Crummiest Bands of the 90's (1 Viewer)

[Matt Odegard]

All the Techno shit that the 90's brought about can die.

Billy Ray Cirus

Papa Roach

New Kids on the block

Master P

Spice girls

Hanson

Fav's

White Zombie(Rob Zombie's schtick is getting old though)

Alice in Chains, great stuff on Unplugged and Jar of Flies

Pantera

Marylin Manson's first disc, Portrait of an American Family and Antichrist Superstar are awesome cd's if you get past his gay image.

Clutch

Tool

Ministry

GWAR

Ice Cube(from Predator and before, back when Rap actually had a message and was about something more than bling, bling)

Snoop Dogg

Dre

 

[Nick Graham]

While STP started out very derivative (they still had great stuff, though), I'll send whoever requests it a CD-R of their last CD, Shangri-La Dee Daa, free of charge. Crap, I'll even send a CD-R of their fourth album, Number 4 as well. No joke. I'll pay shipping, the whole nine yards. All you have to do is promise you won't go in with a preconceived judgement on it.
I cannot stand to see people still ripping on a band based on a CD they released over a decade ago.
I agree this thread has no merit whatsoever, except to prove the point that one man's utter crap is another man's treasure. I think we knew that beforehand.
Anyways, if you want the CD-Rs, my e-mail addie [email protected]
I really think you guys need to sample any artist's entire career instead of judging them on a couple of singles you heard on the radio 10 years ago when you were in college.

 

[Nick Graham]

Crap...stupid dial-up...mods please delete this duplicate post.
While STP started out very derivative (they still had great stuff, though), I'll send whoever requests it a CD-R of their last CD, Shangri-La Dee Daa, free of charge. Crap, I'll even send a CD-R of their fourth album, Number 4 as well. No joke. I'll pay shipping, the whole nine yards. All you have to do is promise you won't go in with a preconceived judgement on it.
I cannot stand to see people still ripping on a band based on a CD they released over a decade ago.
I agree this thread has no merit whatsoever, except to prove the point that one man's utter crap is another man's treasure. I think we knew that beforehand.
Anyways, if you want the CD-Rs, my e-mail addie [email protected]
I really think you guys need to sample any artist's entire career instead of judging them on a couple of singles you heard on the radio 10 years ago when you were in college.

 

[Matt Odegard]

STP puts on a awesome show. I seen them with Disturbed a year or two ago in St. Paul. They had a great set and one of the best shows I've ever seen.

 

[Kevin T]

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.

hehe...that reminds me of a shot i always take at the linkin park guitarist. i've always said he wears those earphones because he's listening to another band that doesn't suck. slipknot's sound is definitely different and not for everybody. seeing them live in however the most insance and cathartic experience i think i've ever had. their current stage show borders on hokey but when i first saw them opening for coal chamber in a small club...the energy was through the roof. the upstaged coal chamber to say the least and after leaving that show i knew they would be huge in their own right. 9 members is a bit extreme but they all have a function. i would say the least effective member is sid (#0). he's the dj and most of the time you can't hear a damn thing he's doing. hell, half the time, he's on the floor in the pit.

kevin t

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I vote for:

Madonna

Nirvana

Creed

and most R&B artists who continually rip each other off in ways that show their is no originality...

and any rap band that did a crossover song using old material such as Walk This Way...

and any boy band...

and even worse even boy band artist's first solo album (we know where you live Justin Timbelake)...

and Eddie Murphy for Party All The Time.

 

[Yee-Ming]

sometimes I wonder if I'm stuck in a time-warp. I haven't found any new band that I like since Extreme, and they promptly folded after just 3 albums.

otherwise, I'm listening to old material (in particular Pink Floyd, Queen), reworked material (Floyd again, via Gilmour & Waters solo stuff, the live ITAOT) or at best new material from old bands, e.g. Bon Jovi, and even then I'm not sure I really like their newer stuff.

I am actually looking forward (sort of) to Guns 'N Roses' new album Chinese Democracy, assuming it ever sees the light of day. (or should I say Axl Rose's new album?)

 

[Joseph Young]

Robert_eb:

Portrait of an American Family and Antichrist Superstar are awesome cd's if you get past his gay image.

Ummm.. you know, on second thought. I'm not even going to touch this one. :rolleyes
~j

 

[Tony-B]

Kevin, I honestly think Slipknot is better than a lot of the newer stuff. Especially Linkin Park. Good joke about the Linkin Park guitarist. By the way, I do like the other band that Corey Taylor and Jim Root have, which is Stone Sour. I really don't like Slipknot's sound, because it is kind of messy and all over the place. If you want to hear a band, who in my opinion is heavier than Slipknot, check out Spineshank.

 

[Matt Odegard]

Kevin, I honestly think Slipknot is better than a lot of the newer stuff. Especially Linkin Park. Good joke about the Linkin Park guitarist. By the way, I do like the other band that Corey Taylor and Jim Root have, which is Stone Sour. I really don't like Slipknot's sound, because it is kind of messy and all over the place. If you want to hear a band, who in my opinion is heavier than Slipknot, check out Spineshank.

Yeah, Slipknot IS alot better than some of the other bands out right know. They might have alot of members but I love em'. I've seen 4 shows personally and love it! Its the craziest crowd to ever go into. Stone Sour is great to, but for some good adrenaline Slipknot is where its at!

