Crummiest Bands of the 90's (1 Viewer)

[Greg_Y]

Of all the threads I would wish to never be resurrected, this one tops the list. Nothing but two pages of thread crapping disguised as a discussion.

Amen. "My favorite band is better than your favorite band." Between this and the blatant political discussions that have permeated the HTF, I can only wonder "What's going on?"

 

[Adam Tyner]

"Breaking Records", which Atlantic was distributing and dropped a couple years ago. Breaking went under shortly after Atlantic dropped 'em, and now they're "Handpicked Records", which have a compilation CD out and nothing else on the horizon. A local band that was on Breaking, Jump Little Children thought the label was too grossly inept to stick with and chose to self-released their sophomore album.

 

[Grant B]

The Butthole Surfers never translated will onto record, But anyone who ever saw them live in their heyday would not say that.

I have seen hundreds and hundreds of live bands and few have come close to the Butthole surfers live.

 

[StevenW]

 

[Michael Martin]

I've normally found that people who think Nirvana are crap just don't seem to like loud guitars.

Well I'm here to say that I don't agree. I love loud guitars DONE WELL. I understand very much the "importance" and impact of Nirvana - a very necessary reply to the corporate slickness of 80s music and bands.

However, I've never enjoyed their music nor have I really thought they were all that good. Nirvana was a catalyst, but c'mon - the guy simply has a limited vocal range (and that's being kind) and the music is mostly just noise.

I like Metallica, I like Zeppelin, I like Creed. Loud guitars bother me not at all. Loud guitars played badly and simply to create a wall of noise bother me quite a bit.

A lot of the "hard music" of the mid and late 90s made me feel very old - so much of it just sounded like noise, with no melody or rhythm or anything to "hook" your ears on. The utter despair of the lyrics (some of it genuine, some of it bored rich white kids with too much time and not enough maturity) also really turned me off. I don't want "happy happy sunshine" songs all the time, but endless hours of droning of how depressed you are and how badly life sucks just gets old and wearying after a while.

 

[John Geelan]

I'm waiting for a Time-Life Rockin' 90's collection to appear.
Then we can have all the one-hit wonders in one 2 cd set.
Remember those 60's collections with the hippies talking about how "great the 60's were, man!".

 

[Jeff Pryor]

Crummy 90's bands:

Nirvana

Hole

Blind Melon

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Remember those 60's collections with the hippies talking about how "great the 60's were, man!".

Geez - why'd you have to remind me? Those ads were pathetic!

 

[MikeH1]

Blind Melon

Speaking of the 60's, if there's one song that reminds me of that era it would have to be No Rain by Blind melon. It just has that certain feel to it.

But I still don't think the spin docters can be beat for crummiest band of the 90's.

 

[Jeremy Little]

I was just gonna find that and post it. I think this thread has NO value.

 

[Angelo.M]

Well said.

 

[Ike]

Quote:

Limited vocal range? You expect him to be Celine Dion? Vocal range doesn't matter in the kind of rock they were playing-it's how it sounds. Other "bad" rock voices: Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Calvin Johnson, Lou Reed, Thurston Moore, Tom Verlaine, Patti Smith, and plenty more. Good rock has never been about technical skill, but about the feeling, the mood, the way it sounds, and how you use what you got. Mariah Carey could sing probably everyone of my favorite singers (except Captain Beefheart!) under the table technically.
And Noise? They had verses, choruses, and the like. What noise was there? The Boredoms have noise. Sonic Youth have noise. My Bloody Valentine have noise. Nirvana was a pop band. A good pop band, but a pop band.
It's hard to stick up for them, because they really need to be viewed in context of where they came from (not the "Seattle scene"), but they are still a victim of their popularity. They were an underground act, heavily polished up for mainstream consumption, but apparently not enough to not turn some people off.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Ike, I agree, even though I bashed Nirvana earlier.

Actually, I found an earlier post of mine in this thread, most of which I disagree with now anyway. So, it can be quite silly to expend energy into disliking some music passionately, when there is just too much great stuff out there.

 

[Patrick_L]

this thread is uber-gheyness.

 

[Michael Martin]

Nothing but two pages of thread crapping disguised as a discussion.

I disagree. Some of the posts may be very negative and unconstructive, but they're not all like that. Look at my post and Ike's -we disagree, but we do so civilly, exchanging ideas and feelings.

