bands that are huge and shouldnt be

U2

[QUOTE=rkdaley;916998]U2[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=aphonicmessiah;916997]ill start it off with

metallica[/QUOTE]

You obviously know nothing about music, and this thread is just going to be a "Name bands you don't like" thread.

U2
Nirvana (I listen to them but they are totaly overraterd)

[QUOTE=Mr.Shadov;917027]U2
Nirvana (I listen to them but they are totaly overraterd)[/QUOTE]

You think U2 too? I am shocked and appalled! You guys must have missed the 80's.

Edit: and part of the 90's too.

Ross from Friends seemed to like that that one song.

[QUOTE=Thag;917029]You think U2 too? I am shocked and appalled! You guys must have missed the 80's.

Edit: and part of the 90's too.[/QUOTE]
I just don't like them they make not so awesome songs and are hipocrits.

u2 indeed.

metallica is way overrated. i know plenty about music. it doesnt take a genious to figure uot the drums suck, the rhythm guitar section consists of two boring riffs, and the lead guitar is nothing but a wankfest that has been so processed it has no point or tonal value.
ill admit that cliff burten was a good bassist, but hes dead and now they dont have a single valuable member.
ill also admit that some of the lyrics were pretty well done. especially call me what you will.
cor- you need to pull that stick out of your ass.

hootie and the blowfish....THEY ARE HORRIBLE.

3 for U2.

I am amazed.

Are you talking about both Metallicas? You have to specify whether you're talking about the 1980s metal band or the 1990s hard rock band. There is a difference.

U2 could possibly be the most overrated band of all time.

And I also agree that Nirvana is good, but not as good as people make them out to be. Personally, I like Pearl Jam a lot better.

mindless children. the lot of you.

i like u2.
i paid $70.00 to see them with rage a.t.m. in las vegas when i was 21.
TOTALLY worth it.
we saw dennis hopper there.

[QUOTE=Thag;917096]mindless children. the lot of you.[/QUOTE]
sorry for shitting on your favourite band.

Depeche Mode Forever!!!!!

Phil Collins. I know he's not a band, but...
Phil Collins.

God U2 is awful.
So is Blink 182.
And all those Fall Out Boy and Panic!ATD type bands.

Spice Girls should never have broken up. They were good. I'm serious.

Aerosmith
Rolling Stones
The Who
Metallica
Van Hagar
AC/DC
Led Zeppelin

Okay, some of those aren't bands anymore, but damn. Some of them had good material at one time, but then sucked hard for decades after. Aerosmith should have disbanded after 'Walk This Way,' Van Halen should have stopped in 1984.

Puff Daddy
Robbie Williams

[QUOTE=Mr.Shadov;917099]sorry for shitting on your favourite band.

Depeche Mode Forever!!!!![/QUOTE]
Do you really like Depeche Mode? and U2 isn't even in my top ten. I'm just surprised. that's all.

[QUOTE=Thag;917116]Do you really like Depeche Mode? and U2 isn't even in my top ten. I'm just surprised. that's all.[/QUOTE]
well not so much as in the past but yeah I like them. and problem with U2 is that they pretend to do something great when they do only good. they are overrated and that's a fact.

[QUOTE=franc tireur;917115]Puff Daddy
Robbie Williams[/QUOTE]

agree, first is a lame raper but he know's how to sell himself
second one is a lame popstar that have maybe two good songs...

[QUOTE=Mr.Shadov;917121]well not so much as in the past but yeah I like them. and problem with U2 is that they pretend to do something great when they do only good. they are overrated and that's a fact.[/QUOTE]
You were being all concilliatory and then you had to go and say that "overrated" is a "fact".
*shakes head*

[B][COLOR=Yellow]The Beatles
Led Zepplin
Pink Floyd
The Rolling Stones
Rush[/COLOR][/B]

you're a kid, you're a noob, just shut up.

[QUOTE=PaperSt.Soap537;917129][B][COLOR=Yellow]The Beatles
Led Zepplin
Pink Floyd
The Rolling Stones
Rush[/COLOR][/B][/QUOTE]
The Beatles - maybe
Led Zepplin - maybe
Pink Floyd & The Rolling Stones - never!

