Bands that don't catch enough flak

[realmenhatelife]

I don't want to say a band is overrated because I don't want to imply that they are incapable of great music, but these bands have really put out some shit and don't get called on it enough because they are cannonized.

The clash (inspired by todays opener)

social distortion

Rancid

U2

The Beatles and anyone connected to them.

[EliSnow]

I think the Flakcatchers would be a great name for a band.

[realmenhatelife]

I think the Flakcatchers would be a great name for a band.

sounds like a ska band

[SouthSideJohnny]

social distortion

Rancid



Two of my favorite bands. Rancid has released some weak stuff, but I like just about all the Social-D - even the "Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell" CD that everyone bitches about.

[realmenhatelife]

I categorically hate social d, I never got what anyone saw in them. But everyone likes them, and when you play them before the ron and fez show you get complimented for being hip. I put Bad religion down for this too.

[Bob Impact]

I categorically hate social d, I never got what anyone saw in them. But everyone likes them, and when you play them before the ron and fez show you get complimented for being hip. I put Bad religion down for this too.

This thread really should be called "Bands that I don't like."

I could list a bunch of bands I hate too, and Rancid woudn't be one of them.

[TheMojoPin]

I don't want to say a band is overrated because I don't want to imply that they are incapable of great music, but these bands have really put out some shit and don't get called on it enough because they are cannonized.

The clash (inspired by todays opener)

social distortion

Rancid

U2

The Beatles and anyone connected to them.

Almost anyone who knows even a little about the Clash rail on Sandanista and pretty much everything they did post-Jones as being bad. That said, the Clash are propped up because the overwhelming amount of their musical output is so good. The bad and mediocre stuff doesn't even come close to outweighing the good and great stuff.

I'd say Social D are beloved cult act more than anything else. They're not cannonized or attacked because so (relatively) few people know anything by them besides their 90's hits.

I think if you ask most serious music fans they'll throw out that Rancid had one really good album and the rest were all basically the same. Rancid are really only "cannonized" by their diehard fans, just like any other band.

U2 were savaged over their Pop album era, and still are.

The Beatles are cannonized because they're the fucking Beatles, but most of their individual solo careers are looked at as "meh" at best with some high points scattered throughout, John most of all because you can at least get a single disc best-of of truly awesome music from his solo career. But acting like the Beatles being held in such high regard is somehow "wrong" is retarded. Different people may not like them, but to act like the Beatles being THE BEATLES is somehow unjustified is absurd, period.

[realmenhatelife]

Almost anyone who knows even a little about the Clash rail on Sandanista and pretty much everything they did post-Jones as being bad. That said, the Clash are propped up because the overwhelming amount of their musical output is so good. The bad and mediocre stuff doesn't even come close to outweighing the good and great stuff.

I'd say Social D are beloved cult act more than anything else. They're not cannonized or attacked because so (relatively) few people know anything by them besides their 90's hits.

I think if you ask most serious music fans they'll throw out that Rancid had one really good album and the rest were all basically the same. Rancid are really only "cannonized" by their diehard fans, just like any other band.

U2 were savaged over their Pop album era, and still are.

The Beatles are cannonized because they're the fucking Beatles, but most of their individual solo careers are looked at as "meh" at best with some high points scattered throughout, John most of all because you can at least get a single disc best-of of truly awesome music from his solo career. But acting like the Beatles being held in such high regard is somehow "wrong" is retarded. Different people may not like them, but to act like the Beatles being THE BEATLES is somehow unjustified is absurd, period.

Call me a philistine but the beatles mean shit to me musically- the first music I ever was really into was on some level a reaction to what happened in the 60's and 70's and that reaction only existed because of how profoundly untouchable the beatles were and are in music history. It's a sound I do not want to hear and a legacy I just cant appreciate. The Beatles are basically the deity in the organized religion of music, and its the deconstruction of that style that is relevant to me. So if I really dislike the music that owes alot creatively to the beatles would it really be absurd for me to think their veneration is wrong?
I didnt want to make it about me not liking them, and I didnt want to call them overrated because, being in the minority, I definitely have to subscribe to the fact that this is all subjective. However, when you talk about music if you want to say something bad about them or disagree with some top 5 albums of all time list that has 3 fucking beatles albums on it people really get blown away. You get treated like you don't know anything; believe me I've tried to listen to them and I cant even force myself. Thats why they made my list.

