Bands that were huge but never should have been that popular

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Lurker1
And then there's the group of no talent ass-clowns that I truly despise and just won't die:
* Celine Dion
* Kenny G
* Pearl Jam

That's just silly. You may not like their music, but to say they have no talent is silly. Kenny G is as great a sax player as you will ever hear. Celine Dion can fart better and with more range than most people can sing. Pearl Jam? Ten is a fantastic album. Again, you not liking their music does not mean they are untalented.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Farang
The Cure.

I fucking hate The Cure and their emo lead singer.

Now there's a band that's had a huge range of sounds on their albums throughout the years.
I can see how his voice would irritate some people (in the same way Rod Stewart makes me want to yank out his vocal cords and strangle him with them), but musically they're fantastic.

 

[paulxcook]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: jjones
Nirvana

Hell, yes. All they did was come along at the right time, when people were getting tired of hair metal (which, IMO, had a lot of good bands, but like today's crap, was pushed on us too much).
So here comes Nirvana playing 3 barre chords and singing very basic, high-school band level rock. Only talented musician in the band was Dave Grohl. You had the best guitar player in the band playing drums instead. Not to mention he was a better singer than Kurt Cocaine.

But Kurt died while they were popular, and like so many other undeserving stars before him....Jim Morrison, James Dean, etc, was elevated to godlike status, instead of getting to ride the backside of the popularity wave back into clubs and eventual oblivion. All the rest of grunge is essentially gone now, and so would be Nirvana.
Pearl Jam is the only one left, and they don't sell albums anymore. Their last 3 have only gone Gold. Same thing would have happened to Nirvana, IMO.

Same thing would have happened to the Doors, too. And if all were still alive, they'd be touring with multiple older acts to try and sell tickets.

Nirvana was not the most talented band ever, they were passable musicians with passable talent, but they practically started a genre of music. They certainly are a very influential band in the genre. I don't imagine there would be an Alica in Chains without them, or a Pearl Jam for that matter.

I doubt either band would've been as big as they were if not for Nirvana, but Alice in Chains got going the same year as Nirvana (1989) and Pearl Jam not too long after that.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: Gibson486

Originally posted by: Xanis

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Xanis
Pretty much any mainstream rap/hip-hop "artist" since 2000 or so. The crap from the likes of Lil' John and T-Pain (or whoever the hell else is popular these days) that has infested the radio has been, IMO, some of the worst music ever to be heard on this earth.

EDIT: Also any shitty hardcore or punk band such as The Sex Pistols or Chiodos.

Bwahahaha, this thread is hilarious. :laugh:

KT

Hey, you know it's true. They wouldn't even let their bass player play when they performed live because he was that bad.

Well, I like the Sex Pistols, but some of there songs are just plain awful. I never knew that about their bass player either.

That said, their good stuff overrides their bad stuff.

Totally not the point. Just because Sid could barely play his instrument does not detract from the importance of the band. Sure, technically they were not very good, but they were a big influence to a lot of bands in the genre.

KT

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: paulxcook

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: jjones
Nirvana

Hell, yes. All they did was come along at the right time, when people were getting tired of hair metal (which, IMO, had a lot of good bands, but like today's crap, was pushed on us too much).
So here comes Nirvana playing 3 barre chords and singing very basic, high-school band level rock. Only talented musician in the band was Dave Grohl. You had the best guitar player in the band playing drums instead. Not to mention he was a better singer than Kurt Cocaine.

But Kurt died while they were popular, and like so many other undeserving stars before him....Jim Morrison, James Dean, etc, was elevated to godlike status, instead of getting to ride the backside of the popularity wave back into clubs and eventual oblivion. All the rest of grunge is essentially gone now, and so would be Nirvana.
Pearl Jam is the only one left, and they don't sell albums anymore. Their last 3 have only gone Gold. Same thing would have happened to Nirvana, IMO.

Same thing would have happened to the Doors, too. And if all were still alive, they'd be touring with multiple older acts to try and sell tickets.

Nirvana was not the most talented band ever, they were passable musicians with passable talent, but they practically started a genre of music. They certainly are a very influential band in the genre. I don't imagine there would be an Alica in Chains without them, or a Pearl Jam for that matter.

I doubt either band would've been as big as they were if not for Nirvana, but Alice in Chains got going the same year as Nirvana (1989) and Pearl Jam not too long after that.

I'm going to quote myself from earlier in the thread with respect to Nirvana:

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I would say a band like Mudhoney/Green River is much more influential to the genre than Nirvana was and in fact I would go so far as to say there would be no Nirvana at all if not for Mudhoney.

