unfairly derided bands or artists

[Emperor Fuckshit]

Popular among the masses, yes, but critics/elitists seem to hate them with a passion.

Heh heh, I know next-to-nothing about Queen, but here's a nice little nugget that adds weight to your theory:

"Rolling Stone" critic Dave Marsh used his review of "Jazz" to call Queen "maybe the first truly fascist rock band." The "user rating" for the album over at RollingStone.com is four stars.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[METALMAN]

When looking up that quote on rolling stone I found this wonderful user review:

JAZZ, of course, is fantastic! Great songs, creative as ever, QUEEN is phenomenal, as usual.

And FREDDIE....FREDDIE is the most incredible, most awesome, most dynamic performer -ever-!!!!!

To have talent and genius merge in the phenomenon of FREDDIE MERCURY was God's greatest gift to the music world!! And we are forever grateful!!!

As for that scum-sucking piece of slime slithering back under his rock....I know it was 30 years ago that he spewed his moronic nonsense, but, my blood was boiling while reading that trash he wrote about the GREATEST BAND in the world. Calling QUEEN "creeps"! What an A**hole!!! Those guys are the nicest guys you'd ever want to meet!! As well as the smartest! No wonder they, particularly FREDDIE, hated doing interviews; the press never gave them a chance. They were so unsophisticated to know outstanding music when they heard it, and recognize amazing talent when they saw it.

I saw FREDDIE just on TV and he totally blew me away!!! In an instant, it was clear that he had a magic unmatched by anybody else - ever - !!!

It was love at first sight, not to mention his unbelievable voice! You have to be a total moron to overlook this spectacularly gifted genius, as well as the other great band members!

I'd love to stomp on that freak's freaking throat for that scathing review, and for having the power to affect the future of anybody, never mind the Best Band in the world.

QUEEN ROCKSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!

FREDDIE - THE GOD OF ROCK - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for me, I agree with what MPH said about Queen getting a lot of people into music. I know lots of people who used Queen as a kind of gateway artist. I did myself to a slight extent, although it was more the Beatles for me. Regardless, Queen still did play an important part in me becoming a music fan, and due to that I would say that nominally, I do like Queen. However, a great deal of the songs I liked then I can't stand now - which could be due to overplaying them or changing tastes. When I would last call myself a fan of Queen - perhaps about seven or eight years ago - all I would listen to were their Greatest Hits songs. The majority of those are still pretty decent - and I still love 'Innuendo', 'Killer Queen' and 'Under Pressure'. They also seemed like an fun live band too - the other Queen songs I have on my iPod are all live ones - such as 'Radio Ga Ga', 'One Vision' and 'Bohemian Rhapsody' - three songs that I generally can't stand the studio version of. As good as their singles may or may not be - it would take a very deluded person to argue Queen were a good album band. In short, all their albums are shit. Except Queen II, Sheer Heart Attack and News of the World. Which are mediocre. And 'Night at the Opera'. Which is a bit better than mediocre.

Also, 'A Kind of Magic', 'Flash', 'Save Me', 'We Will Rock You', 'We Will Rock You - The Musical', and Brian May Playing the God Save The Queen at live shows are all dreadful, always have been, and always will be.

Then again, in my opinion the best thing Queen ever did was the version of 'Somebody To Love' sung by George Michael at the Freddy Mercury memorial concert so I am probably not the most objective person to offer an opinion on the matter. >_>

[Hobo]

I'm probably going to go against type when I say this but I do agree with others on Paul McCartney. As much capable of absolute dreck as he is some very fun (The Frog Song was a childhood favorite of mine) and a few other good songs ('Once Upon A Long Ago' is another McCartney solo song I actually like). Although generally I just don't like I don't know what it is but something about Sir Paul annoys me.

Phil Collins is perhaps another unfairly derided artist. I am much bigger fan of his era of Genesis than I am of the Gabriel era (although I am more of a fan of solo Gabriel than solo Collins conversely). Collins had a skill of coming out with very catchy pop songs like Sussudio, Easy Lover, I Wish It Would Rain Down and of course In the Air Tonight in terms of solo projects.

