Bands that music snobs think are crap, but really aren't that bad

Nearco said:
U2 made a couple of really good albums in the 80s but since then they`ve been just some bloated stadium rock band. No innovation, no soul.
Click to expand...

That is truly the words of someone who doen't no anything of what they are talking about.

They completely changed their sound in the 90's to the extent where it was almost unrecognisable as U2 music.

They moved from American style Blues rock, to experimental european dance based rock.

par example.
 
I've got a mate who is really into his music and he hates the Stereophonics and the Foo Fighters with a pasion. I quite like them. Both were good live as well.
 
I don't mind Coldplay so much, bar the two or three insufferably shite singles they've released, which then get overplayed to the point they take over your brain, and you end up going about your entire day with some crap Coldplay song you don't even like stuck in your head.

It's just that Chris Martin is such an annoying tit. I saw him do a cover of Live Forever by Oasis, and he fecking murdered it, on purpose, with his annoying whiney voice.
 
FortBoyard said:
That is truly the words of someone who doen't no anything of what they are talking about.

They completely changed their sound in the 90's to the extent where it was almost unrecognisable as U2 music.

They moved from American style Blues rock, to experimental european dance based rock.
Click to expand...

Just changing their sound doesn`t mean they were being innovative. European dance based Rock - yeah, that sounds reaaaaaaaalllllllyyy exciting.
 
What's this fecking fascination with a band changing their sound? Progression is one thing. But change for the sake of "Oh feck, we've recorded way too much of the same shite over the years" means dick all.
 
Nearco said:
Just changing their sound doesn`t mean they were being innovative. European dance based Rock - yeah, that sounds reaaaaaaaalllllllyyy exciting.
Click to expand...

:lol:

That sounded exactly like a typical music snob.
 
I also don't care if the frontman of the band is an annoying tit. As long as they play good music it shouldnt make a difference. Its not a personality contest.
 
Melbourne Red said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't know music snobs didn't like Queen? I haven't noticed anything like that, to be honest. Personally, I love them! And I can't remember anyone actually chastising me for it :nervous:
 
duffer said:
I've got a mate who is really into his music and he hates the Stereophonics and the Foo Fighters with a pasion. I quite like them. Both were good live as well.
Click to expand...

The stereophonics were the band I first thought of when I read the title.

I'd add the Ting Tings on too.
 
U2, REM, Sterophonics and Coldplay are all bands that had great promise when they first emerged and for a lot of years in the cases of REM and U2, but they are now all tired and boring.

U2 in particular are the greatest hype machine in the world, but behind it the songs they're coming out with now just aren't that good. They seem to be caught up in trying to stay young hip and relevant rather than just getting on with writing songs.

50 foot screens and Bono hopping round the stage like an embarrassing uncle is all well and good but the majority of their fans would prefer if the edge lost the beanie and multitude of effects and just got back to writing good tunes.
 
FortBoyard said:
That is truly the words of someone who doen't no anything of what they are talking about.

They completely changed their sound in the 90's to the extent where it was almost unrecognisable as U2 music.

They moved from American style Blues rock, to experimental european dance based rock.

par example.
Click to expand...


That doesn't mean it wasn't absolute tripe. That record was an abomination, even for U2.
 
kps88 said:
:lol:

That sounded exactly like a typical music snob.
Click to expand...

I probably am. But I have extensive taste and I can name dozens of bands that are more innovative and talented than U2 who get 0.1% of the attention or sales. It doesn`t bother me though, U2 are like Eastenders or Corrie - entertainment for the masses.
 
Elliott said:
Yeah. Screw those artistically-ever-growing, refuse-to-make-the-same-album-over-and-over, pretentious weirdos. It's evolution, baby.
Click to expand...

:confused: I didn't say that much, but it would be nice for them to deliver a hook now and again. At times I find they are the musical equivalent of a cock tease.
 
U2 have been making average quality music for around two decades now. Their first few albums were really very good. A few good singles since then, but overall a boring sound. It's not terrible music, but it's nothing to get me excited. I don't think the hype the media gives them helps. I'm told I'm supposed to like U2 all the time, to the point where I don't want to like them.

Coldplay are, to me, very much like James Blunt. They're weepy, lovely music that appeals to the masses. This puts a lot of people off. Difference between Coldplay and people like James Blunt however is that these guys are genuinly quite amazing at times. They've some fantastic tracks, and like it or not, they will go down as one of the greatest bands on this decade.

And I know a lot of people who don't like Queen. They're all too cool for school type twats. Every single one of them. And they're hypcritical twats and all. Any Queen song comes on in a bar/pub/club and they love it, just like everyone else does, it's just they're too drunk to remember they're meant to hate Queen.
 
I think i might be on Jcurrs side here, but when i hear bands like

foo fighters
coldplay
keane
nickleback
u2

etc

i think.... whats the point? Its music i could have written on the toilet, oh look a G C D chord progression, marvellous, oh wait here come the violins for extra bombast.

Do something fecking different!

i dont hate them, i just think "whats the big deal with these boys anyway"
 
I'm a big music fan and i've got alot of artists in my collection that people would call shit. But i don't care, feck them.

That's one of the great things about music it divides opinions (much like footy).
 
Eyepopper said:
U2, REM, Sterophonics and Coldplay are all bands that had great promise when they first emerged and for a lot of years in the cases of REM and U2, but they are now all tired and boring.

U2 in particular are the greatest hype machine in the world, but behind it the songs they're coming out with now just aren't that good. They seem to be caught up in trying to stay young hip and relevant rather than just getting on with writing songs.

50 foot screens and Bono hopping round the stage like an embarrassing uncle is all well and good but the majority of their fans would prefer if the edge lost the beanie and multitude of effects and just got back to writing good tunes.
Click to expand...

Quite harsh lumping REM in with the likes of those. Their first 6 or 8 albums were fantastic. Any band who sticks it out for as long as REM, U2 or the Stones will eventually become a joke. But REM was quality on their day.
 
JCurr said:
Any band who sticks it out for as long as REM, U2 or the Stones will eventually become a joke.
Click to expand...

True. Interestingly though I can name one artist who has released top class albums in the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s. I suppose it`s easier for solo acts to keep their integrity but it`s a mean feat nevertheless.

50 Rep points to the first person to name him/her?
 
Music snobbery rules.

feck listening to queen, james last, journey, stryper, damien dempsey, bon jovi or the clash.
 
JCurr said:
Quite harsh lumping REM in with the likes of those. Their first 6 or 8 albums were fantastic. Any band who sticks it out for as long as REM, U2 or the Stones will eventually become a joke. But REM was quality on their day.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I still enjoyed REM's recent music as much as I did back in the 90s. Maybe habit is a hard thing to change?
 
Nearco said:
True. Interestingly though I can name one artist who has released top class albums in the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s. I suppose it`s easier for solo acts to keep their integrity but it`s a mean feat nevertheless.

50 Rep points to the first person to name him/her?
Click to expand...

Robert Smith of The Cure(I could name more)

EDIT: Missed the solo act mention on the first read. You're referring to Tom Waits then.
 
JCurr said:
Robert Smith of The Cure(I could name more)

EDIT: Missed the solo act mention on the first read. You're referring to Tom Waits then.
Click to expand...

tbf I'm not sure Robert Smith has released a top class album in this decade. But yeah, I agree with Tom Waits.
 
Nearco said:
True. Interestingly though I can name one artist who has released top class albums in the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s. I suppose it`s easier for solo acts to keep their integrity but it`s a mean feat nevertheless.

50 Rep points to the first person to name him/her?
Click to expand...

Kate Bush. Winner.
 
Doogie said:
tbf I'm not sure Robert Smith has released a top class album in this decade. But yeah, I agree with Tom Waits.
Click to expand...

Have to disagree with that. How are either of the last three worse than Head in the Door or Pornography? And although technically Bloodflowers was released in the '90s(2000), it might well be his best album.
 
Decotron said:
Then again I forgot its cool to dislike them now
Click to expand...

True. Just like Coldplay.

You can't dismiss their great stuff merely because some other stuff isn't as good or repetitive or something.

Everything U2 did up to Joshua Tree was superb and even since then there have been albums of the same standard like Achtung Baby and nearly the same standard like All That You Can't Leave Behind.

Parachutes was a brilliant debut album even if their stuff since has been a bit too similar and overplayed.
 
Thing is all bands nomatter what their style, suffer the same fate and its easy to forget they are in the entertainment business not in the 'we're here to change the world business'

They all had a shed load of good songs as they grew up and poured them into their first two albums and then had to write to order which means they'll then struggle to - either write as good as or try to change direction to resell themselves, which is very difficult to do and the fans will feel they've been 'let down'

All bands will have some great tunes and then tail off.

We get so precious about it but if you respect that every musician has a chance and shines for a while then it at least creates a huge variety for us listeners / consumers to pick and choose

None of these bands are shit and some have given us great moments and even after 6/7 albums still surprise us with another great tune

I'm still shocked at the vehemence / hatred some of them get

No band can setup write fantastically and then continue with it for 20 years. You have to go through lesser creative periods

For me Coldplay Oasis U2 especially early on have, even amongst just those three bands given us a huge collection of great stuff

On a quality control basis I find it difficult to understand that Queen are anything less than heavyweights in the rock music world

(the only other point I'd make is please for fk sakes don't get JCurr joggin on about Radiohead or this thread will end up nailed to the dark room floor :D)
 
music is hard to quantify in terms as vague as good and bad.

Springsteen is not underrated by anyone with any musical sense.

Coldplay are safe and boring, like Coronation Street, has it's merits but it's not Godfather 2.

U2's early stuff is great, they were young men living in a developing city rife with uneomployment ... and their 'art' was vibrant, now they are millionaires with huge egos and influence and their 'art' is shit.


Queen are musically great but it was a band with four blokes with very little taste, they had the odd kitsch classic but too much of them in one sitting is horrific.

Oasis are a bit similar to U2, their first album is angry and is like young men venting ... the second album used up all their good melodies and now they have feck all to say that's worth listening to.

Bands are all so wonderfully different, some are a good buzz with little substance and have a great album in them, some take time to buzz of each other .... Exile on Main Street was the stones 7th album .
 
JCurr said:
Have to disagree with that. How are either of the last three worse than Head in the Door or Pornography? And although technically Bloodflowers was released in the '90s(2000), it might well be his best album.
Click to expand...
I thought Disentigration was released in 1990 (I would call that 90's) but it seems it was released in 1989 so yeah...probably not a top class album in the 90's then.
The last three albums have all been good but not top class imo with the self titled album being the best of those three.
 
sammymc said:
Music snobbery rules.

feck listening to queen, james last, journey, stryper, damien dempsey, bon jovi or the clash.
Click to expand...

Why The Clash? I'm a bit surprised by some of the bands being mentioned in here. Obviously the obligatory Oasis/Coldplay/U2 hate was to be expected from this sort of thread, but The Clash surprised me.

And it makes me laugh how a thread started to point out how snobs are wrong about certain bands has been taken over by nauseatingly pretentious posts about how 'you just can't take [insert overly popular band] seriously once you've been enlightened by Radiohead'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.