Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Bands with a big reputation that are (musically) shite

Sleaford mods

I've finally caved in on them. Loads of people assumed they were right up my street for some reason, which put me off in a contrary way, but I've started to concede that they do have some good sounds and matey is brilliantly scathing sometimes. That said, there's only so many times you can listen to some bastad fooking ranting about fooking coonts over and fooking over. Ya coont.
 
Low hanging fruit but Mumford and Sons. Having grown up in a religious household listening to shite Christian rock I finally managed to break out of that as a teenager only to find out that these stupid posh tweed bastards had influenced most radio pop to sound just like the shite Christian rock I had escaped.
 
Meatloaf. Never liked him. Girlfriend at the time was a massive fan so took her along to see him. She dragged me out inside half an hour, he was shite.
Took same girl to see Elvis Costello. He appeared to play all his tracks at 90 mph like he didn't want to be there and couldn't wait to get out of there.
Didn't really take to Meatloaf at first but mellowed over the years, especially after RPS and Fight Club. Always liked EC. Imagine if they had recorded together!
 
Meatloaf. Never liked him. Girlfriend at the time was a massive fan so took her along to see him. She dragged me out inside half an hour, he was shite.
Took same girl to see Elvis Costello. He appeared to play all his tracks at 90 mph like he didn't want to be there and couldn't wait to get out of there.
That's a shame. I saw Elvis Costello several times between the late 70s and early 80s. He was excellent, either with band or on his own.
 
Bollocks to all the musical snobs.
Personally I like anything that is done with commitment from whatever band or singer in whatever genre provided the music is, well musical I suppose.
I like those who can play their instruments well and who can deliver live.
Everybody’s personal favourites is theirs and good for them if they have some, and also bollocks to people who go on about what they like in order to appear cool in some way.
Sometimes a bit of music captures a moment in some way and has meaning because of that, music generally is wonderful, but amazingly I once met an art teacher who ‘didn’t like music (wtf?)’ , and ‘couldn’t see the point of it’. That is weird to me.
 
Bollocks to all the musical snobs.
Personally I like anything that is done with commitment from whatever band or singer in whatever genre provided the music is, well musical I suppose.
I like those who can play their instruments well and who can deliver live.
Everybody’s personal favourites is theirs and good for them if they have some, and also bollocks to people who go on about what they like in order to appear cool in some way.

Jingle bollocks all the way 🎙️
 
The Ramones had a germ of a fruitful idea of stripping rock and roll back to the bare minimum. But they didn't rock. Just a really bad rock band when it comes down to it. Even when they play fast it sounds slow and cumbersome. The idea of punk rock distilled but without the energy. Too cool for melodies, rhythms or any variation. But was being cool actually good? Does anybody actually listen to them still?
 
There are certain singer/band leaders who get a bunch of musicians of varying talent and experience together and with a certain artistic and musical vision make them do something organic, visceral and unique. I'm thinking Frank Zappa, Don Van Vliet, Mark E Smith, Peter Hammil and even Jim Morrison.

This is why my ire is directed at David Bowie, Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton. The first two might be great songwriters, the third a great guitarist but if you put them in charge of some brilliant people and they will somehow sound lifeless, even amateurish. Bowie and Dylan were at their best with no backing bands. Clapton was at his best when he was being lead by someone else like John Mayall or Jack Bruce.

One of the harder things to quantity or appreciate. Getting the best out of other musicians.
 
There are certain singer/band leaders who get a bunch of musicians of varying talent and experience together and with a certain artistic and musical vision make them do something organic, visceral and unique. I'm thinking Frank Zappa, Don Van Vliet, Mark E Smith, Peter Hammil and even Jim Morrison.

This is why my ire is directed at David Bowie, Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton. The first two might be great songwriters, the third a great guitarist but if you put them in charge of some brilliant people and they will somehow sound lifeless, even amateurish. Bowie and Dylan were at their best with no backing bands. Clapton was at his best when he was being lead by someone else like John Mayall or Jack Bruce.

One of the harder things to quantity or appreciate. Getting the best out of other musicians.
When has Bowie not had a backing band? And all his most celebrated music stuff has when he collaborated with brilliant musicians or producers like mick ronson or eno.
And the spiders from mars were probably the greatest backing band ever.
 
Bollocks to all the musical snobs.
Personally I like anything that is done with commitment from whatever band or singer in whatever genre provided the music is, well musical I suppose.
I like those who can play their instruments well and who can deliver live.
Everybody’s personal favourites is theirs and good for them if they have some, and also bollocks to people who go on about what they like in order to appear cool in some way.
Sometimes a bit of music captures a moment in some way and has meaning because of that, music generally is wonderful, but amazingly I once met an art teacher who ‘didn’t like music (wtf?)’ , and ‘couldn’t see the point of it’. That is weird to me.
15 pages on it's probably a bit late to be defending the premise of the thread, but it's not about the musicianship, it's about the music itself. In particular, if you didn't know who the artist was or their significance, would you like them on a blind taste test. I gave the example of The New York Dolls, who I found I'd been removing from Spotify lists when the AI threw their songs onto punk playlists. Opinions varied. So, Reputation v the music.
 
The Ramones had a germ of a fruitful idea of stripping rock and roll back to the bare minimum. But they didn't rock. Just a really bad rock band when it comes down to it. Even when they play fast it sounds slow and cumbersome. The idea of punk rock distilled but without the energy. Too cool for melodies, rhythms or any variation. But was being cool actually good? Does anybody actually listen to them still?

oh how wrong you are.
 
