unfairly derided bands or artists

[METALMAN]

1. Paul McCartney

Thought of as the lesser member of the Lennon/McCartney songwriting partnership despite contributing the likes of Eleanor Rigby, Fixing A Hole, Lady Madonna and many others.

Afterwards thought of as being a far worse solo artist than Lennon (McCartney will alwaya and forever be compared with Lennon and I'm not going to stop that here. Just for the record, I do like John Lennon. Just not that much.) for preferring to live on a farm and be vegetarian rather than court a lot of publicity; go on about world peace; stay in bed with Yoko Ono; ultimately die.

On purely musical terms Paul McCartney wins for me by a landslide. John Lennon's solo career consisted of two reasonably good albums, a few excellent singles, several dull albums and finally his death and subsequent martyrdom. "OH IF ONLY PAUL DIED INSTEAD THERE WOULD BE WORLD PEACE AND WE WOULD NEVER HAVE HAD TO HEAR EBONY AND IVORY"

Admittedly, Paul McCartney is culpable for 'Ebony and Ivory' and 'Mull of Kintyre' - both of which are fairly dreadful. However, during the 70s when both were releasing music, Paul's music was actually of a much higher calibre .'Back Seat of My Car', 'Maybe I'm Amazed', 'Band On The Run' and 'Let Me Roll It' are just a few of the relatively high number of wonderful songs Paul McCartney wrote in the 70s. Despite a few rubbish albums - which can happen to the very best of artists releasing material over a number of years - his standards have remained relatively high. 'End of the End' was released just two years ago and is a fantastic tune, with 'Too Much Rain' - my all time favourite McCartney tune - Beatles or otherwise - being released in 2004 (I think). The Fireman is awesome too.

2. Sting

People make fun of him and call him a pompous git. A pompous git he may be, but between leaving the Police and about 1994ish he released some excellent music - most of which was far better than anything he did in the Police. Turned shit afterwards however , though I will still check out his album that's released next month. In all seriousness this is one of my favourite songs ever.

3. Oasis

The drummer was alright.

So with my musical credibility at this here forum considerably reduced, I put it you to make your own suggestions!

(This topic is not just an excuse for me to be a Paul McCartney fanboy.)

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

I always thought that Paul McCartney had the complete opposite. He's a media and music industry darling. He can write some absolute tat and no-one bats an eyelid.

Sting's decent enough. Of course he's more famous for his tantric sex exploits and saving the rainforests but The Police were a great group.

Again, aren't Oasis media darlings? I can't stand them personally but everyone I know really likes them.

[GoGo Yubari]

I'm exhausted and spent and about to go to bed so this will not be an awesome passionate defense also because I don't like them enough to defend them passionately.

The Doors. "Break On Through (To The Other Side)" and "Five to One" are fucking awesome rock and roll songs and they deserve a pass just for those (let alone "Strange Days," "Love Me Two Times," and "Riders on the Storm").

[lari]

Those suggestions are ridiculous. Some of the most critically acclaimed bands of all time are derided?

How about those 80's hair metal bands? A lof of the bands had great musicians and real infectious songwriting, but people still give them no credit because they look funny. Dokken, Cinderella, Skid Row... all awesome bands.

[METALMAN]

Fuck off are they ridiculous. Look at any popular music press - the likes of NME - and chances are you'll see them ripping it out of Paul McCartney or Sting. I mean, what do you think it was that made me start this topic in the first place?

[New Damage]

Nickelback.

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

No-one over the age of 16 really cares what NME think.

[Benji]

No-one over the age of 16 really cares what NME think.

And no-one under 15 years and 364 days does either.

Those born on leap days are cunts who do care.

[GoGo Yubari]

Those suggestions are ridiculous. Some of the most critically acclaimed bands of all time are derided?

How about those 80's hair metal bands? A lof of the bands had great musicians and real infectious songwriting, but people still give them no credit because they look funny. Dokken, Cinderella, Skid Row... all awesome bands.