As has been stated, Nirvana was just in the right place at the right time.

KT

 

[Gibson486]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Gibson486

Originally posted by: Xanis

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Xanis
Pretty much any mainstream rap/hip-hop "artist" since 2000 or so. The crap from the likes of Lil' John and T-Pain (or whoever the hell else is popular these days) that has infested the radio has been, IMO, some of the worst music ever to be heard on this earth.

EDIT: Also any shitty hardcore or punk band such as The Sex Pistols or Chiodos.

Bwahahaha, this thread is hilarious. :laugh:

KT

Hey, you know it's true. They wouldn't even let their bass player play when they performed live because he was that bad.

Well, I like the Sex Pistols, but some of there songs are just plain awful. I never knew that about their bass player either.

That said, their good stuff overrides their bad stuff.

Totally not the point. Just because Sid could barely play his instrument does not detract from the importance of the band. Sure, technically they were not very good, but they were a big influence to a lot of bands in the genre.

KT

definately....I had no idea Sid could not play, that's all. Maybe that's why the live album sounded so bad....

I still love them though and their influence is huge....

 

[clamum]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Gibson486

Originally posted by: Xanis

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Xanis
Pretty much any mainstream rap/hip-hop "artist" since 2000 or so. The crap from the likes of Lil' John and T-Pain (or whoever the hell else is popular these days) that has infested the radio has been, IMO, some of the worst music ever to be heard on this earth.

EDIT: Also any shitty hardcore or punk band such as The Sex Pistols or Chiodos.

Bwahahaha, this thread is hilarious. :laugh:

KT

Hey, you know it's true. They wouldn't even let their bass player play when they performed live because he was that bad.

Well, I like the Sex Pistols, but some of there songs are just plain awful. I never knew that about their bass player either.

That said, their good stuff overrides their bad stuff.

Totally not the point. Just because Sid could barely play his instrument does not detract from the importance of the band. Sure, technically they were not very good, but they were a big influence to a lot of bands in the genre.

KT

Exactly. Punk, for the most part, isn't concerned with how well the band members play their instruments. The music started as a rebellion against excesses of mainstream 70s rock. Wikipedia:

According to Ramones drummer Tommy Ramone, "In its initial form, a lot of [1960s] stuff was innovative and exciting. Unfortunately, what happens is that people who could not hold a candle to the likes of Hendrix started noodling away. Soon you had endless solos that went nowhere. By 1973, I knew that what was needed was some pure, stripped down, no bullshit rock 'n' roll."

So yeah, the Sex Pistols weren't great musicians by any means, but if you take in the punk music genre as a whole and look where a lot of bands influences are? Ramones, Sex Pistols, The Clash (the latter were some great musicians though).

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: Gibson486

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Gibson486

Originally posted by: Xanis

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Xanis
Pretty much any mainstream rap/hip-hop "artist" since 2000 or so. The crap from the likes of Lil' John and T-Pain (or whoever the hell else is popular these days) that has infested the radio has been, IMO, some of the worst music ever to be heard on this earth.

EDIT: Also any shitty hardcore or punk band such as The Sex Pistols or Chiodos.

Bwahahaha, this thread is hilarious. :laugh:

KT

Hey, you know it's true. They wouldn't even let their bass player play when they performed live because he was that bad.

Well, I like the Sex Pistols, but some of there songs are just plain awful. I never knew that about their bass player either.

That said, their good stuff overrides their bad stuff.

Totally not the point. Just because Sid could barely play his instrument does not detract from the importance of the band. Sure, technically they were not very good, but they were a big influence to a lot of bands in the genre.

KT

definately....I had no idea Sid could not play, that's all. Maybe that's why the live album sounded so bad....

I still love them though and their influence is huge....

Oh yeah, he was brutal, no doubt, and that's not even counting the heroin and alcohol that surely made things worse.

KT

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: paulxcook

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: jjones
Nirvana

Hell, yes. All they did was come along at the right time, when people were getting tired of hair metal (which, IMO, had a lot of good bands, but like today's crap, was pushed on us too much).
So here comes Nirvana playing 3 barre chords and singing very basic, high-school band level rock. Only talented musician in the band was Dave Grohl. You had the best guitar player in the band playing drums instead. Not to mention he was a better singer than Kurt Cocaine.

But Kurt died while they were popular, and like so many other undeserving stars before him....Jim Morrison, James Dean, etc, was elevated to godlike status, instead of getting to ride the backside of the popularity wave back into clubs and eventual oblivion. All the rest of grunge is essentially gone now, and so would be Nirvana.
Pearl Jam is the only one left, and they don't sell albums anymore. Their last 3 have only gone Gold. Same thing would have happened to Nirvana, IMO.

