Bands with a big reputation that are (musically) shite

[Steel Icarus]

Nirvana. It's not that they were bad, I just don't understand how they were so huge. It seems to me in retrospect that it was more to do with Kurt Cobain personally than with the band's actual music - which is mainly repetitive two-chord garage rock with the lyrical content of a whiny thirteen-year-old. IMO it was Steve Albini's production that made Nevermind the monster it was, not Cobain's songs which were, on reflection, pretty shite.

OTOH their Unplugged set was brilliant - not for the songs, but again for KC's presence and intensity: the cover of Where Did You Sleep Last Night may be Nirvana's greatest moment.

Butch Vig produced Nevermind, Albini did In Utero

 

[Steel Icarus]

Tbf I was 20 when Nirvana broke big, I'd heard Bleach but only thought it ok, but seeing people react to hearing Teen Spirit for the first time was quite something. I don't listen to Nirvana very often but what they did they did very well, simple as it was.

 

[mojo pixy]

Butch Vig produced Nevermind, Albini did In Utero

Fair enough, that's right (so long ago......!) Still, it was the production what done it; Smells Like Teen Spirit could have been any song really, with that particular production at that particular time I think just about anything would have been a massive hit. eg Oasis took a leaf out of the Butch Vig book of mega compression for Definitely Maybe and look what happened there...

 

[krtek a houby]

Again late to the party with Steely Dan, but it all clicked around a decade ago.

 

[Steel Icarus]

I think that's a bit unfair, it's a hugely powerful song with a stunning vocal and massive drums. Of course the production makes it sound better, that's kinda what making a record is, isn't it? Lee Perry would sound shit on an acoustic

 

[seeformiles]

The vocal harmonies, the drumming, the bass lines-they were taking it all further. And this is mono.

 

[seeformiles]

Coasting here.

 

[Steel Icarus]

I'm not a fan of Dylan at all but I listened on a whim to Murder most foul recently and it was captivating.

 

[isvicthere?]

I think Jet Boy is their most famous

Or "Frankenstein".

 

[seeformiles]

Now we're going places and a place no in e should ever venture is fucken Foo Fighters.

Amen to that. Dull festival shite - they were ubiquitous at such events in the 90s and I found them boring each time I tried to give them another chance. I’m sure Dave Grohl’s a nice bloke and all that but his music….

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

He might have had a knack for surrounding himself with great musicians, but Captain Beefheart was just a tone deaf pub singer. His best tracks are the instrumentals that he's not actually on.

I have to disagree with you here. Trout Mask Replica is my all-time favourite album. When I get the chance, which is rarely, I love to play it loud in its entirety. That's not to say Beefheart didn't have his flaws, both as a person and a musician, but that TRM in particular is an artistic creation of the first water.

Everyone is entitled to disagree with the above, needless to say. "Surrounding yourself with great musicians " is also a knack in itself, and something not many can do. You also have to ask yourself why do all these great musicians congregate around a tone deaf pub singer, if that's all he was?

 

[mojo pixy]

I think that's a bit unfair, it's a hugely powerful song with a stunning vocal and massive drums. Of course the production makes it sound better, that's kinda what making a record is, isn't it? Lee Perry would sound shit on an acoustic

I think that would depend on who did the version and of what song I first encountered Nirvana at 17, i still have my copies of Blew and Bleach from those teenage days - but if I'd been asked at the time to name a lo-fi/grunge band that would become the biggest band in the world, I must admit I wouldn't have said Nirvana. Mudhoney maybe, Flaming Lips, sure. Soundgarden probably. But based on Bleach, much as I love that album, I wouldn't have guessed Nirvana.

(Edited for stupid typos)

 

[Steel Icarus]

Elbow, Travis, Coldplay, Starsailor. Ploddy shit.

Have a soft spot for Keane and Embrace though, they wrote good tunes even if musically not much happening.

Can't help but think a thread about bands being "musically shite" is missing a lot of the point of what music is and does to and for you

 

[Gromit]

Black Eyed Peas

Take away the studio magic of the modern mixing desk (playing live) and you’ll discover that they are actually quite rubbish.