 

[LawrenceK]

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.

Oh come on, if you put even the slightest bit of effort into finding new music you would find that there is still a lot of good music being made right now. If you limit your musical knowledge to what they play on the radio or on MTV then I can understand your viewpoint perhaps, but since you know of the Beck and Flaming Lips albums I doubt that is the case. Off the top of my head I can think of a number of great albums from the '00 years: Radiohead - Kid A, Sonic Youth - Murray Street, The Strokes - Is This It?, The White Stripes - White Blood Cells, Interpol - Turn on The Bright Lights, Bright Eyes - Lifted..., Sleater-Kinney - One Beat, Apples In Stereo - Velocity of Sound, Wilco - Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, Yeah Yeah Yeah's - Self Titled and the two you mentioned (Beck - Sea Change and The Flaming Lips - Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots). A lot of that stuff was from the past year. And before you dismiss some of the trendy bands such as The Strokes, White Stripes or Interpol of being deriviative, just remember that The Beatles were pretty much just ripping off rockabilly stuff on their first few albums. I think that a lot of people are really not giving these bands a chance because of hype-backlash. If you listen to the songs, there is some very excellent song writing going on (especially in the case of The Strokes). With a whole bunch of new bands releasing very solid albums, and older bands doing great current work, I really don't see how '00 can be said to be terrible for rock, or music in general.

 

[Rob P S]

deleted

 

[Colin Jacobson]

just remember that The Beatles were pretty much just ripping off rockabilly stuff on their first few albums.

However one wants to describe the Beatles' early sound, this is the first time I've heard them called rockabilly! They had a few covers with that influence - mostly Carl Perkins stuff - but it certainly wasn't a dominant source.

But this statement's way off base because the Beatles never came across as particularly derivative of ANY genre. They had their own sound pretty much from day one, unlike the Stones who didn't develop that well for quite some time. I enjoy a lot of early Stones, but your statement about the Beatles would make much more sense when applied to them; just substitute "blues" for "rockabilly" and you're correct.

Love or hate them, though, the Beatles clearly didn't just imitate others at any point in their recording career...

 

[LawrenceK]

My point was that The Beatles early stuff was heavily influenced by the musicians that came before them (many of whom played rockabilly), much like some of the bands I mentioned in my above post, so to dismiss certain groups for sounding too much like other notable artists on their first releases is silly.

 

[Joseph Young]

But I'm sure you have all his albums and know his lyrics and still choose to hate him or me because I like 2 of his albums

Not only are you wrong, but what's all this about 'hate?' The only hate here is you condemning a genre of music to 'die' and using the term 'gay' in a derogatory way, in a discussion about 'crummy bands of the 90's.' I may have jumped the shark in assuming you knew nothing about techno (my bad), but I never dragged it into personal attacks like the ones above. I'd advise you to read the HTF Code of Conduct again -- you know, the one you read when you signed up a few months ago. And next time try not to feel so insecure and defensive about your beliefs.

~j

 

[Matt Odegard]

I think everyone here knows that when i say 'hate', 'die', and 'gay' I am not being serious. I think most are smart enough to realize I'm not talking literally, and you took it out of context.

Yes Joseph, sorry. I did use the word 'hate' when I'm sure that's not what you feel.

I did use the word 'die'. When truthfully I just wish I didn't have to listen to techno music ever again.

I used the word 'gay' because it has so many more meanings than just someones sexuality.

try not to feel so insecure and defensive about your beliefs.

I wouldn't have to defend myself if you weren't assuming what I have and haven't listened to, and why I dislike a genre. I don't just blindly hate a genre of music without knowing what its about and its history. I dislike certain genre's of music because of personal taste, and from experience of listening to that type of music. Not because someone else says I should.

 

[Joseph Young]

I dislike certain genre's of music because of personal taste, and from experience of listening to that type of music. Not because someone else says I should.

Thank you for phrasing it that way. I understand where you are coming from.
cheers,
joseph

 

[Jack Briggs]

Please, let's play nice. Thank you.

 

[Matt Odegard]

Cool Joseph, glad we could see each others point of view. Besides, not like I'm out for a flame war here.

Also I do agree, that words are easily taken out of context on the internet. I'll have to watch out for that next time. Especially with touchy subjects as musical preference. People like myself fly off the handle when someone smashes a band they like. Kinda like if I would rip on your favorite sports team, or movie. All very sensitive subjects to certain people.

Take care,

Matt

 

[Colin Jacobson]

My point was that The Beatles early stuff was heavily influenced by the musicians that came before them (many of whom played rockabilly), much like some of the bands I mentioned in my above post, so to dismiss certain groups for sounding too much like other notable artists on their first releases is silly.

I agree with your last point. As I mentioned, the Stones didn't have a whole lot of personality in their earliest releases. Some solid music on them, but nothing that would foreshadow the band they'd later become.

I felt your statement implied that early Beatles music didn't have its own personality, and I strongly disagree with that. Of course the Beatles were influenced by others - it's impossible to create something NOT influenced by the work of others.

However, there's a big difference between influences and ripping off. The Beatles melded their influences together to create something new and unique - they truly had their own sound from day one (as recording artists). "Rip-off" bands are just that - they sound an awful lot like someone else. That was never true of the Beatles...