Last edited:
It is with a heavy heart that I have to say Queen. They're my favourite band, for the old stuff. Since Adam Lambert came along they've been a tribute band of themselves, and not a particularly good one. The singer has the stage presence of a potato and the band have fallen into rote repetitions of well-known hits. I mean, it's inevitable that the two aging original members don't have the chops any more.

I went to see them in Tallinn a few years ago just so I could say I've seen Brian May with my own eyes. And to gawp at his guitar. I have an exact replica and it was a great experience to look at the original and know how it felt to play it. But the playing itself was adequate at best. Just the basics.

I saw the fillum and it was awful. Oh well. They used to be the best and I still have that to listen to. John Deacon had the right idea buggering off.
 
It is with a heavy heart that I have to say Queen. They're my favourite band, for the old stuff. Since Adam Lambert came along they've been a tribute band of themselves, and not a particularly good one. The singer has the stage presence of a potato and the band have fallen into rote repetitions of well-known hits. I mean, it's inevitable that the two aging original members don't have the chops any more.

I went to see them in Tallinn a few years ago just so I could say I've seen Brian May with my own eyes. And to gawp at his guitar. I have an exact replica and it was a great experience to look at the original and know how it felt to play it. But the playing itself was adequate at best. Just the basics.

I saw the fillum and it was awful. Oh well. They used to be the best and I still have that to listen to. John Deacon had the right idea buggering off.
I've got tickets to see The Sex Pistols next year, with Frank Carter on vocals. I've never seen them before and though I wouldn't pay good money to watch that Maga twat Lydon, it feels a little bit like watching a tribute band. Added to which, from what I've seen of their previous gigs, Carter is the only one who interacts with the audience.
 
The Ramones had a germ of a fruitful idea of stripping rock and roll back to the bare minimum. But they didn't rock. Just a really bad rock band when it comes down to it. Even when they play fast it sounds slow and cumbersome. The idea of punk rock distilled but without the energy. Too cool for melodies, rhythms or any variation. But was being cool actually good? Does anybody actually listen to them still?
No melodies or rhythms? Seriously? I appreciate the whole idea of this thread is that you're going to disagree with people's opinions, but have you heard any of their Spector-era stuff?
Like,


I can understand finding it too cheesy or too basic rock, but I can't see knocking it for being unmelodic.
 
I have just come across this thread, and reading the start of it chimed with me.

I used to like the New York Dolls, and bought an album by them in the 1970s, having heard it a friend’s house. I used to think that they had “it”.

These days, I watch things on Youtube, and this has the disadvantage of showing the performers. I have watched the New York Dolls a number of times recently, and I have come to the conclusion that Bob Harris was right.

They don’t have “it”. They are like bad actors trying to imitate rock musicians. Of course, much rock music is an act, or pose, but the best can pull off the act well.​
 
No melodies or rhythms? Seriously? I appreciate the whole idea of this thread is that you're going to disagree with people's opinions, but have you heard any of their Spector-era stuff?
Like,


I can understand finding it too cheesy or too basic rock, but I can't see knocking it for being unmelodic.

Er... It's not their song.
 
When has Bowie not had a backing band? And all his most celebrated music stuff has when he collaborated with brilliant musicians or producers like mick ronson or eno.
And the spiders from mars were probably the greatest backing band ever.

I'd forgotten about it but upthread I mentioned how he needed Brian Eno to pull it together for him. I think his best work was mostly on Hunky Dory. It's got most of his best compositions, and I think that's probably because he was (it seems) for himself on piano.

The Spiders from Mars were brilliant. Listen to any one of them and they're doing something really quite technical and tight. But they aren't playing off each other, they're just doing their thing in their allotted place.

Exercise: Listen to Lou Reed's Satellite of Love and then listen to Bowie's Moonage Dream.

Listen how well the drums follow and enhance the piano on the former in this organic way. Listen to how tender the phrasing on the piano is. If you took Reed's vocals alone the song would be really flat, but it comes alive with the sheer (understated) musicianship.

Whereas the latter is a cool chord progression with cool drum parts, cool bass parts, a really nice guitar solo. Everybody has this part they've leant and perfected. Where's the delicate touch, the rock out groove, or the soul or the spontaneous magic? It sounds mechanical and lifeless in comparison. This is mediocre music made by brilliant musicians.

Or we could compare with Roxy Music or T-Rex. So often Bowie just fails to get his band to pop.

I think in this age of AI we need to be brutal about these things.
 
No melodies or rhythms? Seriously? I appreciate the whole idea of this thread is that you're going to disagree with people's opinions, but have you heard any of their Spector-era stuff?
Like,


I can understand finding it too cheesy or too basic rock, but I can't see knocking it for being unmelodic.


I did not know about this. That's taken me completely by surprise. I don't like it but OK fair enough.

I think I don't understand the Ramones. Any of it. I guess they're a pop band in disguise really.
 
Er... It's not their song.
I mean, my first reaction to this was "that Motown tradition that song comes out of is very much not one with a strong tie between artist/songwriter and song, it's like trying to say who Heard It Through The Grapevine 'belongs' to, or any of the Holland-Dozier-Holland songs, so it's their song as much as it is anyone's." Then I looked at the somewhat alarming wikipedia entry for it, and if by that you mean that it only had Joey on it and none of the other Ramones then fair criticism, I didn't know that. But it came out on a Ramones record, so I think it's still a Ramones song. And Rock'n'Roll Radio is unimpeachably Ramones.
I did not know about this. That's taken me completely by surprise. I don't like it but OK fair enough.

I think I don't understand the Ramones. Any of it. I guess they're a pop band in disguise really.
Yeah, I think there's something to that.
 
Back
Top Bottom