Kevin's Watch

Max Webster?

I used to really love Rush, and I still like the older stuff up to Permanent Waves. But I think PW was a real turning point for them (sort of like Master of Puppets was for Selloutica), and I don't care for the direction they turned. There's still some good post-PW songs (Red Sector "A" comes to mind), but for the most part it's a shadow of their former selves.

But even the stuff I don't like definately doesn't suck.

Nickleback....Now there's a band that sucks hard. Creed too.

Bah, you quit on them way too soon. Max Webster was a band that opened up for Rush a lot; the two bands were close friends. Geddy sang a part on "Battlescar". Now, back to sucky bands.....KISS used to use Rush as their opener, and Rush learned how to succeed as a band from them. Rush payed attention to everything KISS did; the interviews, the women, the drugs, the parties; everything. Then Rush went out and did the opposite!

Sorus, I think you may be only female in the existance of the world who likes Rush?

And that's a good thing!

To everyone else, this thread really didn't go the way I had planned. I didn't think people would start saying all these bands that they didn't like sucked. the point I wanted to get across is that most bands don't actually suck.

Lets take the Nickleback for example.
Chad can sing; they can play good riffs, their stage show is really good.
But they're sell outs. they write songs specifally to be hits, they follow a format (They're the David Eddings of the rock world).
But it's not like they're missing notes, or playing out of time, or droping their guitars or anything.

But NO I don't like Nickleback, but they don't suck. Even Poison didn't suck. They could play their Intruments well (except that performance on that award show back in '92)

Personally I dislike all prog rock (Rush, Yes, Tull, and the like) aside from Pink Floyd, who are clearly on a higher plane of art.

As for artists like BSB, Britney, and such, they are just so prefabricated and lame that I can't stand them. But whatever. As for talentless: Ashlee Simpson. Need I say more?

I think that a huge amount of music from the past three decades has just been poor, unartistic, made-to-sell corporate rock. Even Pink Floyd, one of the all-time greats, became nothing more than arena rock dinosaurs. The '90s had crappy Nirvana knock-offs and more bad than good bands from the alternative explosion. The '80s had Metallica and hair metal. Ugh. The '70s had a lot of bands that just sounded alike and have aged terribly.

However, the reality is, 50, 100, 500 years down the line only the truly lasting rock artists will be remembered. They'll include, to name some that I believe in, The Beatles, The Kinks, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin (I don't really see why. I've never liked them all that much.), The Smiths, and a few others.

With all due respect LM, you can't possibly include The Smiths with acts like Zeppelin, Floyd, or The Kinks.

Drew, Nickleback doesn't suck in the way you're talking about, because every positive thing you said about them is absolutely true. But Nickleback is the Boston (or the Styx, or the Journey) of the new millenium.

Edit-LM, I'm not saying The Smiths suck, but they had nowhere near the market penetration or the effect that those other bands did. I highly doubt that 100 years from now people will still be talking about Meat Is Murder.

I've never understood the term "sell out".

If you make music that people want to listen to you're a "sell out"?

But if you make music that no wants (ie: sucks) is that called "keeping it real"?

I looked out this morning and the sun was gone
Turned on some music to start my day
I lost myself in a familiar song
I closed my eyes and I slipped away



they are awful. there is no feeling, no depth, no soul. the single worst hit band of all time.

HLT. You're right, mucians break into the music industry to make it big. BUT they should be playing music that they beleive in, not just writtting the samwe song over and over again.
Look at BonJovi (A band I might have used to say sucked) How many times are they going to write the same ballad?

And look at the boy bands..How many guys acctually like their music? I'm assuming that half of the performers in these bands (at least) don't even like thier own music, but they'll continue to write and play it, cause it's making them rich and getting them...well you know.

As far as band that will remembered in the fute..I'd have to add Metallica and Nirvana and KISS to that list.
No none of them were ground breeaking, but they were just as popular s badn like the BEatles and Led Zepllin.

RE Kiss: I heard a good quote the prety much summed them up: "More popular than their music."

drew wrote:RE Kiss: I heard a good quote the prety much summed them up: "More popular than their music."