For the record rancid had like 2 and a half good albums- and i guess i dont really know anyone who likes the new rasta rancid or tim armstrongs solo work- its just really radio types that i hear talking them up.

[TheMojoPin]

Call me a philistine but the beatles mean shit to me musically- the first music I ever was really into was on some level a reaction to what happened in the 60's and 70's and that reaction only existed because of how profoundly untouchable the beatles were and are in music history. It's a sound I do not want to hear and a legacy I just cant appreciate. The Beatles are basically the deity in the organized religion of music, and its the deconstruction of that style that is relevant to me. So if I really dislike the music that owes alot creatively to the beatles would it really be absurd for me to think their veneration is wrong?
I didnt want to make it about me not liking them, and I didnt want to call them overrated because, being in the minority, I definitely have to subscribe to the fact that this is all subjective. However, when you talk about music if you want to say something bad about them or disagree with some top 5 albums of all time list that has 3 fucking beatles albums on it people really get blown away. You get treated like you don't know anything; believe me I've tried to listen to them and I cant even force myself. Thats why they made my list.

For the record rancid had like 2 and a half good albums- and i guess i dont really know anyone who likes the new rasta rancid or tim armstrongs solo work- its just really radio types that i hear talking them up.

Nobody has to like the Beatles, but at the same time, even people that hate them simply cannot ignore or downplay their importance/impact/influence when it comes to taking in "popular music" in the last 45+ years. It's just flat out impossible.

I like the idea of this thread, because there's plenty of bands it applies to, but the Beatles really are in a league of their own. It may be cliche or frustrating, but that's just how it is. You listen to the testimonials of, I'd guess, at least 85% of "popular musicians" out there and the Beatles come into play, even if it's who they're NOT trying to sound like.

[Bob Impact]

Nobody has to like the Beatles, but at the same time, even people that hate them simply cannot ignore or downplay their importance/impact/influence when it comes to taking in "popular music" in the last 45+ years. It's just flat out impossible.

I like the idea of this thread, because there's plenty of bands it applies to, but the Beatles really are in a league of their own. It may be cliche or frustrating, but that's just how it is. You listen to the testimonials of, I'd guess, at least 85% of "popular musicians" out there and the Beatles come into play, even if it's who they're NOT trying to sound like.

I fucking hate the Beatles, I despise them. They are also the most influential band of all time. If they never existed music as we know it would be god-awful.

[TheMojoPin]

I fucking hate the Beatles, I despise them. They are also the most influential band of all time. If they never existed music as we know it would be god-awful.

Exactly.

[ppanda]

I've got one ..how about Metallica? I know their popularity has somewhat died but please their first 3 albums were good but even at that time there was better thrash metal out there that deserved more credit for the scene that werent recognized at all.

... Plus they turned into a bunch of egomaniacs.

[JesterOfSadness]

I've got one ..how about Metallica? I know their popularity has somewhat died but please their first 3 albums were good but even at that time there was better thrash metal out there that deserved more credit for the scene that werent recognized at all.

... Plus they turned into a bunch of egomaniacs.

I think Lars was the egomaniac of the band. To this day I heckle my friend who is a huge Metallica fan, main target is still that godawful excuse for an album of St.Anger.

Not to knock all bands, but alot of music today just sucks compared to the older stuff.

[FUNKMAN]

Hendrix

he never catches one ounce of flack

his voice sucked and alot of his guitar playing was all over the place

[ppanda]

I think Lars was the egomaniac of the band. To this day I heckle my friend who is a huge Metallica fan, main target is still that godawful excuse for an album of St.Anger.

Not to knock all bands, but alot of music today just sucks compared to the older stuff.

I just feel that bands like Testament, , Anthrax, D.R.I, and even Megadeth had better albums when Metallica started coming into light.

Im not even gonna touch on Slayer cuz every album they have is gold.

I agree- Lars is the douche of the band- he's got the Napoleon complex that most small dogs have. Fuk him.

[Fezticle98]

I don't want to say a band is overrated because I don't want to imply that they are incapable of great music, but these bands have really put out some shit and don't get called on it enough because they are cannonized.

