I didn't want to be negative on the "Best of" thread, but am curious about others least favorites. For me, possibly the top of the list:
Axl Rose - sorry to his fans, but I can't stand it. I like some gravelly voices like Tom Waits, Howling Wolf and Dr. John, but Rose's is just grating to me. I guess it's the high pitched gravelly combination.
Amen...
Also, Neil Young, Perry Farrell.
"you forgot to clean up yer room...I'm gonna tell your father...."
Kevin Cronan. And he had a look to match that blood-curdling timbre.
Speedwagon and Styx - what was annoying was that both bands were talented - these were ACCURATE singers, Cronan had excellent range. I liked songs from both bands, but those singers had awful timbre's and were turds in the punchbowl. BLECCH.
As I've said before, to me - Axl is as pleasant as a dentist drill. Liked Guns despite him.
HAIR BANDS produced an endless sea of shitty posers who couldn't sing their way out of a bag, but still somehow managed fame. Brett Michaels, Kevin DuBrow, Vince Neal had no business as singers.
LITA FORD. Jesus Christ was she horrible. The adolescent lyrics just made it all the worse.
His problem is that he uses it for the purest form of evil, attempting to physically remove peoples souls through his music.
Scott Stamp
Chad Kroeger
They headline my list. The late 90's early 2000's sucked for "Rock".
Most overrated is David Grohl. Like the band, but they seem like the only mainstream rock band that you really hear about.
then the guy from Counting Crows who was always whining. I would have killed Mr Jones if I could have if it meant I didn't have to hear that song again.
only things more annoying than Mr Jones were the Spin Doctors and Hootie
I also always hated Ronnie James Dio with Black Sabbath. That histrionic style just never meshed well with the dark brooding Sabbath vibe.
I also always hated Ronnie James Dio with Black Sabbath. That histrionic style just never meshed well with the dark brooding Sabbath vibe.
Heaven and Hell is a fantastic album, great fit. :)
Neil Young would be up there (or down there) for me too.
John Mellencamp
George Thorogood
Dylan is really annoying to me.
-All the nu-metal turds. ALL OF THEM
-the guy from Styx
-Rob Thomas
that's a good one, the Rob Thomas one was a good one also.
When I hear Neil young and bob Dylan though that's a bit missing the point--they would never tell you they had great voices, but their style worked for a folk singing, bluesy effect.
Tyler and rose are schreaching messes on the other hand. Trying to be like a plant or Jagger style lead vocalist and fail for the most part. To these ears. But hey everyone has their taste.
A guitar instructor of mine who was fairly good (enough to go to Berklee College of Music) told me that G n R was the worst live band he had ever seen. And they were a running joke at college amongst musicians.
Aerosmith was good at moments. In the 70s and their collaboration with run dmc was awesome but their 80s and 90s music was so beyond awful sellout I can't erase it from my mind.
Another voice I really don't like - and I feel that I would like the band otherwise - is the dude from the Smithereens.
I like Springsteen.
When I hear Neil young and bob Dylan though that's a bit missing the point--they would never tell you they had great voices, but their style worked for a folk singing, bluesy effect.
It's not missing the point at all. I find them entirely unlistenable. That's what the thread is about. Their styles don't work for me at all in any context.
Quote:
When I hear Neil young and bob Dylan though that's a bit missing the point--they would never tell you they had great voices, but their style worked for a folk singing, bluesy effect.
It's not missing the point at all. I find them entirely unlistenable. That's what the thread is about. Their styles don't work for me at all in any context.
Sorry for you, man. You're not getting it. Maybe never will.
I'll go ahead and say it then - Springsteen. Hate his histrionics.
Quote:
In comment 12971477 hassan said:
Quote:
When I hear Neil young and bob Dylan though that's a bit missing the point--they would never tell you they had great voices, but their style worked for a folk singing, bluesy effect.
It's not missing the point at all. I find them entirely unlistenable. That's what the thread is about. Their styles don't work for me at all in any context.
Sorry for you, man. You're not getting it. Maybe never will.
Don't feel sorry. I have a lot of musical training and am more than satisfied with what I like to listen to. I never understood why people give a crap if you don't like the same stuff that they like.
Springsteen is interesting. He is much better when he is a little more muted and less good with the histrionics as Greg noted.
Quote:
I'd be set on fire by his many worshipers.... I've said too much.
I'll go ahead and say it then - Springsteen. Hate his histrionics.
I meant George Thoroughgood.
Seriously, though. Histrionics is the perfect word.
Springsteen is interesting. He is much better when he is a little more muted and less good with the histrionics as Greg noted.
then the guy from Counting Crows who was always whining. I would have killed Mr Jones if I could have if it meant I didn't have to hear that song again.
Lol.
then the guy from Counting Crows who was always whining. I would have killed Mr Jones if I could have if it meant I didn't have to hear that song again.
only things more annoying than Mr Jones were the Spin Doctors and Hootie
Cold play?They arent Rock.
Eddie Vedder. Perry Farrel. The guy from Incubus
We felt like No Surrender was about us. Nostalgia has a funny way of making the good things from your past better.