Yes. Almost any time I see The Doors mentioned these days it's almost always a burial of how pretentious Jim Morrison was and how overrated they were. They've been a target of common "most overrated band ever" critical hate in the same way Nirvana is for as long as I can remember.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

I'm not sure if you're joking as relates to Oasis, MM... but they're surely too popular and shit for a list of this sort, aren't they? The music is all just plodding, uninspired dad-rock -- like a combination of The Beatles without the joyfulness and The Jam without the politics. And although I agree that there has been a fairly considerable reaction against them, I still find people who consider themselves to be musically discerning defending the band. Note also that the NME gave both "Dig Out Your Soul" and "Heathen Chemistry" very positive reviews. If there's a strong anti-Oasis sentiment within the music press, then I think it emanates from places like Pitchfork, rather than the 'E.

I don't get what makes people think that Sting is a pompous git. He looks like a poncy git a lot of the time, but he seems unafraid to take the piss out of himself (see especially his "The Smell of Reeves and Mortimer" appearances, but also his "Simpsons" appearance and fantastic delivery of the line, "this isn't about us... it's about a kid trapped down a well or something.").

I've already written about two bands that I think fit this category in other threads.

About Nirvana, from the old Contrarion Musical Opinions thread:

Nirvana were great, and still are.

It's kind of de rigeur now to take shots at Nirvana for one of four reasons: i) they've 'aged badly' ii) un-melodic music, iii) Cobain was a twat / the lyrics and images are just generally deserving of eye-rolls; iiiv) their legacy is in large part due to Cobain's suicide and subsequent vigorous media fawning.

i) is just meaningless.

ii) is true in large part, but misses the point -- they're supposed to be a balls-out rock band trading in simple, catchy riffs. No matter how much they're overplayed these days, how can you not like the intro riffs of 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' or 'Come as You Are'? Or, if popularity turns you off, the riff and bass-line to 'Even in His Youth' are tremendous. Songs like 'Something in the Way', 'Dumb' and 'Pennyroyal Tea' show their diversity: they could slow things down and meander too. Cobain was a very good vocalist, who could sound viciously raw when needed (see the end of 'Lounge Act') without ever coming across as forced or simply sounding unpleasant to thine ears.

iii) has some truth to it: how can anyone hear "never met a wise man / if so it's a woman" or watch Cobain taking the piss out of his audience for clapping (those appreciative FUCKS!!!!!) without feeling a bit ill? But to cast Cobain as someone who was acting in bad-faith, or 'sold' depression/alienation/whatever seems to go way too far to me. His life both before and during Nirvana was genuinely troubled, and the end to his life should be evidence that he wasn't someone who intended on trading in youthful ire and then mellowing-out as needed later on. He had his traumas -- sure he basked in them a bit, and took up wankery positions in songs, but he was yong and pissed-off. Who'd like to cast the first stone? Most of his lyrics also have a subtle quality to them which means that, even if you can't relate to him personally, they can easily be re-interpreted to fit your life. I know that 'Pennyroyal Tea' is about heroin addiction, but, for me, "sit and drink pennyroyal tea / steal the life that's inside of me" speaks a lot about boredom, restlessness and inefficacy. And whilst I might not be attending the sort of parties and places that Kurt frequented (never seen anyone "load up on guns" as far as I can remember), "bring your friends / it's fun to lose and to pretend / she's over-bored / self-assured / oh no, I know a dirty word" is a perfectly nice story of dejected evenings spent in dismal company.

iv). Yeah, the media has pimped the fuck out of Cobain since his death in a way that is in large part attributable to its nature and circumstances. But none of them give a sincere fuck about him: 'The Times' give away free Cobain CDs to suggest that they're down with the youth, but to prevent them from having to decide for themselves what's worthy of praise (for we all know Nirvana are 'classic' and 'iconic'). But the media talks shit about everything, and to react to them by declaring that Nirvana and Cobain were actually entirely without merit musically and in the public eye solely due to Cobain repainting his greenhouse with his grey matter is disingenuous.