Thag I won't answer for your last post because there is a word I don't understand and I'm too lazy to check what it means. sorry

I would have to say Nirvana.

I agree about Van Halen. You pretty much get what they are after listening to one CD. You don't need to listen to more to know that Eddie plays fast and that's about all they have.

I never understood the whole Metallica thing. I guess I never really got them or I saw right through them... either way - they don't deserve to be as big as they are.

I know she's not a band but Britney Spears needs to be on the list as being a no talent. But Christina has some pipes. She deserves it.

I'm sorry but the Beatles deserved every little bit of attention that they got. They were innovators. Same with Zeppelin. Anybody that is trashing them needs to school up on some music history.

I like U2.

[QUOTE=PaperSt.Soap537;917129][B][COLOR=Yellow]The Beatles
Led Zepplin
Pink Floyd
The Rolling Stones
Rush[/COLOR][/B][/QUOTE]

I was going to disagree with this, but the yellow text wooed me, so now I agree.
Oh wait. No I don't. You're clearly a retard.

Also, there's only one Metallica. The same band that got worse, sure, but nobody who isn't a silly cunt is going to say that the three albums between 1984 and 1988 are shit and useless and did absoloutely nothing for meta/rock music in the twentieth century. Also, Metallica introduced me to a fuck load of music when I was a knee-biter.

I can't believe I forgot the Beatles. God they sucked.

Chix, please send me my CDs back.

You can't be serious?

Pink Floyd ~ self indulgent, semi-progressive, cult worship shit music.
Rolling Stones ~ No comment. It just needs to end.
Led Zepplin ~ If I see one more ZoSo t shirt I think I might wretch
The Beatles ~ worst of the lot, got off on doing barely anything, but naturally, they are the Beatles, so let's fuckin' party.
Rush ~ Why bother saying anything?

[QUOTE=PaperSt.Soap537;917155]You can't be serious?

Pink Floyd ~ self indulgent, semi-progressive, cult worship shit music.
Rolling Stones ~ No comment. It just needs to end.
Led Zepplin ~ If I see one more ZoSo t shirt I think I might wretch
The Beatles ~ worst of the lot, got off on doing barely anything, but naturally, they are the Beatles, so let's fuckin' party.
Rush ~ Why bother saying anything?[/QUOTE]

Can you name what you do like, or think are deserving to be huge?

Being overexposed or popular should in no way be a barometer for an artists quality. I can't believe you'd say the Rolling Stones should not be huge?

The Rolling Stones, in my opinion, are done and over with, granted, they have had a few good songs, but now it's just ludacris.

[QUOTE=PaperSt.Soap537;917155]You can't be serious?

Pink Floyd ~ self indulgent, semi-progressive, cult worship shit music.
Rolling Stones ~ No comment. It just needs to end.
Led Zepplin ~ If I see one more ZoSo t shirt I think I might wretch
The Beatles ~ worst of the lot, got off on doing barely anything, but naturally, they are the Beatles, so let's fuckin' party.
Rush ~ Why bother saying anything?[/QUOTE]

are you kidding? the only band that should be on this list is rush.

please don't say you like the silly bands on trl...

list what you DO like, there are lots of curious cats who want to know.

Some of you have overlooked the undeniable fact that The Beatles are fucking awesome.

U2 deserves to be on the list more than pretty much anything, I think.
Metallica and Nirvana, both of which I listen to but they're practically worshipped and they aren't [I]that[/I] great, especially Metallica.

I'm not gonna name rappers because that'll take too long.

I've always thought The Doors were crap. I can't get in to any of their songs.

Here's the foolishness - there is always some moron out there that doesn't like what you like and people always confuse their opinion with fact - this is simply a "this is what I don't like" or maybe a "if I say this it will be controversial" - it's just silly.

Unless you like arguing for the sake of it.

In that case:
The Beatles - I like
Rolling Stones - I don't like
Rush - Some songs
Pink Floyd - Some songs, some times
Led Zeppelin - some songs, some times
Van Halen - even hagar has some good shit
Metallica - they are good
Nirvana - Overrated
Puff Daddy - suck
Robbie Williams - suck
Phil Colins is a genius
AC/DC - the worst

all the bands are big cause they're supposed to be, most people are lame so therefore the bands most people like are lame.