Jungle Land (not on 75-85 live), Backstreets, Promised Land, Darkness on the Edge of Town, Born to Run, Badlands, Thunder Road (we all loved the line "It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win" as we'd talk about our futures).
and now we all feel like man, Bruce really nailed it when he sang in that same song "So you're scared and you're thinking that maybe we ain't that young anymore Show a little faith, there's magic in the night..."
But...none of us thought Bruce was the greatest singer on the planet, but it didn't matter, it's what we liked. We connected with the music in a way most people probably connect with the music they like.
I'll never begrudge anyone for not liking anything (as long as their respectful to other people), it's what makes music as great and powerful as it is.
on another note...George Thorogood always reminded me of Eddie from Eddie and the Cruisers.
Shit, that's a good call.
"you forgot to clean up yer room...I'm gonna tell your father...."
sung to the opening tune of Welcome to the Jungle
Freddy Mercury
You're outta yer fuckin mind
Oh god there's too many. Dylan is a good one though.
Quote:
.
Freddy Mercury
You're outta yer fuckin mind
There can't be any right or wrong answers to this sort of thing. A singer can have great technique, but if an individual listener doesn't like the timbre, it's a done deal. As someone who listens primarily to instrumental music, I don't like most rock vocalists that I hear. I like the voices of maybe 20% or so of the rock singers I've heard.
Axl Rose = Bad Timbre
Not a fan of Geddy Lee, but I think the difference between him and Axl Rose is that Rush has some good songs, otherwise, as far as lyrics, melodies, musicianship, etc. Kind of like Zeppelin, though I'm not comparing the 2 bands. Just that I'm not a big Plant fan, but I like a lot of their music for other reasons. But there's nothing to like, in my opinion, about Guns and Roses.
Maybe some would say Axl Rose's voice is also an acquired taste. But that's never going to happen for me.
Maybe some would say Axl Rose's voice is also an acquired taste. But that's never going to happen for me.
Appetite for Destruction is still today the highest grossing debut album in the history of the planet. Sure the band was great and Slash is all-world, but no one was buying Appetite for Destruction because of Slash's guitar licks.
Axl was Guns n' Roses. Like him or not, I don't care, I mentioned this before, people like all different kinds of music and that's the best thing about music, but legions of people did like them. Commercial success <> good vocalist obviously, but the whole package of Guns n' Roses and their rise to the top is unprecedented in the music world and a big part of it, if not the biggest part of it was Axl Rose.
No apologies. You're not being a dick. Though he was not one of my favorites, Michael Jackson was an insanely talented entertainer.
Phil Collins is Michael Bolton to me (which means he's a no talent ass clown), but again that's what makes music great.
Quote:
kind of like mushrooms or escargot, etc. His voice is unique and I guess I acquired the taste.. a long time ago.
Maybe some would say Axl Rose's voice is also an acquired taste. But that's never going to happen for me.
Appetite for Destruction is still today the highest grossing debut album in the history of the planet. Sure the band was great and Slash is all-world, but no one was buying Appetite for Destruction because of Slash's guitar licks.
Axl was Guns n' Roses. Like him or not, I don't care, I mentioned this before, people like all different kinds of music and that's the best thing about music, but legions of people did like them. Commercial success <> good vocalist obviously, but the whole package of Guns n' Roses and their rise to the top is unprecedented in the music world and a big part of it, if not the biggest part of it was Axl Rose.
In 1987 rock fans were STARVED to near death by the garbage that was out there, Rock Radio was on it's last gasps, turning to techno/dance/poppy crap mixed in with a rotation of shitty hair bands and classic rock. College radio was the only outlet for rockers to find anything decent.
So the success of "Appetite For Destruction" was much more about WHEN it hit that what it was - if it came out in 95', theyd've been an afterthought buried in a sea of superior grunge acts.
But when it did hit in 87', it was a breath of fresh air. Fresh, hair-parting, blow the windows out air. And that was ALL about SLASH.
Fuck Axl. I've said it before, I'll say it again.
Quote:
In comment 12971907 deeee said:
Quote:
kind of like mushrooms or escargot, etc. His voice is unique and I guess I acquired the taste.. a long time ago.
Maybe some would say Axl Rose's voice is also an acquired taste. But that's never going to happen for me.
Appetite for Destruction is still today the highest grossing debut album in the history of the planet. Sure the band was great and Slash is all-world, but no one was buying Appetite for Destruction because of Slash's guitar licks.
Axl was Guns n' Roses. Like him or not, I don't care, I mentioned this before, people like all different kinds of music and that's the best thing about music, but legions of people did like them. Commercial success <> good vocalist obviously, but the whole package of Guns n' Roses and their rise to the top is unprecedented in the music world and a big part of it, if not the biggest part of it was Axl Rose.
I bought Appetite. And it most certainly was not because of Axl's vocals, it was DESPITE them. I was attracted to the power and tightness of the band, to the first bona-fide guitar hero to pop up in a long time. Without Slash's guitar, that band is skim milk.
