Music, songs, etc., that you dislike (or hate)

I'll start.... Modern pop music: *BRAIN PAIN* :wizard: Or any kind of popular music throughout the ages, except for those musicians and composers who stood / stand out and were / are truly great.

I don't like those unoriginal bands, composers and writers and such either. Or those 50s and 60s songs that all sound the same, almost like exact copies of each other, with the exact same chord progressions and sound, etc.

A couple examples of good ones here to name for that time are Beatles (very original, good players, creative, musical, and had good producers, etc.) and the Jimi Hendrix Experience (plain good ****).
But for example NOT Rolling Stones because they were simple schmucks :)

I also dislike those typical "singers". People like Frank Sinatra, Elvis, and the likes who are more like performers / entertainers. Though I gotta admit Elvis was kinda cool and those songs had something cool about them.

If you are in a room with me and you turn on the TV and set it to MTV or any such garbage, I'd probably die very quickly of BRAIN PAIN or something, and during that process of dying I'd probably be bold enough to take you with me! :laugh4: <--- this is no exaggeration :P <--- and that was no sarcasm :beam:

But the kind of music that is REALLY bad is "Dutch music". Ooooo, I can't stand it. Always those Dutch singers who are like the average Joe or average-- eh... [insert female name]. Boring bad repetitive songs of LOW quality and usually SIMPLE and just-- just-- ARRRGH!!! :help:

There is much to name... maybe I'll come up with a few new ones later... *takes deep breath*

Country, most rap, most techno, pop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

A couple examples of good ones here to name for that time are Beatles (very original, good players, creative, musical, and had good producers, etc.)

---

Feel free to label me as a heretic (now this is something I should have written about!) but I don't care for the Beatles that much. To me, their music sounds simplistic, short, and similar. Add that to the fact that it annoys me whenever someone in the media starts frothing about how "groundbreaking" and "unequal" and "superlative" those guys were. I mean, really. They're nothing special.

/end rant

I also hate rap, pop, and country (the new stuff; bluegrass is cool).

I detest Hip-Hop, Pop, Rap, Modern R&B, Emo, Modern Punk and most Modern "Rock". I'll probably think of some more.

Rap, hip-hop, and just about anything sung by Sheryl Crow -- the woman's voice literally makes me want to gag whenever I hear it. :thumbsdown:

I can stand listening to country, but only in small doses. (My dad overexposed me to the genre as a wee lad.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rythmic

I detest Hip-Hop, Pop, Rap, Modern R&B, Emo, Modern Punk and most Modern "Rock". I'll probably think of some more.

---

I somewhat agree with that statement. I completely agree with Emo and most Modern Rock.

When I hear Nickelback or Slayer on the radio I immediately turn it off. Most country is pretty bad too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

When I hear Nickelback or Slayer on the radio I immediately turn it off. Most country is pretty bad too.

---

How can you not like God Hates Us All? It's a catchy tune.

I LOVE Rap/Hip hop, although my favourite is RnB.

I deteste Emo, Punk Rock, Heavy Metal, Deathmetal... Mostly rock, I don't eat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

I deteste Emo, Punk Rock, Heavy Metal, Deathmetal... Mostly rock, I don't eat.

---

I can understand Emo and Punk; and I'm not that hot for Metal/Grunge. But you mean all rock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

Feel free to label me as a heretic (now this is something I should have written about!) but I don't care for the Beatles that much. To me, their music sounds simplistic, short, and similar. Add that to the fact that it annoys me whenever someone in the media starts frothing about how "groundbreaking" and "unequal" and "superlative" those guys were. I mean, really. They're nothing special.

/end rant

I also hate rap, pop, and country (the new stuff; bluegrass is cool).

---

Well, I'm not going to label you like that: I won't operate on such irrational responses in these conversations :|

If their music sounds simplistic to you, short, similar, etc., then that's a simple fact. And people talk of how groundbreaking they were, etc., you get annoyed thereby? Simple fact and a subjective reaction. Your claim that they are nothing special: subjective. And you are entitled to it all.

Now let us be objective. Truth of the matter is they were / are special as their music was much more complex than other "pop music" of the time. Inventive, original, creative, etc. Even now pop bands can't come up with their highly creative forms of music (and here I'm specially referring to their later music).
Many chord progressions for example nowadays are simple as usual, back then too, while they -- the Beatles -- were more experimental AND succesful throughout the whole world.

To musically experiment (being original, etc.) AND to actually make good music AND to be popular are things that usually don't mix. They require many factors to deal with, and most music-doing people cannot have their brains function in a way or ways that includes all necessary human qualities of music-doing people.
There are the simple normal musicians, bands, and composers who copy and imitate, are average, etc., and there are the ones who stand out.