[QUOTE=Nightrious;917168]Some of you have overlooked the undeniable fact that The Beatles are fucking awesome.

[/QUOTE]the beatles were a turgid little mess, a stylist gave em teen appeal and then they got all [I]magica[/I]l so the hippies loved em.
just really a bunch of really dumb songs.

thank you.

[QUOTE=Thag;917169]Robbie Williams - suck[/QUOTE]
Aw, say it ain't so!

Anyway guys this thread is about bands that are huge but don't deserve to be because they're really really rubbish. Like Good Charlotte. Let's get some perspective here dickheads.

[QUOTE=Vendetta;917193]Aw, say it ain't so!

Anyway guys this thread is about bands that are huge but don't deserve to be because they're really really rubbish. Like Good Charlotte. Let's get some perspective here dickheads.[/QUOTE]

Ha!

I don't know. I don't think I've ever heard Robbie Williams actually.

[QUOTE=Thag;917195]Ha!

I don't know. I don't think I've ever heard Robbie Williams actually. ;)[/QUOTE]
because he's a europe popstar.

Good Charlotte, they're pretty much capitalising on Greenday's popularity, their songs are bland and unimaginative, they promote themselves poorly, they try to act and look punk yet they have their own clothing line. They are commercial punk incarnate.

pink floyd is just a shitty grateful dead with weird sounds. the songs take forever and get really boring by the second minute. im tired of potheads praising them.
beatles, the stones, and zep deserve every single fan they have. im not a fan, myself, cuz im tired of the music, and i think every poser can choke on a cock.
metallica didnt revolutionize anything- they made it mainstream. slayer was still there. venom came along well before any of that. samhain, celtic frost, megadeth came around the same time and they deserved way more attention. dave mustaine can actually play the guitar, had a way better drummer, could sing way better and said things that actually meant something.

to continue- k-fed. yeah, i know he only sold 6000 copies of his cd, but even that is way too much.

[QUOTE=franc tireur;917144]Chix, please send me my CDs back.[/QUOTE]
LMAO! Way to break up the thread with a laugh
[QUOTE=PaperSt.Soap537;917155]You can't be serious?

Pink Floyd ~ self indulgent, semi-progressive, cult worship shit music.
Rolling Stones ~ No comment. It just needs to end.
Led Zepplin ~ If I see one more ZoSo t shirt I think I might wretch
The Beatles ~ worst of the lot, got off on doing barely anything, but naturally, they are the Beatles, so let's fuckin' party.
Rush ~ Why bother saying anything?[/QUOTE]
I'm not an ass on this sight very often - but do you know anything about music? I've been involved in the industry - playing with and promting bands - for over 10 years. You seriously can not know anything about music with the crap you wrote in that post.
[QUOTE=PaperSt.Soap537;917163]The Rolling Stones, in my opinion, are done and over with, granted, they have had a few good songs, but now it's just ludacris.[/QUOTE]
True the Rolling Stones may be done and over with - but in their prime they wrote some great songs. Hence - they deserve their status.

Like so many bands, this thread has probably already had it's moment. I'm glad to see that someone has started a positive thread about [b]bands that should be huge, but aren't.[/b] I thought about doing that myself, yesterday, but got tangled up in a few other things, instead. Now, I'm gonna take just a minute to explain why U2 deserves to be huge, maybe even the biggest band in the world.

1. U2 transcended their early influences and developed their own sound.

If they hadn't, they'd sound just like The Clash. Listen to an early U2 album, like War, and you'll hear some Clash influence and all the energy of multiple bands emerging from the punk scene, but it's still an album that only U2 could do. No one else could take the protest song and perfect it in Sunday Bloody Sunday.

Listen to a more recent track, like "All Because of You" and you'll discover that U2's sound has grown over the years and the boys also know how to just flat-out rock.

2. U2 dared to be earnest and political at a time when jaded and cynical was a more acceptable stance.

Maybe bands should just be in the business of entertainment, and should consider any appearance of "taking themselves too seriously" to be the gravest possible sin. But I don't think so. How about some props to Bono for the balls it takes to be a "bleeding heart" in a very public way?

3. U2 have continuously discovered, invented and reinvented themselves within the public spotlight.

Not an easy thing to do. U2 alienated a lot of fans in the 90's when they went all pomo experimental, but the risk paid off--it reinvigorated their sound and gave them new textures to play with... and all without really compromising their core identity. Still, it was risky. Not something you'd expect from a band that's run like a small corporation.

4. The songs outlive the politics.

In part because of Bono's searching lyricism and golden voice. In part because of Edge's signature guitar sound that would identify a U2 track immediately, even if the vocals were removed.

In contrast to all of this, there are tons of bands who never strike an original chord, but simply achieve a sound that's really popular for a few years, and then dies. Oasis comes to mind. Ridiculously huge for a few years in the 90's, but they were not innovators, barely a step beyond being a Beatles cover band.

Then we have some really good [b]bar bands[/b] whose music doesn't merit longevity or a huge audience: ZZ Top, Hootie and the Blowfish, keep adding...

And finally, we've got just a few bands with U2's longevity (and then some), the royalty of rock and roll, as it were--but how many of these bands created an original sound and kept taking risks and innovating with it? The Rolling Stones, for example, found something that works for them and played it endlessly and to great acclaim: it's called The Blues. But did they invent anything, ever, or did they steal every last lick from the blues greats?

So, there's my easy little essay, not designed to be popular or draw wide appeal here at The Cult. And not designed to win additional fans for a band that does plenty well enough on its own. But to sum it up, just because you don't like U2 doesn't mean they aren't a great band. It just means you don't get it.

[QUOTE=vigorous puppy;917665] But to sum it up, just because you don't like U2 doesn't mean they aren't a great band. It just means you don't get it.[/QUOTE]

You are so my new hero.

I fucking hate you guys sometimes!

Metallica's Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets and ..And Justice for All are three of THE GREATEST metal albums of all time. Period. End of story. They didnt really get fucking huge until that piece of shit Black album came out. IMO Metallica deserved to be huge, but not for their current albums, so its like hell payback for their OG fans.

I think a lot of this ill feeling towards U2 has something to do with Bono. He a bono fide tool.

Mr. Vox, you are someone's father. button your shirt up and get a haircut!

[QUOTE=aphonicmessiah;917453]pink floyd is just a shitty grateful dead with weird sounds. the songs take forever and get really boring by the second minute. im tired of potheads praising them.
beatles, the stones, and zep deserve every single fan they have. im not a fan, myself, cuz im tired of the music, and i think every poser can choke on a cock.
[b]metallica didnt revolutionize anything- they made it mainstream. slayer was still there. venom came along well before any of that. samhain, celtic frost, megadeth came around the same time and they deserved way more attention. dave mustaine can actually play the guitar, had a way better drummer, could sing way better and said things that actually meant something.[/b]

to continue- k-fed. yeah, i know he only sold 6000 copies of his cd, but even that is way too much.[/QUOTE]

Uhh what?? Im calling you out, cause you dont know shit.
If you want to talk boring riffs, Slayer has put out the same album for twenty years. Nothing changed, just straight ahead riffs and double wanking solos.
Metallica made hard rock mainstream with the Balck album, true metal, especially Bya Area thrash never went mainstream.
Venom was a FAKE BAND!!!!!! The whole Black Metal thing was fake, it was a show. All they did was play fast. Look it up if you dont believe me.
Megadeth?? Are you fuckin serious?? You talk like Mustaine 'keeps it real'. Rust in Peace was their last good album, huh, that was out in 1990! Countdown to Extinction was as big a piece of shit as Metallicas' Black Album! He did the same think as his former employers, he tried to sell out by making 'metal for the masses' and it didnt work. All his albums since have royally sucked.
Samhin? Danzing hasnt been good since the Misfits. Some Danzig stuff was okay, but hen he even went all techno weird.
Celtic Frost? A fringe metal band that really dosent appeal to anyone outside the death/black/extreme metal fans.
So basically, none of the bands deserved more attention than Metallica. They got paid for their past.