Bands that you can't stand
-
Cash is alright but I don't see the big deal. Also I hate elvis. He's got a few tolerable songs but overall is a hunka hunka burnin' suck.
-
Cash is alright but I don't see the big deal. Also I hate elvis. He's got a few tolerable songs but overall is a hunka hunka burnin' suck.
Cash is alright but I don't see the big deal. Also I hate elvis. He's got a few tolerable songs but overall is a hunka hunka burnin' suck.
I'm with you. For some reason I do think Elvis is cool as an icon but I only like maybe one or two of his songs at all. He does have a great voice but... And the movies are horrid.
WSS
-
Speaking of icons I don't get van morrison either. Don't hate him but don't see the appeal.
WSS
-
Speaking of icons I don't get van morrison either. Don't hate him but don't see the appeal.
WSS
Speaking of icons I don't get van morrison either. Don't hate him but don't see the appeal.
WSS
Not a fan of his either.
-
As I expected, "Rock and Roll" is such a broad and loosely defined term that there is more than enough room for 'fans' to like bands across the spectrum of whatever pigeonhole you want to put styles into:
R&R
Blues
Metal
R&B
Folk
Etc.
Even the R&R HOF, IMHO, is mis-named solely because inductees cross many more styles than narrowly defined Rock and Roll. But I will leave that to the pencil-necked geeks to determine such (unimportant) distinctions. It is all rock and roll to me.
People absolutely love some bands / artists I 'don't like' and vice versa. It is very subjective and virtually impossible to argue about one's tastes and opinions.
Kind of like arguing if Vanilla, Strawberry, Chocolate ice cream is better than the other two. Everybody is right and nobody is wrong, precisely because taste is so subjective.
As an example - and at the risk of giving my good friend, WWS, a coronary - there is no doubt that The Beatles played many great songs. On the flit side, however, I find a sizable minority to be lackluster or, even, bad.
Paul McCartney, to me, was pretty good in his Beatles days but, afterward, has been spotty at best. In short, much of his work is not listenable to me. I wont get into a list, because that would be a waste of time.
There are other bands that have released a ton of songs that I find the vast majority to be 'excellent'. The Stones and Allman Brothers come to mind.
Other bands have released a relatively small sample of music - as an entity - and I find virtually all of it in the 'excellent" category: Little Feat, Traffic, CCR, Rod Stewart, ...........and others I listed under a different thread.
I love 50's music with a heavy emphasis on Doo Wop. I can't listen to 'Metal'. But what do I know.
The very good news is the vast amount of territory one can cover to find the niches he wants to follow. Sometimes 'narrow and deep' where one digs deep into a certain band or group of bands and - others - that I bought an album or two but never was interested enough to get to the 'narrow and deep' category. The Who, Led Zepplin, Elton John, Bob Seeger, etc. All GREAT, GREAT bands but to a variety of reasons, never rose to the point where I had to have their albums - radio airplay and a select album or so, was enough. My loss, to a certain extent.
I had many more albums by The Four Tops, Little Anthony and the Imperials than any listed in the above paragraph. My gain, to a certain extent. James Brown too.
I will say that my Vanilla, Strawberry, Chocolate approach has changed over the years. Is it maturity, lack of maturity, life context, etc., I can look back at some of the bands I didn't go narrow and deep and, now, wonder why
I can look at some of those 'narrow and deep' groups, etc. and wonder why.
So much to listen to (and like) or not listen to (and not like) and so little time and opportunity to scratch much below the surface.
-
after all that
what band do you ALWAYS reach for the channel changer?
-
Actually (with apologies to ballpeen die hard and probably others) I can't stand Johnny Cash.
WSS
Actually (with apologies to ballpeen die hard and probably others) I can't stand Johnny Cash.
WSS
Actually, I was brought up on the Beetles, the Rolling Stones, Doors, etc. Not much of a CW fan. But ole Johnny was okay.
-
Hey I get it brother John, die hard it really is personal taste and cemented into our psyche by hundreds of factors. I think the most important of which is what was playing during our developmental years. I can't think of a bad song by The Beatles except for some in which they were obviously pulling our dicks. Case in point you know my name, look up the number or wild honey pie. Every other one I will be happy to hear. But the Beatles were more than just musicians they were at the vanguard of an entire new generation. As for the Rolling Stones who I believe are a very important subset of that genre had uncountable great rock songs. But, and of course in my opinion, loads of crap in between those stellar offerings.
My second favorite artist of all time, Elvis Costello, is another odd example; someone with stretches of absolute genius and patches of, well, stuff I can't get next to.
Most artists that I would put among my favorites, I will own every, or almost every recording they've made.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
after all that
what band do you ALWAYS reach for the channel changer?
Heart
-
Yeah heart is terrible
-
Hey I get it brother John, die hard it really is personal taste and cemented into our psyche by hundreds of factors. I think the most important of which is what was playing during our developmental years. I can't think of a bad song by The Beatles except for some in which they were obviously pulling our dicks. Case in point you know my name, look up the number or wild honey pie. Every other one I will be happy to hear. But the Beatles were more than just musicians they were at the vanguard of an entire new generation. As for the Rolling Stones who I believe are a very important subset of that genre had uncountable great rock songs. But, and of course in my opinion, loads of crap in between those stellar offerings.
