To be honest I find them less listenable than Coldplay or Oasis, but the Joshua Tree album was ok and listening to their best of compilation is something I can do without too many complaints.
4) Queen- Yes, that's right, I like them. Freddie Mercury had a phenomonal voice and there's rarely been a better band for drunken singalongs. Think what you want twats, I'm comfortable in my sexuality/musical taste.
The first three bands also include members such as Chris Martin, the Gallaghers and Bono, which don't help in terms of point a.
In all cases you usually have one side who can't stand the band and an opposing side who love the band and can't fathom anyone thinking otherwise. This is often due to Side A being made up of elitist music snobs who worship Velvet Underground and whom, in addition to hating the band due to the reasons described above, also have a tendancy to assume that anyone who belongs to Side B isn't well informed about the classics or non-mainstream music to know better.
Anyway, without further ado
1) Coldplay- The only thing more tedious than the legion of twats who think Coldplay are our generation's answer to Led Zeppelin is the legion of twats who respond to the first legion of twats by overemphasising how crap they are. While they may be formulaic and over-polished, they also have great arrangements and make perfectly good pop-rock ballads.
If you want examples of polished mainstream bands that are truly awful, see the likes of Nickelback and Keane. Coldplay are a definite cut above.
2) Oasis- 15 years ago the British musical press were lauding them as the modern successors to the Beatles. Of course, they were wrong. Oasis are nothing more than a decent pop-rock act who get a lot of milage out of the three chord/big chorus formula. The problems start when people start pretending they're anything more, or for that matter, anything less. Their lyrics are horrible but their first two albums had some great tunes, while the B sides album had gems like 'The Masterplan'. Their subsequent albums have been fairly average but all have had one or two songs that were worth singing along to. All in all, a decent band, and anyone claims they're anything more, or less, is over-reaching
3) U2- Right up there with Coldplay when it comes to inspiring legions of twats to dub them genius, or awful. To be honest I find them less listenable than Coldplay or Oasis, but the Joshua Tree album was ok and listening to their best of compilation is something I can do without too many complaints.
4) Queen- Yes, that's right, I like them. Freddie Mercury had a phenomonal voice and there's rarely been a better band for drunken singalongs. Think what you want twats, I'm comfortable in my sexuality/musical taste.
The first three bands also include members such as Chris Martin, the Gallaghers and Bono, which don't help in terms of point a.