_____
To add to my list of music I dislike: average simple big band jazz music :wizard:

Quote:

---

average simple big band jazz music

---

How come?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

I also dislike those typical "singers". People like Frank Sinatra and the likes who are more like performers / entertainers.

---

Sinatra... typical? ~:eek:

(Insert noise of thundering thousand-ton train full of steel girders and screeming pigs slamming into a napalm factory.)

I do not, sir, share your opnion. Cough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rythmic

How come?

---

Average and typical :P


@Beirut
lol :laugh4:

'I detest Hip-Hop, Pop, Rap, Modern R&B, Emo, Modern Punk and most Modern "Rock". I'll probably think of some more.' - I agree wholeheartedly with that list.

Then again, I like prog-rock, so I'm relatively odd :)

I detest Hip hop, rap, country (Nederlands talig :wink:), all rock, and pop.

:balloon2:

I listen to everything, and most of the time I like it ... however Dutch and German slagermusic should only be played during carnaval (I'm drunk anyway)

btw when I speak of Hip Hop I don't mind listening to Dutch hiphop, I hate those fake gangsta hiphop

What do you all mean by Modern Punk? What bands? Like Fall Out Boy shivers etc. I'm not a big fan of the Ramones though mostly everything I listen to is punx. Ramones just seems so repetitive.

I hate all music apart from medieval lute ballads. Those guys could shred!

I've become much more tolerant of music over the years, certainly of different genres. That said:

Hip Hop: 90% is pure crap, most of the other 10% is still derivative, like variations on a single song. Rappers have gotten worse with time too.

RnB, the new style: yuck, too mellow, too fake.

Pop: There's seems to be a high period now, maybe because Britney is out. Nothing I'd pay money for, but not as terrible as it sometimes is.

Goth Rock/Emo: occasionally decent, mostly just whiney

Heavy Metal: meh, technical prowness and cliché's, not much 'song' in there usually

Improvisational Jazz: practice at home, play some music when other people can hear you

BeBop: you can play fast, now play somethign good

Techno: is this even music ? No rythm changes, barely any melody

Trance: like techno, but worse.

I like most things, though I draw the line at Partysquad and the likes. And Boten Anna.

Overrated band? The Flaming Lips.

Quote:

---

Overrated band? The Flaming Lips.

---

Their most recent efoort was a bit dicey, but The Soft Bulletin and Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots were great albums. Even if they did rip Cat Stevens off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

I've become much more tolerant of music over the years, certainly of different genres. That said:

Hip Hop: 90% is pure crap, most of the other 10% is still derivative, like variations on a single song. Rappers have gotten worse with time too.

RnB, the new style: yuck, too mellow, too fake.

Pop: There's seems to be a high period now, maybe because Britney is out. Nothing I'd pay money for, but not as terrible as it sometimes is.

Goth Rock/Emo: occasionally decent, mostly just whiney

Heavy Metal: meh, technical prowness and cliché's, not much 'song' in there usually

Improvisational Jazz: practice at home, play some music when other people can hear you

BeBop: you can play fast, now play somethign good

Techno: is this even music ? No rythm changes, barely any melody

Trance: like techno, but worse.

---

I like this list :laugh4:

Rap = barbaric and low-brow... and it sounds like crud.

Emo... 'i wish my grass was emo so it'd cut itself'

RnB and country both are horrible

jazz puts me to sleep

pop is barely music

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

Well, I'm not going to label you like that: I won't operate on such irrational responses in these conversations :|

If their music sounds simplistic to you, short, similar, etc., then that's a simple fact. And people talk of how groundbreaking they were, etc., you get annoyed thereby? Simple fact and a subjective reaction. Your claim that they are nothing special: subjective. And you are entitled to it all.

Now let us be objective. Truth of the matter is they were / are special as their music was much more complex than other "pop music" of the time. Inventive, original, creative, etc. Even now pop bands can't come up with their highly creative forms of music (and here I'm specially referring to their later music).
Many chord progressions for example nowadays are simple as usual, back then too, while they -- the Beatles -- were more experimental AND succesful throughout the whole world.

To musically experiment (being original, etc.) AND to actually make good music AND to be popular are things that usually don't mix. They require many factors to deal with, and most music-doing people cannot have their brains function in a way or ways that includes all necessary human qualities of music-doing people.
There are the simple normal musicians, bands, and composers who copy and imitate, are average, etc., and there are the ones who stand out.