 

[krtek a houby]

Elbow, Travis, Coldplay, Starsailor. Ploddy shit.

Have a soft spot for Keane and Embrace though, they wrote good tunes even if musically not much happening.

Can't help but think a thread about bands being "musically shite" is missing a lot of the point of what music is and does to and for you

It's a very subjective thread title, imho

 

[Knotted]

Nirvana. It's not that they were bad, I just don't understand how they were so huge. It seems to me in retrospect that it was more to do with Kurt Cobain personally than with the band's actual music - which is mainly repetitive two-chord garage rock with the lyrical content of a whiny thirteen-year-old. IMO it was Steve Albini's production that made Nevermind the monster it was, not Cobain's songs which were, on reflection, pretty shite.

OTOH their Unplugged set was brilliant - not for the songs, but again for KC's presence and intensity: the cover of Where Did You Sleep Last Night may be Nirvana's greatest moment.

I'm pretty much on the same page except two chord garage rock is a good thing. One chord garage rock is even better.

 

[mojo pixy]

Can't help but think a thread about bands being "musically shite" is missing a lot of the point of what music is and does to and for you

Plus The Doors are in no way 'musically shite' ... Krieger, Densmore and Manzarek were all extremely accomplished jazz musicians .. so it's a question of taste, sure. But objectively they could all play and write really well.

 

[seeformiles]

Plus The Doors are in no way 'musically shite' ... Krieger, Denmore and Manzarek were all extremely accomplished jazz musicians .. so it's a question of taste, sure. But objectively they could all play and write really well.

I still enjoy their music - JM’s 6th form poetry hasn’t aged so well though but Robbie Krieger’s tunes are still great

 

[mojo pixy]

I still enjoy their music - JM’s 6th form poetry hasn’t aged so well though but Robbie Krieger’s tunes are still great

I think Strange Days has a right to be on any list of Best 1960s Albums tbh

 

[krtek a houby]

I think Strange Days has a right to be on any list of Best 1960s Albums tbh

Soft Parade often unfairly maligned

 

[Humberto]

Thanks.

 

[SpookyFrank]

You also have to ask yourself why do all these great musicians congregate around a tone deaf pub singer, if that's all he was?

Because he was an abusive psycho who wouldn't let them leave?

 

[Spandex]

Elbow, Travis, Coldplay, Starsailor. Ploddy shit.

Have a soft spot for Keane and Embrace though, they wrote good tunes even if musically not much happening.

Can't help but think a thread about bands being "musically shite" is missing a lot of the point of what music is and does to and for you

Are you overlooking the bit in the title about 'Bands with a big reputation'?

Do Elbow, Travis or Starsailor have a big reputation? I thought their big reputation was as ploddy shit.

The thread starts with the New York Dolls. I can understand why in 2023 someone might look at their current cult status and the way they're talked about (by people who talk about them) - Punk originators! Massively influential! - then listen to the music and think wtf? But that misses their cultural influence while focusing on the music they left behind. They were a bit shit, and that was one of the influential things about them - I could do that! - and they were one of the only US glam rock bands. While you couldn't turn on TOTP in the early 70s without seeing hairy blokes from Birmingham with feather boas and eyeliner, the NYDs bought a US-style don't-give-a-fuck swagger that Slade or T-Rex didn't have. And that was the influence, what made people pay attention (not that they were particularly popular at the time - did they ever get in the charts?) more than their shambolic glam rock.

 

[kabbes]

I’m wondering if people knocking some of these songs have ever actually tried breaking them down, analysing their form and building them back up again? Gives you much more respect for what’s going on with some of them. There’s a lot more in Smells Like Teen Spirit than is being recognised in some of these posts. It’s really quite an elegant song with a haunting melody and some interesting chord modulations that create just the right sense of unease to fit the lyrics. And those lyrics are all about Gen X apathy, expecting to be consumers rather than active creators — “here we are now, entertain us”. I can understand people not liking it but I feel that insulting it in the grounds of non-musicality comes from a position of ignorance, frankly.