Sting, he's had a few great solo songs and I spent a lot of time listening to my brothers copy of Mercury Falling.

[Evil Chase K]

Metallica.

Whether it's calling them sellouts, giving them shit for standing by their ideals and fighting Napster, or any of the other usual eye-roll inducing negatives people like to spew about Metallica, there seems to be an overwhelming portion of the public who bash them because it's "cool."

I don't know which group of Metallica haters is the worst: the young kids who bash them because they think it's cool, the tr00 metal fan who only listens to the heaviest bands and considers Metallica to be "sell outs" because they felt the need to adapt and not release the same record over and over and over, or the Napster shitheads who hate Metallica because they helped to make it harder for said shitheads to steal music.

I have no problem with people who dislike Metallica' music, if you genuinely don't like something there's nothing wrong with expressing that. But it seems to me that Metallica can do nothing right with some people. I love every Metallica album (except St. Anger which I only mildly enjoy). Whether it's Metallica, Load, or ReLoad, to me they're all awesome. If someone doesn't like any of those albums who am I to disagree? It's a personal taste.

But Metallica gets bashed at a near constant level by a good portion of the public for reasons that just don't fly.

[Skummy]

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.

Definitely. One of the great things about Nirvana was that, despite the media's best efforts to turn pretty boy Kurt into the archetypal rock frontman, they were a truly democratic band, and that comes across in any other live footage you could name, it was always a very fraternal atmosphere of three guys doing what they loved and, more often than not, not giving a fuck what anyone else thought about them. But, as you said, MTV Unplugged was just a showcase of Kurt Cobain, trying to place him in the role of troubled singer-songwriter/poet - which, according to some, is the direction he would've taken had he survived and split up Nirvana as it's widely acknowledged he had been planning on doing. The version of "Where Did You Sleep Last Night?" is great, as it showcases Kurt's voice at it's most pained best, but it's still no better than the version he did with Mark Lanegan. Ultimately, it's not a great Nirvana album, because it's barely a Nirvana album at all.

Incidentally, at the time, MTV hated it. It was only broadcast once, when several other Unplugged performances got a ton of repeat airings. It was only re-aired, and the album only released, as a cash-in on Kurt's death.

As for Queen...I really don't like them, I think it's a toss-up between them and Pink Floyd when it comes to naming the two most widely known bands that achieved so little in terms of shaping the face of pop music. Maybe that's a testament to Queen having carved out their own sound that no one else could accurately replicate, but I think it's more to do with the fact that they're wank.

They're horribly camp, only ever released "good" singles and shit albums, and for all their supposed innovation, they never accepted any of the advances in musical technology beyond music video (which, contrary to all the bollocks written about Bohemian Rhapsody had been done plenty of times before) - as evidenced by their horrible "this record was made using no synthesisers" stickers.

Bohemian Rhapsody is fucking awful. It was novelty shite, it is by no measure a "good" song. If it was released tomorrow by any band you could name, and Queen had never recorded it, it would be rightly ridiculed - and I'd argue that the music-buying public are no more or less conservative today than they were in 1977.

Overview - they're indulgent wankery. They were musically abhorrent. They were horribly camp. Crap hair and clothes (hey, if they're going to make a point on image, I can criticise it). Too many stories of bullshit "rock and roll" indulgence. They played Sun City.

They played Sun City. If ever there was a reason to hate a band, I think endorsing - and financially aiding - apartheid is definitely pretty high on the list.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Skummy

[Jayzon]

Metallica.

Whether it's calling them sellouts, giving them shit for standing by their ideals and fighting Napster, or any of the other usual eye-roll inducing negatives people like to spew about Metallica, there seems to be an overwhelming portion of the public who bash them because it's "cool."

I don't know which group of Metallica haters is the worst: the young kids who bash them because they think it's cool, the tr00 metal fan who only listens to the heaviest bands and considers Metallica to be "sell outs" because they felt the need to adapt and not release the same record over and over and over, or the Napster shitheads who hate Metallica because they helped to make it harder for said shitheads to steal music.