In 1987 rock fans were STARVED to near death by the garbage that was out there, Rock Radio was on it's last gasps, turning to techno/dance/poppy crap mixed in with a rotation of shitty hair bands and classic rock. College radio was the only outlet for rockers to find anything decent.
So the success of "Appetite For Destruction" was much more about WHEN it hit that what it was - if it came out in 95', theyd've been an afterthought buried in a sea of superior grunge acts.
But when it did hit in 87', it was a breath of fresh air. Fresh, hair-parting, blow the windows out air. And that was ALL about SLASH.
Fuck Axl. I've said it before, I'll say it again.
I totally agree with the timing. They effectively ended hair bands. Motley Crue took off their makeup after GNR became so popular. The Poisons of the world became less relevant - but even with what relevance they had they changed 180 degrees in style and appearance.
I think we saw Guns 'n roses without Axl it was Velvet Revolver. And it was awful.
Obviously going out on a limb here, but if Slash was replaced on Appetite for Destruction with another good guitarist, Appetite for Destruction still sells the same # of records. Without Axl I'm less sure. But..to a man they all credit the sum of the parts for the band's short, but meteoric rise.
Just my opinion.
What killed hair metal was grunge. Nevermind was released in September 1991. Nirvana was a fairly obscure regional band at the time, and Geffen was hoping the album would eventually sell 250,000 copies. By November, the video for Smells Like Teen Spirit was on MTV constantly and Nevermind arrived in the Billboard top 40. In December the album went platinum, exceeding a million sold, and in January 1992 it hit #1. Badmotorfinger and Ten, which were both released around the same time as Nevermind, both started to take off in sales in 1992 in the wake of Nevermind's success. Later in the year, Alice in Chains released Dirt, which made it to #6. After 1991, hair metal was finished.
What killed hair metal was grunge. Nevermind was released in September 1991. Nirvana was a fairly obscure regional band at the time, and Geffen was hoping the album would eventually sell 250,000 copies. By November, the video for Smells Like Teen Spirit was on MTV constantly and Nevermind arrived in the Billboard top 40. In December the album went platinum, exceeding a million sold, and in January 1992 it hit #1. Badmotorfinger and Ten, which were both released around the same time as Nevermind, both started to take off in sales in 1992 in the wake of Nevermind's success. Later in the year, Alice in Chains released Dirt, which made it to #6. After 1991, hair metal was finished.
I mean in style and appearance and even their music subtely changed.
Guns n' Roses: never were into the glam rock/hair band look
The bands existed but not in the same style or appearance.
Motley Crue Shout at the Devil (early 80's?):
Motley Crue by 1990
Poison look what the cat dragged in (1986):
Poison by 1990 (lost the makeup, slowly the hair gets smaller, I even saw CC Deville wear a top hat a la Slash)
the music also slowly became less high pitched squealy like Shout at the Devil to more contemporary classic rock like Girls Girls Girls or Dr Feelgood. Just as examples.
Warrant, while awful, became Judas Priest LOL
My impression is GNR's popularity and truly meteoric rise was a major influence (let's face it the music industry is a copycat industry more than sports - look at all the grunge acts the spawned up just in the Seattle area and were pretty interchangeable) in the shift in style and appearance and slowly the substance of the hair band era.
Grunge came later.
Poison
This is the image from a Motley Crue Dr Feelgood tour shirt, circa 1990
Yes, the makeup and brighter clothes were gone by the end of the '80s, but that was more of a general societal shift. If you look at most pop acts from the early-mid '80s as compared to 1990, you'd see the same kind of changes.
Before Nevermind, those hair bands were all huge. They were some of the biggest rock acts of the time. After 1992, none of them did much of anything. They just kind of fell off the face of the earth.
The grunge phase didn't last too long either. I mean maybe the bands lived other than Kurt Cobain and Nirvana and some of the other deaths much later like Staley, but the new music certainly didn't. Pearl Jam?
Just for reference Poison has sold double the albums that Soundgarden has.
Motley Crue has sold over 100M records to Pearl Jam's 60M.
some of this is skewed now since no one buys records/tapes/CD's anymore, but Pearl Jam's new music is kind of irrelevant anyway.
anyway it's just my view of the era. Guns N' Roses didn't look or sound like the makeup wearing, teased hair, acts like Motley Crue, Cinderella, Poison, Dokken, Ratt, etc. of the hair band era and shortly after GNR's success those bands changed their style and appearance, and in some cases even the music.
I attribute it to GNR, maybe not accurately, but that was the impression to me growing up in that era.
Quote:
Adam Levine - why is he so popular? Seems he uses auto tune an awful lot,
Shit, that's a good call.
Honestly, I don't know what information you acquire from a thread like this? Your personal take on music you don't like?
It was then the advent of nü-metal *shudder* cursed be its name.
It was then the advent of nü-metal *shudder* cursed be its name.
LOL, well I do like Disturbed.
It gets covered by tons of newer (then) rock bands like the Ataris and Get up Kids.