The clash (inspired by todays opener)

social distortion

Rancid

U2

The Beatles and anyone connected to them.

I guess I don't get the point of this thread. Sure, the above bands have occasionally put out some bad albums. Are you upset that people highlight their good albums and rarely mention their bad ones? Isn't that how it should be, particularly with bands that have put out a lot more great stuff than bad stuff?

U2 gets some critical scorn for Zooropa and Pop. The Clash (or what was left of them) admitted that Cut the Crap was shite.

Rancid is sometimes criticized for "selling out" (whatever that means) and not being "real punk."

Exactly how much flak do you want these bands to take? The Clash and U2 are all time great bands. Sure, they occasionally tried stuff that didn't work. What would be the bigger crime, to fail with a project or to play it safe? I can accept if these bands aren't someones cup of tea, but to me, that doesn't make them deserving of flak or overrated.

When you say that the Clash opener inspired them to be listed, was it because of the particular song, or you were just reminded of the Clash? If it is in response to Bankrobber, I couldn't disagree with you more. Black Market Clash is a great album

[ppanda]

Hendrix

he never catches one ounce of flack

his voice sucked and alot of his guitar playing was all over the place

I would even put Jimmie Page up there too- sloppy guitar player- and the latter days with the junk didnt help him.

[Fez4PrezN2008]

...

The Beatles and anyone connected to them.
Linky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYqCpvzXGTE)

(To quote the late Gail O. "A lot of people listen to this, PLEASE don't take drugs")

[FUNKMAN]

Hendrix

he never catches one ounce of flack

his voice sucked and alot of his guitar playing was all over the place

I would even put Jimmie Page up there too- sloppy guitar player- and the latter days with the junk didnt help him.

but I love Jimmy Page... i've heard alot about his sloppy play and even on The Song Remains The Same album but i just don't hear it. i know it's just opinion but it's some of the best guitar playing i've ever heard

[JesterOfSadness]

Linky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYqCpvzXGTE)

(To quote the late Gail O. "A lot of people listen to this, PLEASE don't take drugs")

Oh my fucking god..

[ppanda]

but I love Jimmy Page... i've heard alot about his sloppy play and even on The Song Remains The Same album but i just don't hear it. i know it's just opinion but it's some of the best guitar playing i've ever heard

Oh No budday- dont take me the wrong way- I am a huge Zep fan (and Hendrix). I think the songs are great and I think the "sloppy" playing is characteristic of him and makes Zeppelin, well,... Zeppelin- I am by no means a fan of precision/progressive guitar playing- Yeah Y. Malmstein... we get it you are awesome but your songs are overproduced and unlistenable.

My point is it may be the "imperfections" that we like...its charachteristic of someones playing and perfection seems to be abnormal- we cant relate.
Its those imperfections that make us love the song on a certain level.
So they shouldnt catch flack if it makes the song good.

...too deep?

[Bob Impact]

Oh No budday- dont take me the wrong way- I am a huge Zep fan (and Hendrix). I think the songs are great and I think the "sloppy" playing is characteristic of him and makes Zeppelin, well,... Zeppelin- I am by no means a fan of precision/progressive guitar playing- Yeah Y. Malmstein... we get it you are awesome but your songs are overproduced and unlistenable.

My point is it may be the "imperfections" that we like...its charachteristic of someones playing and perfection seems to be abnormal- we cant relate.
Its those imperfections that make us love the song on a certain level.
So they shouldnt catch flack if it makes the song good.

...too deep?

I agree to an extent. One of the reasons Grunge became as popular as it was was the fact that Nirvana wrote songs that were easy to play and yet they still fucked them up. Cobain was notoriously sloppy.

Which leads me to my choice: Nirvana. There were a lot of instances when you couldn't look at a show that Nirvana headlined in the early 90's and see the better band opening.

[A.J.]

Hendrix

he never catches one ounce of flack

his voice sucked and alot of his guitar playing was all over the place

Please to explain.

Hendrix hated his own voice so he'd probably agree with you there.

[RoyMunson]

Metallica's last album was really bad and every time I see a Behind the Music or something of the sort, all they are doing is whining. They did make some really great albums but not in a really long time.

[drjoek]

Bay City Rollers

[burrben]

Bay City Rollers

how dare you! take it back!