Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Bands with a big reputation that are (musically) shite

Good singles band though, same as XTC in that respect
I'd never taken that much notice of XTC until I got offered a spare ticket for them at the Manchester Apollo in about 1980. I was pleasantly surprised.

Far from sold out as well, despite their chart success. I remember they called all of us dotted around the cheaper seats towards the back down to the front and it became a standing gig. For once the Apollo bouncers didn't seem to feel the need to punch you back into your seat.
 
Now we're going places and a place no in e should ever venture is fucken Foo Fighters.
Not actually shit in a musical sense, but bland. Exactly the thing I was thinking about on this thread, there's lads of hype and then you get an album and there's nothing memorable there at all.
 
Syd Barrett solo. People used to say to me 'So bad it's brilliant,' and so on, but I was never convinced.
 
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?

I blame Frank Zappa. He sent a lot of musicians Beefheart's way and helped create the mythology of him, even down to inventing the name 'Captain Beefheart'.

Considering Zappa had such a strong understanding of music and thought himself a composer above all else, I don't quite get why he had so much time for Van Vliet, a non-musician who could only write songs by telling other people to do it for him. He 'composed' Trout Mask Replica by just bashing a piano at random and then getting John French to turn it into actual music.

I don't like Zappa's music, but at least Zappa would know what music was if it fell on him from a great height.
 
Zappa is one of those people I think it'd be far more fun to have dinner with than listen to their music, like Lemmy, Ozzy, Rollins

I think I can live without listening to Henry Rollins talk for three hours about how much tofu he has to eat to get his neck that wide.

His music is like repeatedly hitting your head on a garage door, but not even hard enough for it to hurt.
 
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 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.

TBF, that's intentionally what I'm doing (taking away the cultural importance/significance/reputation). In a sense, just saying 'is the music itself any good' is a false question, because all artists are part of something, though often that is 'something' prepackaged by their label/musical genres. But maybe it's more and more of a question as music is consumed individually via phones etc. Experiencing the Foo Fighters as part of a festival crowd is definitely different to hearing them through ear buds on your own.

Anyway, if there are any under 50s on this thread, we'll be happy to hear your thoughts on the modern Hit Parade. :thumbs:
 
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:


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”.
Dire Straits are almost the opposite of what I was thinking about for this thread. I'm not really a fan but you can see the song writing skills and certainly the guitar work. They've got some great songs, alongside a lot of bland stuff. But I find Knopfler quite irritating and they developed a reputation in the 80s of being the band people claimed to like who didn't know much about music.
 
Could never stand CBH when hearing him as a student. THat track where he's just talking surreal shit but you can hear the clunk of the tape machine stopping between each bit of nonsense. Fuck off... Zapper too. Obviously all very tallented musicians but too much twiddle, too many notes, not enough tune. AGree re Fu Fighters too. Never felt the need to listen to them since 95.

AN obvious choice if by big we mean U75. Sleeford Mods. They're kinda musically and lirically crap. But that's OK. Not everything has to be musically complex layered and acomplished singing.
 
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.

Four chords and a zeitgeist, it's not the first or last time that combination will make a career. But great writing I disagree .. as someone who's written dozens of songs and learned/performed hundreds that are not my own .. I think Kurt Cobain wrote better songs, and there are better songs on Nevermind.
 
Dire Straits are almost the opposite of what I was thinking about for this thread. I'm not really a fan but you can see the song writing skills and certainly the guitar work. They've got some great songs, alongside a lot of bland stuff. But I find Knopfler quite irritating and they developed a reputation in the 80s of being the band people claimed to like who didn't know much about music.
The Man United of rock...
 
I think I can live without listening to Henry Rollins talk for three hours about how much tofu he has to eat to get his neck that wide.

His music is like repeatedly hitting your head on a garage door, but not even hard enough for it to hurt.
I was thinking, for genuinely sacrilegous opinions, anyone want to have a go at knocking Black Flag? They certainly had their moments, but I think there's a lot of other early hardcore LPs I'd probably rate above Damaged. And then the whole "let's do something radically new and different and alienate our audience" thing was great and laudable in principle, but then a lot of the music that came out of that was just slow boring heavy metal?
TBF, that's intentionally what I'm doing (taking away the cultural importance/significance/reputation). In a sense, just saying 'is the music itself any good' is a false question, because all artists are part of something, though often that is 'something' prepackaged by their label/musical genres. But maybe it's more and more of a question as music is consumed individually via phones etc. Experiencing the Foo Fighters as part of a festival crowd is definitely different to hearing them through ear buds on your own.

