• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What's up with all these new "mediocre" bands ?

D

deftron

Lifer

I've noticed all these new "mediocre" (for lack of a better word)
bands out today that seem to have no style identity.
They all seem the same and their music is like listening to the color
brown. I'm talking about bands like Creed, Nickelback, Puddle
of Mudd, and others I can't think of right now.
Not really sure how to descibe them, somewhere between trying
to be rock but still safe bet good-boy music and averageness popularized.
Like hard rock for easy listening stations or something...

 


<< I've noticed all these new "mediocre" (for lack of a better word)
bands out today that seem to have no style identity.
They all seem the same and their music is like listening to the color
brown. I'm talking about bands like Creed, Nickelback, Puddle
of Mudd, and others I can't think of right now.
Not really sure how to descibe them, somewhere between trying
to be rock but still safe bet good-boy music and averageness popularized.
Like hard rock for easy listening stations or something... >>

How does their style of music make them mediocre bands?
 
I agree, there's a lot of bands that fall into this "generic 'rock' category" that all sound very similar and really lack any type of innovation. bands like The Beastie Boys, Rage against the Machine, Sublime, and Tool got popular cause they sound different than most other bands. These bands are popular cause they sound exactly like other bands that were already popular.
 


<< How does their style of music make them mediocre bands? >>



Their style is mediocre.. "moderate to inferior in quality; ordinary; average; generic"

They're like the corporate rock of the 2000's
 


<< How does their style of music make them mediocre bands? >>



i agree, style of music does NOT make them mediocre...
i judge bands on how well they write their lyrics/music, how well they can play their respective instruments, and how well they can entertain a crowd.

You named Creed, Puddle Of Mudd, and Nickelback as your "mediocre" bands, but i would have to disagree. All though Scott is VERY annoying, their lyrics are uplifting? and Mark is one heck of a guitar player. And IMHO Puddle Of Mudd has some of the best lyrics right now, i loved their song "Blurry". Nickelback i dont know much about, but i gotta say their songs are pretty catchy, good for radio.

i guess everyone has their different tastes in music and who is "mediocre" and not, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion....just nobody go bash my Linkin Park cause they own 😀
 
YOu can leave creed out of that group - at least they have had 3+ hit albums.

New groups that are coming out, that are overexposed, overplayed, and most of they are destined to be one-hit-wonders:
POD (been around for about a year, but they still suck)
Jimmy Eat World
Puddle of Mud
Hoobastank
Staind (too played out)
NickleBack
Trik Turner
Default

🙂
 
I would classify a wannabe band as mediocre. Meaning, if a band was trying to copy a specific band, then they have nothing to offer on their own, even if their lyrics are good. Scott Stapp is trying way to hard to be Eddie Vedder (something he will never achieve in 1000 lifetimes).
 
You've always had mediocre bands and bands that tried to copy the exact style of the really popular bands. It's not exactly a new development.
 


<<

<< How does their style of music make them mediocre bands? >>



Their style is mediocre.. "moderate to inferior in quality; ordinary; average; generic"

They're like the corporate rock of the 2000's >>

And you don't think that's somewhat subjective?
 
Why can't cool bands ever make it? There is your answer. Financial backing from huge record companies make these trolls very popular. It has, and always will be that way.
 


<< New groups that are coming out, that are overexposed, overplayed, and most of they are destined to be one-hit-wonders:
POD (been around for about a year, but they still suck) >>



POD is hardly a new band, newly mainstream I guess, but not new. Also since this is their second popular CD, couldn't really call them a one hit wonder.
 
POD is neither new nor mediocre. As for the rest of the bands mentioned, although not my favorites, I'd much rather see them get airplay than
boy bands.
 


<< POD is neither new nor mediocre. As for the rest of the bands mentioned, although not my favorites, I'd much rather see them get airplay than
boy bands. >>



Agreed! (Anyone who disagrees, quit playin games with my heart, my heart..)
 
i have a solution for you, DONT LISSTEN TO THE RADIO OR WATCH MTV.




<< New groups that are coming out, that are overexposed, overplayed, and most of they are destined to be one-hit-wonders:
POD (been around for about a year, but they still suck)
Jimmy Eat World
Puddle of Mud
Hoobastank
Staind (too played out)
NickleBack
Trik Turner
Default >>



Most of those groupes are NOT new, you just heard about them so you thnk they are new. Jimmy eat world has been around for years and so has hoobastank. The radio and mtv says they are new so everyone thinks they formed yesterday.

 
Mediocre is nothing new. If you are limiting your music listening to mainstream radio stations, most of the music you're hearing is mediocre.
 
I might like an occasional song out of the groups listed, but I really like Puddle of Mudd. If you got their CD, they have way more than one good song. It's just that the radio/MTV onlyplays Blurry over and over again.
 
Yeah, Most of the bands listed aren't new. Nickleback's been around for a few years (serveral albums I believe), but afik they're relativly new to the US market (only their latest CD).

I wouldn't buy any of their CDs, but I do enjoy their music.
 
We're in a musical depression. It's cyclic, for some reason ( I hope). I've been thinking lately that the reason that I didn't enjoy watching MTV or MTV2 anymore was 'cause I was getting older, but I'm pretty sure now it's simply because the music SUCKS. I like harder stuff, but bands like Disturbed and Godsmack, etc., are just more perfect examples of commercialiazed, unimaginated poser bands. They had a thing on Nirvana on either MTV or VH-1 the other day, and I watching it and wishing that I could go back 10 years or so. I like a band that will get up on stage in the same cothes that they've been wearing around all day long, and play there music without whining and making puppy dog faces for all the 12 year old girls in audience. I hate all these psuedo-punk bands too, like Blink 182, etc. Bunch of f@gs....
 
I'll agree we are in a musical "recession". Theres good stuff, but nu-metal is pretty formulaic and tiresome. You need to dig for some fun stuff. Andrew WK is balls-out craziness. Sum41 is good if you think of them as Beastie-Blink 🙂 .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top