Music is such a subjective thing - I think it's pretty cool that a lot of people can express opinions without getting out of hand.

And to follow your own logic - if you don't like the thread, don't post to it. What are you hoping to achieve by telling all the participants we're just whinging naysayers?

 

[Michael Martin]

They have distorted "loud" guitars, but they aren't guitars.

Jimmy Page's playing NOT guitars? Sorry, I don't buy that.

When I talked about the slick 80s, I was referring less to production quality than I was production type. I nearly always prefer great production values on the music I listen to, no matter what type it is. From what I understand, Nirvana and its many brethern (and sistern!) underground groups were a reaction to the formulaic, producer-driven music of the 80s and MTV. It was considered the fast-food equivalent of music - mass produced for as many consumers as possible. The "grunge" was a way of expressing contempt and anger towards the depersonaliztion of songs.

And yes, you're right that many music legends have a limited vocal range. Like Nirvana, I recognize and respect the impact they've had on our culture, but I don't personally care for many of them. Bob Dylan is a brilliant lyricist, but I can't stand his singing. You brought up Celine Dion as a contrast. I think that's a false dichotomy. There are many, many talented artists who can both sing and write songs that are not simply the result of a record company's demographic research. [For the record, I don't care for Celine's music.] I'm kind of like this in the art world, as well. I recognize and respect the impact that Picasso made, but for the most part, I just don't care for his art. I personally get much more out of a more "realistic" painting, though I do enjoy a lot of impressionist art as well.

Ike, you did bring up some good points. Ultimately, there are very few (if any) absolutes in music - it boils down to personal taste. Thanks for being civil, and giving me some things to think about.

 

[Joseph Young]

Nothing but two pages of thread crapping disguised as a discussion.

I second that.
Most of the supposed 'crap' being dissed in this 'discussion' is music that a lot of people are passionate about, so obviously to them it's not crap.
Say all you want about Nirvana, Counting Crows, et al being 'overrated,' they have nonethless been very influential on a lot of people. Why are we shi**ing on that? For example, I don't like Rush but I respect the fact that they've endured so long and have many devoted fans. They're not 'overrated,' their music just appeals to people with those aesthetic sensibilities.
Likewise with electronica. Like it or not, the 90's were a very prolific time for this style of music. And contrary to some uninformed opinions, electronica does not all sound like House music. A lot of it is very funky, soulful, and takes more from old school R&B than it does Aphex Twin.
For example, just because some experimental or electronic music is inaccessible to some people, doesn't make it unlistenable crap. God, if I could find just one member on the HTF who appreciated Throbbing Gristle, The Birthday Party, Foetus et al like I do, I would be very happy.
Although it was impossible for me not to laugh out loud about The Spin Doctors. I had a friend in college who used to love them (he would never admit to it now, in fact he gets mad when I bring them up). He used to wear this tall red & white striped Cat in the Hat hat on campus and pantomime the 'Three Princes.' My kingdom for a video camera back then.
Joseph

 

[Tony-B]

My list:
Slipknot: They have 9, yes 9, members, and they can't pull off a decent sound. My friend says that two of the members are just there to headbang.
Creed: This is what I called watered down, commercial, poppy rock.
Nsync
Backstreet Boys
Britney Spears
Eminem
Puff Daddy
I can't believe no one has mentioned Vanilla Ice!!

 

[Robert_eb]

You found one.

 

[Cary P]

I agree that pretty much all of the bands discussed in this thread suck.

The only pop band from the 90's that I still listen to regularly is Saint Etienne.

Otherwise, I've moved on from the mostly horrible rock/pop music of that decade. I just can't bring myself to listen to barely any of the grunge/indie/roots rock type bands of the '90's - most of this music just does not stand the test of time and is actually quite embarassing and self indulgently navel-gazing in retrospect.

I think it's about time I purged a lot of '90's era music from my CD collection. Mind you, I'm just talking about rock music. There were a lot of other musical styles that emerged/re-emerged in the mid to late '90's that I'm still quite partial to.

The funny thing is rock music in the '00's is even worse.

Let's face it. Other than a few anomalies like Beck or The Flaming Lips, mainstream rock these days is a dead, lifeless, and boring art form - nothing much interesting happening at all.

Cary