I have no problem with people who dislike Metallica' music, if you genuinely don't like something there's nothing wrong with expressing that. But it seems to me that Metallica can do nothing right with some people. I love every Metallica album (except St. Anger which I only mildly enjoy). Whether it's Metallica, Load, or ReLoad, to me they're all awesome. If someone doesn't like any of those albums who am I to disagree? It's a personal taste.

But Metallica gets bashed at a near constant level by a good portion of the public for reasons that just don't fly.

I came into this thread to say "Metallica", but you stole all my arguments. I agree with you 100%, even on liking all their albums. For me, Load and ReLoad were the albums that got me into heavier music, so they have a special place in my heart. I agree that they are not terribly "metal", but why should they? They are fucking awesome rock albums. I always thought it was ridiculous to assume that just because a band originally made one kind of music they must always do the same thing. All the great bands have changed their style more or less at some point.

All except AC/DC, of course.

[VerbalPuke]

Just wanted to add a bit about the females in punk discussion, they were around and fairly prominent, just not involved with the big three (Clash, Pistols, Ramones). There's an obvious lack of all female punk bands, but there were a ton of bands where women were the focal point. The problem is that they didn't have the same notoriety as some of the bigger bands which is the case for thousands of punk bands. I think most of you are familiar with Patti Smith and Blondie, though they're associated with punk much in the way the New York Dolls or Stooges are (founders mostly, but still hanging with that crowd). X, The Nuns, The Avengers, Even Worse, Bush Tetras (though they might fall into the post-punk category, an all girl group that looked like men), Nervous Gender and the Alice Bag Band were all fronted by women, and there were a ton of others that had women as crucial members of the band. And these weren't novelty gals, they were as crucial to the bands they were involved with as much as the men backing them. It's likely that most people don't know those bands outside of X, but they had their followings in their day. Skummy's got it pretty much right in that they were a huge part of the fanbase rather than as members of the band, but it's still more than can be said about other forms of rock.

As far as non-white bands, I can't think of many blacks involved in punk other than D.H. Peligro of Dead Kennedys, and two instances of all black bands calling themselves the Niggers (from Detroit) and the NY Niggers (New York of course). Some have speculated it's actually the same band, and all that exists of them is a two song seven inch titled "Just Like Dresden". It seemed that in LA the punk movement struck a chord with some of the Latinos, the Plugz and Zeros for example (both bands largely influenced by the Ramones), and recently in Chicago, Los Crudos. There's even a pretty strong contingent of Asian punk bands with Battle of Disarm, Hat Trickers, Dick Spikkie, The Stalin, GISM, and the Plastics. Obviously none of these bands lit up the charts, but there is a large enough contingent to say that people of all cultures have been hit by the punk bug in some way or another. Naturally it's not a huge contingent of people influenced by the music, but punk music isn't exactly a huge movement to begin with, even with white folks.

If anything, the gays were the best represented in the punk scene. Probably unquestionably, given that punk is somewhat derived from some of the gay scenes in the mid-70s.

Edited October 22, 2009 by VerbalPuke

[I Don't Mind]

Creed. Google spread it about mostly that they were the worst band ever, and even Google editors don't know why that comes up. I say bullshit. It was one guy who helped with Google and thought it would be funny. Higher, What If, With Arms Wide Open, and My Sacrifice are going to come back and get huge radioplay within the next ten years as that retro awesomeness that sold millions when it first came out but then got shit on for being unfashionable. That shit sold. Someone must have liked it.

But yeah, Scott Stapp is a fuckwad.

[GoGo Yubari]

Of all the reasons for why a band qualifies here, I really think "Google said it so people believed it" is one of the funnier ones. Speaking personally, I got legitimately sick of Creed in 2001 as my musical tastes began to develop beyond Whatever The Local Alternative Station Played. The fact that Scott Stapp is a tool and some of their music videos were really pretentious only exacerbated the problem.