Same thing would have happened to the Doors, too. And if all were still alive, they'd be touring with multiple older acts to try and sell tickets.

Nirvana was not the most talented band ever, they were passable musicians with passable talent, but they practically started a genre of music. They certainly are a very influential band in the genre. I don't imagine there would be an Alica in Chains without them, or a Pearl Jam for that matter.

I doubt either band would've been as big as they were if not for Nirvana, but Alice in Chains got going the same year as Nirvana (1989) and Pearl Jam not too long after that.

Yet it was Nirvana that popularized the genre. I should say that without Nirvana many people may never have heard of AiC.

 

[xanis]

Originally posted by: clamum

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Gibson486

Originally posted by: Xanis

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Xanis
Pretty much any mainstream rap/hip-hop "artist" since 2000 or so. The crap from the likes of Lil' John and T-Pain (or whoever the hell else is popular these days) that has infested the radio has been, IMO, some of the worst music ever to be heard on this earth.

EDIT: Also any shitty hardcore or punk band such as The Sex Pistols or Chiodos.

Bwahahaha, this thread is hilarious. :laugh:

KT

Hey, you know it's true. They wouldn't even let their bass player play when they performed live because he was that bad.

Well, I like the Sex Pistols, but some of there songs are just plain awful. I never knew that about their bass player either.

That said, their good stuff overrides their bad stuff.

Totally not the point. Just because Sid could barely play his instrument does not detract from the importance of the band. Sure, technically they were not very good, but they were a big influence to a lot of bands in the genre.

KT

Exactly. Punk, for the most part, isn't concerned with how well the band members play their instruments. The music started as a rebellion against excesses of mainstream 70s rock. Wikipedia:

According to Ramones drummer Tommy Ramone, "In its initial form, a lot of [1960s] stuff was innovative and exciting. Unfortunately, what happens is that people who could not hold a candle to the likes of Hendrix started noodling away. Soon you had endless solos that went nowhere. By 1973, I knew that what was needed was some pure, stripped down, no bullshit rock 'n' roll."

So yeah, the Sex Pistols weren't great musicians by any means, but if you take in the punk music genre as a whole and look where a lot of bands influences are? Ramones, Sex Pistols, The Clash (the latter were some great musicians though).

No doubt. I always thought The Clash and The Ramones were much better so that's why I said I didn't think the Sex Pistols were that great. But as far as what they stood for in music culture and society of the time, they were important.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I can't believe some people are insulting Fergie in this thread. Don't you know.....that insulting her is insulting God?

?I may not have the type of voice you like, but I can sing. You can?t take that away from me, ?cause singing is a gift from God, and when people say I can?t sing, it?s kind of like insulting God.?

 

[xanis]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I can't believe some people are insulting Fergie in this thread. Don't you know.....that insulting her is insulting God?

?I may not have the type of voice you like, but I can sing. You can?t take that away from me, ?cause singing is a gift from God, and when people say I can?t sing, it?s kind of like insulting God.?

:laugh:

 

[Modelworks]

The village people .

You have to remember that most people on these forums were still running around in diapers before 1990, anything before then is oblivious to them

 

[manowar821]

God dammit you guys, Tiesto isn't even trance. It's "McTrance". Same with Oakenfold and such.

I bet you guys that equate Tiesto to Trance haven't actually ever heard REAL Trance or Acid. Noobs.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Madonna
Beatles
Brittney Spears
The Umbrella song chick
Black Eyed Peas

Epic fail.

 

[DnetMHZ]

Smashing Pumpkins (Absolutely horrid.. every time I hear that guys voice I want to shove sharp objects in my ears.)

U2 (new/old doesn't matter.. they are probably the most overrated band of all time and their music us AWFUL.)

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Madonna
Beatles
Brittney Spears
The Umbrella song chick
Black Eyed Peas

Epic fail.

Somebody didn't read the first 200 posts

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Madonna
Beatles
Brittney Spears
The Umbrella song chick
Black Eyed Peas

Epic fail.

Somebody didn't read the first 200 posts

I read them after making that post

My comment still stands!

 

[nakedfrog]

The Beatles > Your Face

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
The Beatles > Your Face

That's a given, I'm ugly.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
The Beatles > Your Face

That's a given, I'm ugly.

So is... ah, crap, you ruined it!