---

First of all, I agree with most of the stuff you said.

No doubt, the Beatles were groundbreaking and inventive. But that was 40 years ago. Since their rise and fall, a good amount of bands have built on what they have done and improved upon it, in my opinion to the point that they put John & co.'s music to shame.

What I have a problem with is how people ignore the continued evolution of rock. Most people continue to say that Sgt. Peppers' is the greatest concept album ever made, just because of its freshness and the fact that nobody had ever seen anything like it before. In my personal opinion, its successors, such as Tommy and Dark Side of the Moon leave it in the dust and don't make it sound that special anymore.

The Beatles do deserve credit for what they did. But they don't deserve to be called the Greatest Band of All Time simply for that. There are plenty of bands out there that sound better then them and greatly improved on their sound; why should they not be rewarded just because they didn't come first?

Rap haters! May the dinosaur smilie get you!

'Rap haters!' - At least you got us to acknowledge that it's theoretically a type of music.

I'm so out of touch with the wonderful world of 'music' (^and I'm not even going to acknowledge rap as a type of music^) that I don't even know the names of all the stuff I don't care for/ dislike/ hate. One might go so far as to say that I'm musically challenged. For instance:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

BeBop: you can play fast, now play somethign good

---

The only Bebop I'm familiar with is the place on the Tiense where I have a few drinks occasionally with friends. ~D Incidentally, Albert Niland performed there last Monday, and I was moved to buy his cd on the spot. No clue what label to slap on him, though.

So basically, turn on the radio or tune in to MTV (or something similar), and there will be a huge chance of me disliking whatever they're playing.
Also,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

however Dutch and German slagermusic should only be played during carnaval

---

I hold a special place of pure disgust in my heart for schlagers (my father likes Laura Lynn and Frans Bauer :embarassed: ) and I hate carnival with the burning intensity of a thousand desert suns. Instead of scantily clad ladies like they have in Brazil, we get a festival of distaste where I live, complete with the aforementioned bad bad music. Why yes I'm a grouch, why'd you ask?

Hate to say it, but almost every American band I have ever heard, sounded like cack when I had the choice of British bands.

Hate Emo and Screamo, Hardcore Metalcore, that pussy american heavy metal stuff, slasher music, jazz, rap and it's associates, some of the cack brit pop stuff like the A monkeys (ugh!).

I do like Oasis and Kasabian though:2thumbsup:
Maiden, Genesis Led Zep, the fab four, TooL, Vivaldi, Camel, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Evermore, MUSE, Elton.

I like alot of stuff.

Song I hate the most... hmm... the 200 olympic song, "absalutley everybody, everybody everybody, absalutley everybody! in the whole wide world! Everybody dreams and everybody breathes, absalutley everybody" Uhg, oh dear god i rememeber it! Ah it will be in my head as I sleep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

First of all, I agree with most of the stuff you said.

No doubt, the Beatles were groundbreaking and inventive. But that was 40 years ago. Since their rise and fall, a good amount of bands have built on what they have done and improved upon it, in my opinion to the point that they put John & co.'s music to shame.

What I have a problem with is how people ignore the continued evolution of rock. Most people continue to say that Sgt. Peppers' is the greatest concept album ever made, just because of its freshness and the fact that nobody had ever seen anything like it before. In my personal opinion, its successors, such as Tommy and Dark Side of the Moon leave it in the dust and don't make it sound that special anymore.

The Beatles do deserve credit for what they did. But they don't deserve to be called the Greatest Band of All Time simply for that. There are plenty of bands out there that sound better then them and greatly improved on their sound; why should they not be rewarded just because they didn't come first?

---

Hmmm... that they put them to shame? It sounds like subjective opinion.

The evolution of rock? Hmmm... the Beatles were everywhere and it's not just "rock". I don't know about those two things you bolded, though, so I will have to check that out sometime. But I see you speak with opinion again, therefore I must question even more if these supposed successors leave them in the dust.

They do deserve The Greatest Band of All Time title, because they were great in a time when it was very difficult to be great in what they did. For example in the later days people relied more and more on technology and still made ****. As if they "let music technology" do the music for them, instead of doing the music themselves. The Beatles achieved great music-doing and did so with inferior facilities compared to what there was later, and later there were people still able to make rubbish even if technology grew and better facilities appeared.

_____
Add to my list: COUNTRY! But I do like the "funny kind of country" that actually sounds not so bad like when a couple of southern farmers with a mouth harp, singer, fast banjo, an empty liquor bottle -- that has a couple of XXs on it -- to blow on, and a little improvised choir, play some stuff :laugh4: