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

Melbourne Red said:
Mainstream exposure is something that happens to bands that

a)are marketable

b)make albums that with enough songs that follow the 3 minute, verse-chorus-verse formula that radio stations favour, and are accessible and uncomplicated enough for mass consumption

It is not something a band graduates to, or receives as a reward for artistic merit. Any line of thinking that assumes that it is, is misguided.
Click to expand...

Isnt quality music marketable? Are most mainstream artists just more appealing to the public or just more interesting as people/individuals? What makes a band marketable? To it just sounds like an excuse for a lack of success.

Why do you say 'uncomplicated'? Is main strreeam music uncomplicated? When it comes to hard rock, is there a non mainstream band with better and deeper music that dwarfs something like Led Zeppelin and 'stairway etc' for its depth? I just dont buy that. People recommmend a lot of things that apparently didnt make it to your television screens but i've never heard a Zeppelin, or a Beatles, or a Maiden or a U2 or a Rolling Stones whilst doing so.

I'm genuinely trying to understand.v:angel:
 
amolbhatia100 said:
Why do you say 'uncomplicated'? Is main strreeam music uncomplicated? When it comes to hard rock, is there a non mainstream band with better and deeper music that dwarfs something like Led Zeppelin and 'stairway etc' for its depth?l
Click to expand...

Zep were never mainstream.

The most emotional band i`ve ever heard were Godspeed You! Black Emperor. I can be in tears listening to some of their work. They could never have been popular though - twenty minute instumental tracks don`t really cut it in the real world.
 
Nearco said:
Zep were never mainstream.

The most emotional band i`ve ever heard were Godspeed You! Black Emperor. I can be in tears listening to some of their work. They could never have been popular though - twenty minute instumental tracks don`t really cut it in the real world.
Click to expand...

Led Zeppelin are absolutely huge. Everyone who listens to rock n roll loves them. Isnt the point of being mainstream NOT being known to every tom, dick and harry?

So are there non mainstream bands better than Zeppelin, Metallica, The Beatles, The doors, The stones, U2, Maiden, Queen etc etc? I'm highly doubtful. Exclude bands you personaly dislike from the before list (you get the gyst of the kind im talking about) and include those which arent purely instrumental.
 
AdZzUtd said:
Cobain can't play the guitar half as good as some people like to believe, Circus. That was the only point I was trying to make earlier. Infact I seem to remember Rolling Stone placing Cobain higher on a top 100 'great guitarist' than Mark Knopfler. Now thats a very serious and quite frankly delusional over-estimation of Cobains playing. He could play, hell he could play well, is he even in the running in one of the best ever? Nope.

One of the best lead men ever? Maybe, yes.
Click to expand...

They had him as the 12th best guitarist ever. It was a fairly shocking list in several places, with some quality guitarists left out. The Edge was also ahead of Mark Knopfler, along with Johnny Ramone, Frusciante and Jack White :smirk:. Here it is for anyone who wants a look:
http://blogcritics.org/music/article/the-top-100-guitarists-according-to/
 
amolbhatia100 said:
So are there non mainstream bands better than Zeppelin, Metallica, The Beatles, The doors, The stones, U2, Maiden, Queen etc etc?
Click to expand...

Zep never released a single. That was pretty non-mainstream in those days.

Obviously no one can touch the Stones and the Beatles from that period. But i'd sooner listen to the Velvet Underground or The Stooges than the Doors.

Neurosis have a far better overall body of work than Metallica. Bands like Husker Du, Sonic Youth, Misfits, Minutemen are better than U2.

Maiden? They were the kings of mainstream 80s metal i`ll concede.

Duane Allman>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Brian May.

Props to the RollingStone. Guy was a genius. RIP
 
To say Led Zeppelin weren't mainstream is ridiculous. In those days pop music included rock & roll. And most of pop music was reputable and alot of it was very good. What is pop or mainstream these days has absolutely nothing with a band from the 50's, 60's or early 70's.
 
Nearco said:
Zep were never mainstream.

The most emotional band i`ve ever heard were Godspeed You! Black Emperor. I can be in tears listening to some of their work. They could never have been popular though - twenty minute instumental tracks don`t really cut it in the real world.
Click to expand...

Potentially very cinematic though - surprised that no art house directors have used GSYBE tracks in their soundtracks, I suppose it's because editing the tracks would be defeating the point.
 
I don't care if Led Zeppelin, Metallica and Iron Maiden may be regarded as mainstream, I fecking love them and would do whether they were considered popular or not.

It does annoy me when music snobs stop liking a band just because they become popular. Yes, there are a lot of bands that are excellent that not many people have heard of, but did they ever stop to consider that the reason the band they used to like became popular was maybe because they were so good? A hell of a lot of 'underground' or whatever bands are absolute shit which is the main reason they're not all that popular!
 
Spammy said:
Potentially very cinematic though - surprised that no art house directors have used GSYBE tracks in their soundtracks, I suppose it's because editing the tracks would be defeating the point.
Click to expand...

I was reading on Wiki about how Danny Boyle filmed 28 Days Later with GY!BE in his head as the soundtrack in the same way that he used Underworld for Trainspotting. I only watched that film to see how they'd use East Hastings and it doesn`t work because of the reason you said. The hairs on my forearms stood up when that first note hit though.
 
As for the original post, I'm not a fan of Coldplay and U2 simply because I'm not really into that kind of music - although I would never call them 'shit' so to say, because their songs are well made etc.

Oasis are alright. Again, not entirely my thing, but their first 2 albums were classics, and I could still listen to them now and like it - I'm ok with admitting that. :)

Queen I thought most 'music snobs' liked? Not my favourite band in the world but I do like some of their songs and even though I do think they're a tad overrated, they're still a good band. Nothing on the Beatles though of course.
 
MrsGiggs said:
It does annoy me when music snobs stop liking a band just because they become popular.
Click to expand...

Zep and Maiden never lost fans because of popularity. Metallica did, but they turned into obnoxious money obsessed cnuts the moment Cliff died so feck em. I bet that Guitar Hero advert has him spinning in his grave.
 
Coldplay are all very samey.

Oasis weren't up to much after the first two albums barring about three songs

U2 and Queen are both great rock bands.
Mercury was probably the best rock frontman of them all with a voice that nobody dare copy for fear of sounding shite. As for U2, Pride, Sunday Bloody Sunday, New Year's Day, With or Without You, The Fly, One, etc., all classic tracks. Bono's political posturing has probably cost them "cool points" down the years though.
 
Jopub said:
Oh ........... I just thought you might be able to substantiate your views of why Kurt Cobain was a 'great' guitarist. That you might be able to point to many things about his purely 'guitaristic' abilities that make him a 'great'

I think he's excellent in his own idiosyncratic way as singer/songwriters generally are but I personally could'nt lable him as a 'great' on the instrument

I do like some of Cobain's stuff and Clapton's too so I have no particular 'axe' :) to grind but maybe I'm missing the components that make a musician 'great' on his / her chosen instrument.

Again if I am blind to this you could perhaps illustrate a few pointers
Click to expand...

If you're using the term idiosyncratic to describe the way you appreciate or view music the quality of Cobain or the like, I can't help you.

Cobain was a fine guitarist. No, he wasn't Hendrix or May. But rock music has only ever had one Jimi Hendrix and one Brian May. Saying Kurt Cobain wasn't fantastic at his instrument is the same as discounting Keith Richards as a guitarist. But the fact that Richards worried more with filling out songs to prop up melodies doesn't make him inferior to say Tom Verlaine, although the music would seem to say so. Their respective sounds are just simply different, Television being a much more polished, instrument driven machine than the Stones. Could Cobain or Richards have pulled something of the like off? We'll never know. But technical proficiency means nothing if the sound doesn't deliver. And as such, people chatter about over Clapton as one of rock's guitar gods. But Clapton's whiny licks were never really suited for rock & roll. No emotion whatsoever. One of the boring guitarists of all time. Should've been playing in jazz lounges until the awkward love pop of the 80's came along. So in the end, you're comparing apples and oranges. To compare Cobain or Richards or even Verlaine to Clapton is pointless as you might as well be comparing them to every other pointless jazz guitarist with no capacity for or understanding of melody. And as it's about melody and emotion in the end, ideas must count for something.
 
Nearco said:
I was reading on Wiki about how Danny Boyle filmed 28 Days Later with GY!BE in his head as the soundtrack in the same way that he used Underworld for Trainspotting. I only watched that film to see how they'd use East Hastings and it doesn`t work because of the reason you said. The hairs on my forearms stood up when that first note hit though.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I hate Boyle and don't want him anywhere near any of Godspeed's stuff. I remember watching the film in the cinema without knowing that they'd used any Godspeed songs so when it came on I went a bit chicken oriental, mainly because I didn't think many people had heard of them.
 