Here’s my version of it, which is in a completely different style, showing just how versatile it is as a song.

The Bilberries - Smells Like Teen Spirit

Folky versions of: Smells Like Teen Spirit One More Time Sit Down Sunshine on Leith

on.soundcloud.com

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Right, I don't mean bands that fall short in terms of musicianship, don't have complex song structures etc. Lots of genres are pretty basic but very effective, punk for example. Ditto the blues, lots of nuance in the delivery and lyrics, but a very basic chord pattern. This thread is also not about 'famous bands I just don't like'. I'm after groups/artists where the actual product is way behind their relevance/importance. Being of that age, I should really like the New York Dolls - 'important' in terms of the transition to punk, challenging gender stereotypes and all that. But in reality I struggle to listen to a full song, even their most famous. For example:


As always, things are subjective, but I doubt many people would think 'gee, that's fantastic' if they didn't know the band's wider significance etc. Suppose that's what I'm after: are there bands/artists who, if you just heard their music, you'd think 'hmm, that's boring/a bit rubbish'?

I used to think that to some degree, but after listening to the LP a fair amount I changed my mind. I don't super love it, but I definitely like it / them.

 

[The39thStep]

There are certain bands like The Doors where they were so overrated that they became underrated. I think it would be better if they were seen as an obscure band doing something curious with an strange singer and some nice little touches musically rather than this sort of iconic counter culture thing to be instantly knocked off its pedestal.

I think the issue is that certain acts generally get overlooked while other (arguably) inferior ones get all the attention. But that doesn't mean that the acts that get the attention are bad or somehow undeserving. I don't like trend setters, the music press. Are you getting sold short on the New York Dolls? You shouldn't be paying attention to the salesmen in the first place. Regard everything as niche and that way you don't need to worry about reputation.

Excellent first paragraph

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Because he was an abusive psycho who wouldn't let them leave?

You're confusing the mythology of Trout Mask Replica with the rest of Beefheart's career. You're also not answering the question, why did these musicians congregate around him in the first place if he was of no consequence?

 

[kabbes]

We’ve also had The Who and Dire Straits mentioned on this thread.

Well, The Who first. I could labour for 100 years and not produce something one iota as intelligent and accomplished as Baba O’Riley. And meanwhile, I Can See For Miles is so musically accomplished that the orchestral composer Neil Brand (edit: it was actually Cerys that included it: guests Brand and classical pianist Dinara Klinton merely added to the musical analysis and acclaim) included it as his choice in the Radio 4 programme “Add to Playlist” for the mad-clever way it iterates around a single note, entirely using chord modulation to produce the song. How’s that for musical? About 4 minutes in:

Add to Playlist - Series 2 - Dinara Klinton and Neil Brand continue the journey - BBC Sounds

Neil Brand and Dinara Klinton help choose the next five tracks for the playlist.

www.bbc.co.uk

Then there’s Dire Straits. On that score, I can tell you that we’ve been trying to translate Tunnel of Love for a month. That song is a masterclass in evolving a theme, using contrapuntal techniques to emerge a painting of the theme that constantly changes and is never quite grasped until its epic finale. Musically, it reminds me of Gershwin. Again, you might not like it but don’t tell me that it’s not “musical”.

 

[The39thStep]

Would the Undertones first album have been played nightly in its entirety for ages by John Peel if they'd had a less distinctive singer than Feargal?

I like the album but can't decide if it was all that much better than a lot of other stuff that was around at the time. It definitely broke no new ground instrumentally.

Good singles band though, same as XTC in that respect

 

[ska invita]

90 indie and grunge is a funny one, there are a few bands from that era I genuinely love and yet sooo many of their peer bands that do literally zero for me, and I find basically unlistenable.

Such a fine line for me. I wish I did like more of them, like on paper Sonic Youth should appeal to me but nada. I can't think of any other music era that feels so polarised.

What makes people like one musical thing and not another is an interesting phenomenon.