I've also mentioned The Clash in this regard before, too. I hear a lot of criticism of their being "unmelodic" and/or possessing an aesthetic that's (insincerely/unsupportably) macho or violent. I think that both of these criticisms can be addressed together by pointing out that those observations only come close to holding for the debut album. London Calling features a number of fantastic pop songs ("Rudie Can't Fail", "London Calling" itself, and "Train in Vain" -- a song so bubblegum-y that the band disowned it). And, fuck me, the follow up LC ("Sandinista!") is a double CD of world music! There is a lot of violent/revolutionary imagery woven into the songs from the self-titled album, and one might reasonably point out that this sits poorly with Joe Strummer's middle class upbringing in Surrey. But "Give 'em Enough Rope" contains a song which straight-up criticises political violence ("Tommy Gun"). And I don't buy the argument that just because a person is middle-class, (s)he can't be worried about rising British nationalism ("English Civil War"), empathise with kids who have it less easy ("Career Opportunities"), or support revolutionary/radical Leftism ("Washington Bullets"). And, hey, these were young kids who were musicians. They grew up in a time when radical Leftist ideas spoke to a lot of people about their situation, regardless of how closely one's immediate circumstances resembled those of Chilean copper miners. I think that Strummer was mostly sincere and, in any case, he wasn't a Professor of Political Science.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[Skummy]

Some overview opinions;

Paul McCartney is unfairly derided as the weaker half of the Lennon/McCartney partnership, definitely. It's completely ignored that he was probably the most forward-looking member of the Beatles - it was him that picked up on the likes of Karlheinz Stockhausen and electronic music and tape loops, and incorporated some of those ideas into the Beatles' work, but because he recorded some dross afterwards (as if Lennon hadn't, he only had three good solo tunes), Paul always got a somewhat bad rap - though that does seem to have changed somewhat in recent years. And, yes, The Fireman have always been consistently great, and the last album is superb.

Along similar lines, Yoko Ono also gets far too much bad press in the mainstream media. In various sectors of the underground press, and certainly within feminist circles, she's rightly viewed as something of a visionary, or at least as an important artist, but too many people view her as the "weird girlfriend" or the archetypal woman-coming-between-friends breaking up the Beatles.

I have a soft spot for Skid Row, but Dokken and Cinderella aren't derided because they look funny, they're derided because they were wank. The reason the '80s metal movement is looked down upon is that it was entirely regressive and self-indulgent.

Nirvana are fantastic. I went through a lengthy phase of not being able to listen to them, and even now I barely do, but you can't ignore that they wrote great tunes, could be, as Fuckshit put it, "a balls-out rock band" - but that Kurt also had a knack for pop music, and I mean that in the true and melodic sense, not the insult that "pop" has come to mean - populist, rather than popular - that really hadn't been seen since the Beatles. Plus, and this is one of the reasons I love Nirvana - Kurt was a true music historian in a way that before the internet it was very difficult to be, and he used his position in the spotlight to open doors to bands that had never had that kind of an opportunity before. He took The Vaselines, a band that had never tasted media success, and convinced them to re-form to support his band on tour (not to mention covering three of their songs, and naming his daughter after their lead singer.), did the same for the Meat Puppets, Os Mutantes and countless others, reinvigorated interest in the work of Leadbelly, gained media exposure for Daniel Johnston, K Records, The Melvins, and much of the Riot Grrrl movement that would have gone un-noticed without his influence, all while still recording some absolutely brilliant music himself.

I can't think of a single person since that has used their position in the eye of the media storm to such an end, when it should surely come as second nature.

It's easy to let the media's view, or overexposure, of an artist taint your perception about them, and Nirvana were a lot of things, flawed, certainly, but they were always a fantastic band - they just fall somewhere in between the two polarised opinions that we're forced into; they're neither the best band ever, nor were they overhyped media darlings, they were just a bloody good band.

The Clash. Another one that soundtracked a lot of my life, but whom I barely listen to any more. I'd sooner listen to Joe Strummer & The Mescaleros, but probably because I overdid The Clash during my school days. I'm not a fan of much of their work post-London Calling any more - I think a lot of it is rather clumsy, but I guess that's their charm because, damn it, they were trying. Just trying to make music they loved.