My second favorite artist of all time, Elvis Costello, is another odd example; someone with stretches of absolute genius and patches of, well, stuff I can't get next to.
Most artists that I would put among my favorites, I will own every, or almost every recording they've made.
WSS
Hey I get it brother John, die hard it really is personal taste and cemented into our psyche by hundreds of factors. I think the most important of which is what was playing during our developmental years. I can't think of a bad song by The Beatles except for some in which they were obviously pulling our dicks. Case in point you know my name, look up the number or wild honey pie. Every other one I will be happy to hear. But the Beatles were more than just musicians they were at the vanguard of an entire new generation. As for the Rolling Stones who I believe are a very important subset of that genre had uncountable great rock songs. But, and of course in my opinion, loads of crap in between those stellar offerings.
My second favorite artist of all time, Elvis Costello, is another odd example; someone with stretches of absolute genius and patches of, well, stuff I can't get next to.
Most artists that I would put among my favorites, I will own every, or almost every recording they've made.
WSS
I love Elvis Costello.. such a great,eclectic writer.. He's so cool.. He's kind of like Tom Waits but in his own unique way in that he's so different. And the music isn't as boring as Tom Waits...
-
-
Steve in grade school?
-
I guess it was the late 80's, I took my 15 year old daughter and 2 of her girlfriends to a Michael Bolton concert in Atlanta. My wife was supposed to do the deed but she really did become sick and I had to come through.
That sucked real bad. While the girls slept on the drive home I had to endure the memory of 2 hours of screaming.....all the young girls and Mike screaming in to the mike.
I will say it now draws extra hugs from her. She now knows that was a special night of torture we all had to endure, so in a way, it was worth it.
-
Kiss comes to mind. Not much musical talent there. Just hype and product selling IMO
I don't put a great deal of stock in musical talent. I go by what appeals to me. If it were only raw ability you might never be happy listening to someone other than a virtuoso.
WSS
I don't put a great deal of stock in musical talent. I go by what appeals to me. If it were only raw ability you might never be happy listening to someone other than a virtuoso.
WSS
Problem is a lot of the virtuosos play stuff I don't care to listen to- Satriani, Maumsteen, Vai. funny because I consider Hendrix the GOAT.
Stuff I don't care for- don't get Dave Matthews, Steve Miller is a POS. Ripoff artist- way to copy Free's opening "All right now" note for note. U2 is way over rated in my book. "America" and their ilk will get me to change the station pronto. Karen Carpenter? Barry Manilow? Can't stand Blood, Sweat & Tears, never got into Elvis- or his direct predecessor Frank Sinatra- though I do grudgingly accept their vocal talents in my advanced age.
-
Led Zeppelin: overrated. Yep, that is my opinion.
Or at least lets just say, overall not my particular cup of tea.
There has been this great debate: Who was #3 behind the Beatles and the Stones of the great British Invasion bands. Most advocated for either Led Zeppelin or The Who.
But in my mind, it was no contest. It was The Who.
-
Steve Miller really does exemplify mediocrity. Of course I already have my Barry Manilow tickets so... Going to Camelot tonight at EJ Thomas.
WSS
-
Led Zeppelin: overrated. Yep, that is my opinion.
Or at least lets just say, overall not my particular cup of tea.
There has been this great debate: Who was #3 behind the Beatles and the Stones of the great British Invasion bands. Most advocated for either Led Zeppelin or The Who.
But in my mind, it was no contest. It was The Who.
Led Zeppelin: overrated. Yep, that is my opinion.
Or at least lets just say, overall not my particular cup of tea.
There has been this great debate: Who was #3 behind the Beatles and the Stones of the great British Invasion bands. Most advocated for either Led Zeppelin or The Who.
But in my mind, it was no contest. It was The Who.
Zeppelin had a far better cast of Musicians.. John Bonham was the consummate rock drummer of the 70's hands down. John Paul Jones was a much more disciplined bass player as well as being a formidable keyboar/piano player with uncanny arranging skills.. Jimmy Page had all of the cool licks despite being the sloppiest guitar player I ever heard. But,his real genius was writing songs with a multitude of suspended chords and voicing's far more sophisticated than Pete Townshend. Pete's no slouch mind you. ut Pages writing,Arranging and Producer/Engineering skills were second to none. He set the standard for how great rock music was made with an incredible bevy of styles , ranging from Jazz, reggae, Afro influences and Blues,Rockabilly and classical... It's not even a debate...
Nickers...."There are no old running QB's in the NFL "~Sam Rutigliano~ -
I think you'd be hard-pressed to make a case for the superiority of John Paul Jones over John Entwistle. Or John Bonham over Keith Moon.
Sloppy though he may have been jimmy page was quite a soloist but considerin jon mclaughlin or and theythough you may have been jimmy page was quite a soloist but considering jon mclaughlin or Vai there's not much comparison.
WSS
-
I prefer zeppelin over the who by a wide margin
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login