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

[Bijo]

I'll start.... Modern pop music: *BRAIN PAIN* 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! <--- this is no exaggeration :P <--- and that was no sarcasm

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!!!

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

[Csargo]

Country, most rap, most techno, pop.

[GeneralHankerchief]

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).

[naut]

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

[Martok]

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.

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

[Csargo]

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

[Bijo]

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

[naut]

average simple big band jazz music

How come?

[Bijo]

How come?

Average and typical :P


@Beirut
lol

[GeneralHankerchief]

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?

[edyzmedieval]

Rap haters! May the dinosaur smilie get you!

[Bijo]

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

[Beirut]

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

Sinatra... typical?

(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.

[The Wizard]

Emo, punk, grunting metal, and any bloody thing having to do with electronic music (trance, dance, hardcore, -- anything). In fact, "music" is too honorable a title for it. I like to think of it as a series of random sounds made to sound inviting.

Sinatra... typical?

(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.

Forgive me if I brave your flurry of axe swings, but Frank Sinatra was a white man who (crappily) imitated (good) black music to make big money while the real, original black musicians starved in the gutter. Same goes for Elvis.

Note: "black" as in the music and the simple skin color; not the political side of things.

[Bijo]

Ahhh, the joys of O-Zone. It seems that here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-zone are a couple of links about them. Sounds like a crappy pop group indeed... from what I read. Haven't even heard their music but I'm already convinced they're bad. The keywords; summer hits, eurodance, Eurovision festival: they say enough.


Btw

Frank Sinatra was a white man who (crappily) imitated (good) black music to make big money while the real, original black musicians starved in the gutter.

Oh yes And it sounds very typical too, such action.

[edyzmedieval]

Ahhh, the joys of O-Zone. It seems that here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-zone are a couple of links about them. Sounds like a crappy pop group indeed... from what I read. Haven't even heard their music but I'm already convinced they're bad. The keywords; summer hits, eurodance, Eurovision festival: they say enough.

If you wish to have children, please refrain from posting such horrid links.

Thank you,
The Pop Busters

[Bijo]

Pfff, who wants kids nowadays?

[Fragony]

original black musicians starved in the gutter.

So we gave them the bluezzzzz

[AntiochusIII]

So we gave them the bluezzzzz

[Beirut]

Forgive me if I brave your flurry of axe swings, but Frank Sinatra was a white man who (crappily) imitated (good) black music to make big money while the real, original black musicians starved in the gutter. Same goes for Elvis.
[/SIZE]

Just saw your post.

Sinatra was the best ballad singer of all time. Nobody could tell a story in a song like him. He had the voice and the style to headline in front of any great band. Listen to Sinatra at The Sands recorded live with Count basie and his orchestra. It isn't crappy, it isn't imitation, it's style, showmanship, and honking good music. Sinatra didn't sell a billion albums and sell out a million shows over fifty-years because of a mistake in people's judgement, he was big because he was great.

There are lots of excellent musicians who "starve in the gutter", you can't blame those who succeed for it. If that's the case, then we have to shoot down Floyd, Zeppelin, the Beatles, and every other great band because some guy, somewhere, didn't make it rich.

Besides, true talent survives. That's why seventy-years later people still have pictures of Robert Johnson hanging in their house. Like me.

[Martok]

GAH!! The radio station at my work is playing Sheryl Crow right now! Oh the pain, the pain.....

[The Wizard]

Sinatra was the best ballad singer of all time. Nobody could tell a story in a song like him. He had the voice and the style to headline in front of any great band. Listen to Sinatra at The Sands recorded live with Count basie and his orchestra. It isn't crappy, it isn't imitation, it's style, showmanship, and honking good music. Sinatra didn't sell a billion albums and sell out a million shows over fifty-years because of a mistake in people's judgement, he was big because he was great.

Ballads, schmallads... my point is that Sinatra made something most (white? meh) people think of when someone utters the word "jazz," while, as far as innovation and true feeling for that amazing music, he was to jazz what something like Linkin Park is to rock: pop. And since I don't like pop, be it an imitation of hip-hop or be it something that was apparently made to pass for rock...

[Beirut]

Ballads, schmallads... my point is that Sinatra made something most (white? meh) people think of when someone utters the word "jazz," while, as far as innovation and true feeling for that amazing music, he was to jazz what something like Linkin Park is to rock: pop. And since I don't like pop, be it an imitation of hip-hop or be it something that was apparently made to pass for rock...

Sinatra can be put into many categories, he covered all the bases, jazz is only one of them. I don't buy that legions of "true" jazz men went undernourished in swill-filled gutters because of him, or that tens of millions of people were fooled by him and his music. People liked Sinatra, and still do, because he sounds good. If he had a bad voice and gave a lousy performance he would not have lasted fifty-years in the business.

If you don't like him, that's your business, but you can't put your impressions onto millions of other people and tell us all we got fooled.

Just to humour me, could you ask one of those betrenched and underfed jazzmen you speak of to lift his head from the recesses of the drain pipe and tell us all how Frank "done him wrong"?