Re: Nirvana Unplugged, yeah, it's not really something I'm ever clamoring to listen to except for "Where Did You Sleep Last Night" and "About a Girl." Calling it a showcase for Kurt instead of for the band as a whole is very accurate.

[DMN in the House]

I was going to come in here and say Metallica, but leave it to ECK to run them out there before I got a chance. I agree with everything he said. If you hate on the Black Album, you... I don't even know what to say.

KoRn and Linkin Park are names I'd throw around. It seems like even KoRn fans jumped off the wagon after Untouchables, which I felt was a great album, and Linkin Park has put out great music, and great spin-offs, despite the lame 'rap-rock' tag that they don't even deserve.

[Gazz]

All rock bands that have a young following.

For example, bands like My Chemical Romance, Good Charlotte and Paramore. I mean, there not my cup of tea personally (although I am partial to a bit of Paramore ) but I'd rather have a 12 or 13 year old kid listening to them and eventually expanding their musical horizons as I did (I started off with Korn, Limp Bizkit and Papa Roach) than the drizzling shits that passes for RnB, Rap and Dance currently.

[Iain76er]

KoRn and Linkin Park are names I'd throw around. It seems like even KoRn fans jumped off the wagon after Untouchables, which I felt was a great album, and Linkin Park has put out great music, and great spin-offs, despite the lame 'rap-rock' tag that they don't even deserve.

Korn's first album is great and definetely the peak for Nu-Metal. Their cause hasn't been helped by the fact that they stayed together and kept releasing albums to diminishing returns. And they were also responsible for making Limp Bizkit big. That is unforgivable.

Linkin Park are just sub-standard U2.

On Skummy's point about if a band released Bohemian Rhapsody nowadays it would be rediculed, falls down on the fact that Muse appear to be a carbon copy of Queen without the apartheid support.

The 'drizzling shits' that passes for Rn'B, rap and dance surely follows what Gazz is saying about Paramore et al. People listening to it will be turned onto Blackalicious, The Roots and Fuck Buttons eventually. Maybe.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Iain76er

[Gazz]

Nah, Cascada all the way.

[ROC]

Nickelback.

I have been around some hipsters and I have done a piece about the cultural divide Silver Side Up created for my generation and it got misconstrued as love for Nickelback so much that I want to secretly love them. I mean, what are they saying that isn't reflective of their audience? I get that the hipster dislike is based around the fact that hipsters hate "normal/redneck" types because they're either uncool or dickish to them, but it always rung hollow that you could talk about a band/artist (no shit, this was brought up last night) who had an insane guy who recorded 150 songs about this girl he barely met and went to an insane asylum. It's less of embracing the true aspects of human life, and more of cool stories. It's annoying and I hate it.

[Skummy]

It's nothing to do with them being rednecks, it's to do with them being musically abhorrent.

[ROC]

It's nothing to do with them being rednecks, it's to do with them being musically abhorrent.

I know this. I get that. But I want to play devil's advocate about music constantly.

[Skummy]

I'm curious, though, is that one of the main points of contention about Nickelback? I've never really seen it raised before.

[ROC]

I'm curious, though, is that one of the main points of contention about Nickelback? I've never really seen it raised before.

I think in an American ideal that there's a mixture of both that hurts it in "real music fans' eyes." Americans especially love the concept of cliques and I've found that at least in the circles I've been in, they tend to hate the music that they think represents those they dislike. Hell, I nearly got shat on for admitting a dislike to Jack White's post-Icky Thump material and disliking The Vines. And the vibe I got from this long conversation was that "artist insanity" was more important, which I find to be interesting for a while, but a bullshit premise to enjoy what I enjoy. But that's a whole another debate for another time. Nickelback is still naff in my opinion, but eh, to each his own.

And "artist insanity" isn't meant to be "insane people aren't great musicians," it's more in the core "can you relate to them?" sense. If you can, then shoot.

Edited October 23, 2009 by ROC

[METALMAN]

You mean there are people who think it is cool to like the Vines?

[ROC]

You mean there are people who think it is cool to like the Vines?

Some girl in Alabama who likes David Byrne and Jack White does, yes.