Criticisms of the Clash, though; their political side was confrontational, with little substance - sloganeering and little else. Obviously you can't write a manifesto in a pop song, but it's tiresome to hear of a group being heralded as revolutionaries when their politics was ill-defined, at best. More a failing of the medium than of the band, though - and, again, could be seen as more a sign of youthful exuberance on their part and too-high expectations on a public expecting a pop song to change the world.

As Fuckshit hinted at, a lot of the Clash's message is conflicted with Joe Strummer's wealthy middle-class upbringing (though he is still viewed as a working man's man, a testament to the power of self-marketing not seen since people became convinced that John Lennon was in fact a "working class hero", when the only claim to that title he has is that he once sung it, by which measure he is also a walrus), but again as Fuckshit said, being middle class doesn't necessarily exclude you from having a leftist slant to your politics - though there is the argument that, coming from money, Strummer was more in a position to afford to waste his time on silly pop songs without so much consequence if it didn't all take off. And while I can often get very classist when it comes to music (I reserve a special hatred for middle class white men playing the blues on electric guitars), if we're going to discredit someone on the basis of being middle class, we also have to ignore the Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Santogold, John Peel, and countless others. Let's not.

My chief criticism of the Clash is as much a criticism of the punk movement and its failings. As a band who, as part of the punk movement, spoke chiefly of overthrowing the system, kicking out the bullshit of the music industry and starting all over again, the Clash, and especially Joe Strummer (coming, as he did, from shameless rock 'n' roll revivalists the 101ers) were quick to embrace rock and roll cliché, and all the macho "four lads against the world" posturing that came with it - the less said of them posing dressed up as cowboys, the better. But then, who doesn't get into a band wanting to do all that? They're only human.

That was longer than I expected. I might come up with some original points later, though.

[Cactus Drags]

Ten Summoner's Tales is a great album, not amazingly keen on Sting's more recent stuff though. And I think The Police tend to get overlooked a bit, I think they were brilliant. Don't Stand So Close to Me has to be one my favourite songs ever. Everyone remembers Roxanne and Every Breath You Take, but they had some great stuff besides those two.

[Skummy]

Actually, a record shop I worked at had a Strange Fruit/BBC compilation of twenty years of BBC music - Top Gear through Peel Sessions from the '60s to the mid '80s - and one of the best things on there was a Peel session of The Police's "Can't Stand Losing You" that was just distorted, fuzzy and fucked up, completely different to anything they ever did on record, it was incredible.

[Llama]

A lot of people are hating on Michael Jackson because he "allegedly" gave some kids BJ's , but his songs are absolutely terrific. He paved the way for such a large majority of today's singers as well. Man in the Mirror is such a good song haha.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

Very good post re: The Clash, Skummy.

I think you're right that "youthful exuberance" is the best way to explain the Clash's "all talk, no trousers" approach to political songwriting. Coupled with that is the fact that Punk frequently expressed itself in negative terms. Few bands -- certainly very few who are now seen as being a 'canonical' punk band -- really laid out prescriptions, but there did seem to broad agreement about "the enemies." In this matter, I generally work from the principle laid down by Trotskyist and music journalist Benjamin Watson: "attack whatever you like, but always shoot from the Left." The Clash, the Pistols, Stiff Little Fingers etc. were clearly "sounder"/"better" than the things that they opposed.

A bigger problem with TC is brought out by your comment re: machoness, I think. One of punk's problems was that it failed to cut out the fetishisation of "hardness" which is quintessentially part of Rock and Roll. The Clash's cowboy hats are a part of it -- so are Henry Rollins' bare-chest, and the general absence of any female musicians from the main wave of Punk. I guess it's not much of a surprise that politicised female music either attached itself to different movements (Riot Grrrrrl) or have been pushed to the Punk margins (The Slits). I'm sure that there were plenty of female Punks in the 70s and after, but the "no enemies amongst the kids" ethos of the movement must have been hurt considerably by the lack of female faces in prominent bands. One of the ideological thrusts of indie was, after all, to place some of the music industry's power into the hands of women.