I thought music snobs thought they were awesome because they can listen to the complete Coldplay discography without falling asleep.
 
Christofaux said:
I thought music snobs thought they were awesome because they can listen to the complete Coldplay discography without falling asleep.
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm also surprised that none of them have brought up their hatred for Radiohead.
 
RooneyDevil8 said:
Not got much to say, just cannot turn down the chance to have another pop at Coldplay.
Click to expand...

Soulless shite, the sort of music liked by people who don't like music. Brought because it makes their Hi Fi sound good, that's all.
 
nickm said:
The Edge is not a great guitarist, FFS. I am with Bill Bailey on that one.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying he was, I was using him as an example of how their attempt at listing the best guitarists was a bit shit.
 
JCurr said:
To say Led Zeppelin weren't mainstream is ridiculous. In those days pop music included rock & roll. And most of pop music was reputable and alot of it was very good. What is pop or mainstream these days has absolutely nothing with a band from the 50's, 60's or early 70's.
Click to expand...

No, you're wrong.

Zep were not mainstream until IV
 
No, you're wrong feck. They toured the US before even releasing I which was hugely successful in the States mind. And II was at the top of the fecking charts immediately upon release. Congratulations.
 
So basically snobbery = preferring non-mainstream bands and the whole circle of wanks that go with knowing "hidden gems".
 
Ridiculous list really. How can you have Buddy Guy, Lou Reed, Pete Townshend and Les Paul on the same list? And FFS, Brian May isn't even in the top 50.
 
UnitedRoadRed said:
So basically snobbery = preferring non-mainstream bands and the whole circle of wanks that go with knowing "hidden gems".
Click to expand...

No. Realising that most of the bands at the top of the charts and receiving awards are average if not shit. I mean, Kings of Leon best international band? Give me a fecking break.
 
Ah, right. It's Verlaine that's not in the top 50. Either way, ridiculous.
 
Nearco said:
No. Realising that most of the bands at the top of the charts and receiving awards are average if not shit. I mean, Kings of Leon best international band? Give me a fecking break.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have called Kings average or shit after their first 2 albums. Its only the 4th that's really been dull, it's just that it also happens to be their most widely successful, which says a lot about the charts and awards.
 
Along the same lines as Modest Mouse putting out their worst record to date which is the only one the charts have even acknowledged.
 
peterstorey said:
That's another piece of execrable shite right up there with Bohemian rhapsody.
Click to expand...

Says you. They're magnificent, legendary songs. They dont make them like that anymore.

UnitedRoadRed said:
Coldplay are all very samey.

Oasis weren't up to much after the first two albums barring about three songs

U2 and Queen are both great rock bands.
Mercury was probably the best rock frontman of them all with a voice that nobody dare copy for fear of sounding shite. As for U2, Pride, Sunday Bloody Sunday, New Year's Day, With or Without You, The Fly, One, etc., all classic tracks. Bono's political posturing has probably cost them "cool points" down the years though.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. Coldplay for me are a good band but their lack of variety and their 'safety' is their downfall. Chris Martin is really what both makes them and breaks them. He does their type of music well but he doesnt have the voice for much else.

MrsGiggs said:
I don't care if Led Zeppelin, Metallica and Iron Maiden may be regarded as mainstream, I fecking love them and would do whether they were considered popular or not.

It does annoy me when music snobs stop liking a band just because they become popular. Yes, there are a lot of bands that are excellent that not many people have heard of, but did they ever stop to consider that the reason the band they used to like became popular was maybe because they were so good? A hell of a lot of 'underground' or whatever bands are absolute shit which is the main reason they're not all that popular!
Click to expand...

Agree with this too. I think the whole point of this thread is 'bias'. When you begin to look at things other than the music and judge the music on the basis of that.

I'm yet to give other suggestions a really good listen but the little i have tells me that this non mainstream stuff is something that really doesnt appeal to me much and i can see why it doesnt get the same recognition.

Also, i think Radiohead are very overrated, especially here. Apart from the odd song here and there, never understood the fuss about them.
 
U2 are musically brilliant.

The Edge's influence is huge among bands lead guitarists around today e.g. Coldplay, Kings of Leon, Killers.

People who say they don't like U2 because Bono is a nob aren't music snobs, they are music ignoramouses.

I think Paul McCartney is a nob but the Beatles, well, untouchable really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.