Right on brother!

I occured to me that what would be a really interesting would be to ask what bands SUCK but you like anyway?

The worst band I know of that everyone pretty much agrees is pretty talentless would be 999. None of you outside of dANdeLION probably know who they are but they were fairly recognized 80's punk band that I continue to listen to their stuff to this day. I can't help it.

KISS sucks, but I don't like them anyway. Tom will attest to my musical diversity/knowledge, but I can't ever remember hearing anything about the Smiths. If they are trly good, then they must completely suck at getting their product to the masses, so it must be ok to talk about them here. As for Boston....they will never be considered the worst anything ever, outside of the overposting clown community. Not while such bands like ASIA and Journey are still remembered. 999 kicked ass, for a short while, at least.

See dAN, I thought that everything from Permanent Waves on was a departure from the "album" concept, and was more "hit single" focused. Not a bad thing in and of itself, but I really felt the song quality suffered.

Cail,

Edit-LM, I'm not saying The Smiths suck, but they had nowhere near the market penetration or the effect that those other bands did. I highly doubt that 100 years from now people will still be talking about Meat Is Murder.

Sorry, but your point is moot. Commercial success does not equate good music. The Smiths as well as Morrissey are no question the greatest rock artists of the past 25 years, and they were one of the first, and certainly the first to hit it remotely mainstream, "indie bands." As for effect, truly, you'd be surprised. Morrissey's entire style is being emulated by practically all alternative bands, with extremely poor results.

Morrisey on his own sucks, badly. but the Smiths were great. Johnny Marr and Morrisey have been unable to keep the magic on their solo albums.

I can not fathom why anyone likes Bon Jovi, bombastic tripe with embarressingly stupid lyrics.

Boston is insipid. a lodestone on the good name they bear like Cain's mark.

Lord Mhoram wrote:Sorry, but your point is moot. Commercial success does not equate good music. The Smiths as well as Morrissey are no question the greatest rock artists of the past 25 years, and they were one of the first, and certainly the first to hit it remotely mainstream, "indie bands." As for effect, truly, you'd be surprised. Morrissey's entire style is being emulated by practically all alternative bands, with extremely poor results.

You're correct, but without that sucess, they won't be remembered in 100 years. And as far as effect, I think The Cure had a much larger impact (if we're talking about alt-bands to hit mainstream).

Again, like what you like, it's personal taste, and I'm not going to tell you you're wrong for liking someone.

Null, I think you're missing the point of this thread.

how so? i am discussing bands that suck. Boston sucks. the Morrissy solo band sucks. Bon Jovi sucks hard. what am I missing?

What I was trying tosay, is that it's all relative.

Using Boston for example.
They don't suck.
You don't like them...there's a huge difference.
(For the record I can't stand them either)

I also can't stand anything Alanis MOrrisette has done; but that doesn't mean she's a bad musician, obviously a lot of people like what she calls 'singing' so to say that she's not good, or that she sucks wouldn't be true.

Exactly.

I dunno, there's a difference between saying a band sucks and saying they can't play. Heck, there are even some bands that can't play all that well but don't suck. I mean, when you get specific, like "Man, their guitarist sucks," then sure. But there's a lot more to a band than just how well they play their music. Songwriting, arrangement, even production (can be the greatest band of all time, but if they sound like they're under water, who would care?) all play a part.

And then there's that certain element. I know piano players have a word for it. It's the little flourishes, the emotion you put into the notes that separates it from the mechanical. And even when it's done, it can still be good (soulful, inspired) or bad (cheesy, annoying).

So, I think it's fair to say that any band or artist that doesn't write or arrange thier own music and has little to no originality sucks. And beyond that, you'd be completely in line to say that you think a band sucks if they do have some or all of the above but the way they do it is wrong.

Well, using the Boston example....

I think Boston sucks. I can't get to the preset buttons fast enough when they come on. But they've sold a ton of albums (16 million copies of their debut), sold out numerous tours, had numerous hit singles, and Tom Scholz is a better guitar player than I am.

Clearly, Boston doesn't suck.