The other problem with The Clash's masculinity is that they didn't even do anything interesting with it artistically. I mean, Big Black are another band who wade almost knee deep in unconvincing images of violence. But the "masculinity" of Albini could also be frustrated and self-defeating ("Pavement Saw"), and was often expressed through characters rather than direct-from-artist.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[Skummy]

The female involvement of punk seemed to be more in the fanbase than in the bands - and that's a failing of the music industry. Any decent "history" of the punk movement will tell you that it was essentially sexless, but it was never reflected in the band themselves, because for the most part those bands were still reliant on the male-dominated record industry, then as ever. Plus, punk bands tended to be motivated on class issues, so rarely brought in other exclusionary issues - you could replace "female" with "gay" or any ethnic minority, and while you could name maybe one or two notable examples, they're the exception rather than the rule.

The post-punk "movement", if you can call it that, was much more legitimately genderless, with bands like The Fall, to give but one example, incorporating female members while never really making a point of it - they were just women who happened to be in bands. Yet, somehow, by the '80s, female bands had reverted to being considered a novelty, and female band members were pushed back into the role of glamorous frontwoman, and the music industry has never really since broken that mold.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

Yeah, the same mixture of "right on" attitudes but practical absence exhibits itself as regards ethnic minorities. A lot of bands paid lip service to reggae and felt a (no doubt sincere) kinship with the music's motivations. A number of bands even did obligatory reggae covers. But it wasn't until Bad Brains, who belong to a different milieu in every sense, that a really successful and artistically excellent Black punk band came along (or am I wrong about that? I can't think of one.) More generally, British Asians didn't even have that theoretical involvement -- the idea that Black culture is cool, vibrant and worth appropriating but Asian culture is conservative, religion-centred, and boring was allowed to stand despite Punk's determined anti-racism. Musicians themselves can't really be blamed for that, but the situation we're discussing kind of cuts across the idea that Punk was a unifying and national youth culture movement. I'm not sure how many immigrant communities -- not a huge element of the population at this point, but a growing and young sub-population -- would really have been touched by Rotten, Strummer, or Burns.

There was indeed a much more significant involvement of women in what is broadly called "Post-Punk" -- the Fall, the Slits, Delta 5, Lilliput, The Au Pairs, etc. In many ways, Post-Punk had its ideological shit together much better than Punk -- it was just a far less populist movement. It's a shame, since that re-enforces the (I think incorrect) notion that one's hands necessarily have to become bloodied in the process of gaining popularity.

Wikipedia has a "List of all-female bands". That depresses me.

Sorry for the hijack, by the way.]

e: Speaking of Wikipedia, the page for PiL has this (it is cited, by the way):

Following the Sex Pistols' breakup in 1978, Lydon spent three weeks in Jamaica with Virgin Records head Richard Branson, in which Lydon assisted Branson in scouting for emerging reggae musicians. Branson also flew American band Devo to Jamaica, with an aim to installing Lydon as lead singer in the band. Devo declined the offer.

What the twat? Is this a well-known thing? Good lord...

Edited October 22, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[METALMAN]

Oh those were excellent suggestions concerning the Clash and Nirvana. I'm by no means the biggest fan of either band but I do like them and having heard the majority of their discography would also consider myself reasonably well informed.

I used to really like Nirvana when I was younger but fairly recently decided to hate them because "THEY WEREN'T THAT GREAT KURT COBAIN WAS A TWAT AND THEY ONLY GOT FAMOUS CAUSE HE TOPPED HIMSELF". Thankfully now I am far less of a twat and can appreciate that they were a massively influential band before and after Cobain's suicide.

However, I do still have a few reservations, and my opinion is much the same as it was when I originally began to find out more about Nirvana's history - although much more diluted. I still think Kurt Cobain was a massive dickhead. (although as Fuckshit said, he was genuinely troubled and did have a difficult life) Then again, it's a bit unfair to single out Kurt Cobain as a dickhead. As mentioned earlier I love Sting despite any number of dickhead accusations - althougn having read his autobiography he doesn't seem that bad :/. I love the music of Morrissey, Lou Reed, Bob Dylan and Van Morrison - all of whom are dickheads.

Furthermore - I still maintain that a high proportion of Nirvana's fame today is down to his death and Courtney Love's subsequent legacy whoring. I'm not so stupid as to deny that they wouldn't be famous at all - I'm fully aware that Nevermind knocked Michael Jackson off the top of the charts - but it was Kurt Cobain's death that sent them stratospheric. Much like my original complaint about John Lennon.