 

[Lurker1]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Lurker1
And then there's the group of no talent ass-clowns that I truly despise and just won't die:
* Celine Dion
* Kenny G
* Pearl Jam

That's just silly. You may not like their music, but to say they have no talent is silly. Kenny G is as great a sax player as you will ever hear. Celine Dion can fart better and with more range than most people can sing. Pearl Jam? Ten is a fantastic album. Again, you not liking their music does not mean they are untalented.

Don't take this personally, but the music industry has forced 2 of those three down our throats. This is not directed at you personally.

Celine Dion might have a good voice, but she'll fade away like all the others listed, because there's a lack in there somewhere. If I had a lobotomy, I might be able to deal with her whining and yammering. (Yes, I really dislike her that much, but I dislike other music too, and they're not on my list. Although your suggestion might be interesting to a small oddly fetished group (Celine farting? It'd probably go platinum, I'm sure)

Kenny G. The emo of sax players. If he could only consistently play more than 5 notes a minute.

Pearl Jam. One song sounds like the others. The guy's still envious of Kurt's singing ability, and rightfully so. Soundgarden is better drunk. Ten sucked, as did everything else from these bozos. If you're still lstening to them in 10 years, you'll be the only one (figuratively speaking). They are no Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, or even someone like The Knack or Digital Underground.

Truth be told, there was a golden age of music prior to the early 70s, when the RIAA types started getting together, followed by another short golden age with the dawn of MTV who'd play anything someone sent on a tape. That was brought under control around 84, when the likes of Madonna became the first pimped act of the new RIAA controlled world. We may be at the beginning of the last frontier, as long as the internet stays free. If it becomes corporately controlled - see the previous two incarnations for what we'll be able to expect.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

:thumbsup: I must say, as an OLD musician this thread is comedy gold, keep up the good work!

But I have to take exception to a couple of points. First the title of the OP is "Bands that were huge but never should have been that poplular". So far 75% of the bands listed here were never HUGE to begin with unless you consider 1 or 2 hits, or a flash in the pan 18mo career HUGE. I hate to break it to you but, Creed, Nirvana, Whitesnake, Limp Bizkit, Spice girls, Nickelback, The cure, Kenny G etc...., etc...., etc..... even Britiney were never huge, not even close. Huge is many multi-gold(these days platinum) albums and a popularity that last longer than a good pair of tennis shoes, which limits the list considerably.

Secondly when it comes to the old bands most of the opinions posted here are from an historical perspective because many of the posters comenting weren't even born when these bands were in their prime, and in the case of the Beatles when they broke up.
Commenting on weither or not the Beatles,Stones,Doors,Airplane,Monkeys,etc... should have been so popular is a mute point, the fact is they were.

 

[thesurge]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
:thumbsup: I must say, as an OLD musician this thread is comedy gold, keep up the good work!

But I have to take exception to a couple of points. First the title of the OP is "Bands that were huge but never should have been that poplular". So far 75% of the bands listed here were never HUGE to begin with unless you consider 1 or 2 hits, or a flash in the pan 18mo career HUGE. I hate to break it to you but, Creed, Nirvana, Whitesnake, Limp Bizkit, Spice girls, Nickelback, The cure, Kenny G etc...., etc...., etc..... even Britiney were never huge, not even close. Huge is many multi-gold(these days platinum) albums and a popularity that last longer than a good pair of tennis shoes, which limits the list considerably.

Secondly when it comes to the old bands most of the opinions posted here are from an historical perspective because many of the posters comenting weren't even born when these bands were in their prime, and in the case of the Beatles when they broke up.
Commenting on weither or not the Beatles,Stones,Doors,Airplane,Monkeys,etc... should have been so popular is a mute point, the fact is they were.

WHAT DID YOU CALL ME?

 

[CallMeJoe]

the Sex Pistols were all terrible instrumentalists, as John Lydon (Rotten) was an intentionally bad singer. That was part of their schtick as Punks. Check out M. Lydon's work with Public Image Ltd. for a better idea of his vocal talents.

Lurker1: Celine Dion is an incredible singer, crippled by an absolutely abominable selection of material and a pathetically wooden physical presence. She may turn out to be the successor to the similarly cursed Barbara Streisand, with a long and profitable career, given how many Americans are into musical pablum.

I agree on your postulate of the two golden ages of modern music, and will note that the 1st you cite was initiated by breakdown of the marketing structures in the wake of the payola scandals. With no direct fiscal incentive to push the record company favorites, DJs were more likely to play music they thought would motivate listeners to tune in. Similarly, MTV prompted another breakdown of marketing structure. Both periods ended because the corporations behind the physical product (LP, CD, etc) were able to reassert market dominance through the distribution network.