Anyway, if there are any under 50s on this thread, we'll be happy to hear your thoughts on the modern Hit Parade. :thumbs:
That Frank Ocean can fuck right off for a start, not sure I ever saw the point of Drake either. I think one of my big contrarian opinions about contemporary music is that it feels like both Tyler the Creator and Lana Del Rey have got more and more critically lauded as their careers go on, but in both cases it's the early stuff (that's often quite lyrically horrible in both cases) that works for me, and they both seem to have got musically blander as they've grown up and become more sensible and less objectionable.
Other than that, I suppose my dislike of Future Islands is probably slightly too niche to qualify for this thread, but there was a moment in the mid-2010s when it felt like you couldn't move without hearing the dull fuckers.
Anyone want to do Idles next? Oh, and I've still not listened to enough Mitski to decide if I think she's over-rated or if she actually is as good as everyone says she is.
 
Anyone want to do Idles next?
Ooh, tricky. Their 'reputation' is a bit mixed for me, kind of on the side of the angels, though I'm pretty much on team Sleaford Mods in their spat. First thing I heard was Queens and no sensible person can disagree with burying royals in a forest - and the bass line is easy enough even for me to play. Okay musically v a bit annoying.
 
As mentioned elsewhere, Bruce Springsteen - interesting as an idea, the whole voice of the defeated US bluecollar working class facing down Reagan and the dawn of neoliberalism thing is great, happy to read about him, some of his songs sound good when other people cover them, that fella off his band was great in the Sopranos, but to actually listen to his actual music? Nah.
 
As mentioned elsewhere, Bruce Springsteen - interesting as an idea, the whole voice of the defeated US bluecollar working class facing down Reagan and the dawn of neoliberalism thing is great, happy to read about him, some of his songs sound good when other people cover them, that fella off his band was great in the Sopranos, but to actually listen to his actual music? Nah.
I think with him 3/4 of it's dull but the other 1/4 is brilliant.
 
As mentioned elsewhere, Bruce Springsteen - interesting as an idea, the whole voice of the defeated US bluecollar working class facing down Reagan and the dawn of neoliberalism thing is great, happy to read about him, some of his songs sound good when other people cover them, that fella off his band was great in the Sopranos, but to actually listen to his actual music? Nah.
Nope , although later stuff is patchy, some suffering from 1980s production and others just weary or too familiar Thunder Road and Darkness of the Edge of Town all showcase and revive an eclectic mix of American music styles.
 
As mentioned elsewhere, Bruce Springsteen - interesting as an idea, the whole voice of the defeated US bluecollar working class facing down Reagan and the dawn of neoliberalism thing is great, happy to read about him, some of his songs sound good when other people cover them, that fella off his band was great in the Sopranos, but to actually listen to his actual music? Nah.
Born To Run is an extraordinary album, replete with some of the best musicians of the era. Jungleland, the last song on the album, is a tour de force of epic blues rock, with so much going on. However, the album as a whole is a varied and crafted work of music as storytelling. Again, you don’t have to like it but to say it is somehow “not musical” is preposterous.
 
Nearly all of blur’s output is plodding. I find nothing in it that jumps with ‘ what have just heard?’

I’m not musical in the slightest so I’m probably way off.
 
I was thinking, for genuinely sacrilegous opinions, anyone want to have a go at knocking Black Flag? They certainly had their moments, but I think there's a lot of other early hardcore LPs I'd probably rate above Damaged. And then the whole "let's do something radically new and different and alienate our audience" thing was great and laudable in principle, but then a lot of the music that came out of that was just slow boring heavy metal?
I think with a lot of punk/hardcore we get into territory where lyrics and some notion of lets say political integrity become equally important as a band's actual music in why they're popular. Also the role of a good band name / logo combo for t-shirts cannot be overstated.
 
I think I can live without listening to Henry Rollins talk for three hours about how much tofu he has to eat to get his neck that wide.

His music is like repeatedly hitting your head on a garage door, but not even hard enough for it to hurt.
"Low Self Opinion" is a banger though. Otherwise I agree.
 
Back
Top Bottom