This shouldn't - and for me, doesn't - affect any evaluation of the music itself. I can still get lots of enjoyment from listening to the likes of 'Pennyroyal Tea', 'Come As You Are', 'Drain You' and 'Lounge Act' among many others. This probably points to my enjoyment of Nirvana's perhaps more derided "poppier" side. But I don't care. It's what I like best.

One aspect of Nirvana that I genuinely can't stand is their MTV Unplugged album. (And I do realise there are a lot of people here that love this album so apologies in advance). I really just find this album to be a blatant cash in more than anything else. Yes, a lot of things are, but this album isn't even very good! Aside from the wonderful and chilling covers of 'Lake of Fire' and 'Where Did You Sleep Last Night?' I couldn't care a jot for the rest of the album. Stark and highly emotional it may be but it is also more a Kurt Cobain album than a Nirvana album - with Grohl and the other guy being relegated to session musicians. I really don't see how it can really be perceived as being such a classic without the attached significance of Kurt Cobain's death. Nevertheless, probably worth its place in any collection due to the brilliance of the two songs I mentioned. Although my liking of 'Where Do You Sleep Last Night?' is probably down to the attacged significance of Kurt Cobain's death. So I am contradictory, and a hypocrite.

...breathe...

The Clash now. I like them, though I don't love them. Like Skummy, I also don't care for their later period. Combat Rock is one of my least favourite albums that I own. Not because they "sold out" or whatever. I don't give a fuck about that. I think Rod Stewart is fantastic - yet he is quite possibly the biggest musical sell out ever. So no, not because they "sold out". The album just bores me - aside from 'Rock The Casbah' which is a magnificent pop song and the intro of 'Straight To Hell', which was rightfully recognised by MIA as a wonderful snippet of music. I do really enjoy their other albums - while Sandinista and to a lesser extent London Calling are weighed down by a lot of filler there is plenty there to make two very strong albums. I am another that can't really stand their sloganeering and gang mentality, though at odds with that, their debut album - where it was probably at its worst - is my favourite piece of work by them. Put Joe Strummer down on my long list of people that were dickheads yet still made music that I like. Plus he was ugly. He got lucky standing next to Mick Jones though. That made him look better. He must have looked dreadful after Jones left - although the less said about 'Cut The Crap' the better.

Sorry if that was at all muddled or didn't make sense. I am currently battling the worst hangover of my life! :/

[Emperor Fuckshit]

Sorry if that was at all muddled or didn't make sense. I am currently battling the worst hangover of my life! :/

Nah, I think your take on Nirvana is pretty much spot on. Cobain was a twat, ultimately -- although it might've been closer than some people make out nowadays. And the way that the band has been absorbed into canon by people who couldn't give a fuck about (guitar) music (in that free-CD-of-rock-music-legunds-in-this-week's-Sunday-Times sort of way) is very annoying.

If people want to hate Nirvana, then I guess I can't hold it against them, since I agree with Steve Albini's awesome comment that, "when a band is pushed down my throat then it makes me, as a consumer, just hate them." But Nirvana reflect a unique case in that the band can't benefit from (and aren't even in control of) the pushing any more. And if people do decide to hate Nirvana, then that can no longer be presented as an original or interesting opinion.

I'm trying to come up with some more examples for this thread, but I know fuck all about most famous bands. And you have to be well-known to be worth deriding.

[Guest Spongebob Weinstein]

I'm going to throw Queen into the mix. Popular among the masses, yes, but critics/elitists seem to hate them with a passion. In reality, they were probably the most diverse group to achieve that level of success other than the Beatles (as evidenced by the Freddie Mercury Tribute Show where everybody from James Hetfield to Lisa Stansfield to a duet between Elton John and Axl Rose made an appearance), and they could write some INCREDIBLY catchy stuff.

Plus for a lot of people, you can't jump straight into prog rock or post-punk or what have you, you need something that gets you just liking music in the first place, and Queen fills that niche quite nicely.