Worst Music Trends of All time

[Absolutepower]

I can't stand The Beatles.

I also can't stand the semi-baritone/pseudo-Eddie Vedder vocals that became popular a few years ago and then for some reason really took off in Christian comtemporary music.

Lol, so true. It might have been ok if only Vedder had done it, but all the imitators ruined it for everyone. I was checking out some obscure 80s bands on youtube, and a lot of the worst ones try to sound just like bon jovi. The thing is if you're going to imitate someone, why would you choose someone mediocre? Its a recipe for distaster. So many bands that really never should have been allowed to exist.

 

[fuzzsniffvoyage]

In my old band, we coverd Help, matalized it of course w/ over drived guitars and screeming vocals. It was horrible. Any way, I must say the whole rap/metal thing was over done. The Beastie Boys were ok, after that...........AeroSmith and was it Run DMC???? sucked major ass.

 

[grimtraveller]

You're joking, right? I never in my life met a person who actually disliked the Beatles. I ate it up, and still eat it up.

I can't stand The Beatles

I love their music. But if there's one thing I've never done and will never do, it's even contemplate assuming everyone does. Because everyone does not. Alot of Black people over here just assume anyone Black digs Bob Marley and hates the Police force. Alot of guys just assume that every guy likes the ogle at the topless ladies on page 3 of the Sun newspaper. Alot of kids simply assume that everyone has a mobile phone. And so on and so forth. Life is alot more interesting when one doesn't assume that everyone shares their tastes and thoughts. Why would it surprize anyone that someone didn't like the Beatles' music ? I can't stand the Clash, Bon Jovi or Luther Vandros.
Nor can they !

 

[Villain S Deeds]

Prog rock isn't inherently bad, its just ruined by the kind of people who play it. There's nothing "rock" about it any more, it lost all that spirit. Nowadays its played exclusively by ultra music-nerds, who think that the measure of how good a tune is from how many time signature changes and unusual chords they can use. Wow, sooo sophisticated I'm impressed....

Rush is actually pretty unpretentious about it, but Dream Theatre on the other hand, are just a bunch of assholes showing off.

 

[arcadeko]

RUSH is also awesome

 

[Toddskins]

I love their music. But if there's one thing I've never done and will never do, it's even contemplate assuming everyone does. Because everyone does not. Alot of Black people over here just assume anyone Black digs Bob Marley and hates the Police force. Alot of guys just assume that every guy likes the ogle at the topless ladies on page 3 of the Sun newspaper. Alot of kids simply assume that everyone has a mobile phone. And so on and so forth. Life is alot more interesting when one doesn't assume that everyone shares their tastes and thoughts. Why would it surprize anyone that someone didn't like the Beatles' music ? I can't stand the Clash, Bon Jovi or Luther Vandros.
Nor can they !

Good point.

I just had never run across a person who actually disliked the Beatles. I did not think there weren't any, just had never met one.

Since we are expressing opinions, I don't think there was a greater RUSH fan than myself from their earliest debut album all the way up to Moving Pictures. Then, as the K-SHE DJ historically said, Rock seemed to have died when John Lennon got shot (1981, the same year as Moving Pictures). And then RUSH's music began its decline, with each successive album getting worse than its prior one.

I was saddened to see the decline, but it happened. It happened, to my ears, so badly that I have come to the point that I do not like RUSH (the past 25 years) anymore. And I used to be their greatest enthusiast. The last album of theirs I bought was Roll The Bones. Each album from Signals to Roll The Bones only had a few good songs on it, and none of them, NONE, qualitatively compared to a single song on any album from Moving Pictures going backwards.

 

[Absolutepower]

The dream theater thing reminds me of something a bit different but related. Why is it that a lot of the most talented musicians are obsessed with only playing bizarre crap that nobody would ever want to listen to? Not even themselves! I'm talking about long instrumentals experimental stuff with wierd time signatures and chord progressions, (vocals are a complete afterthought of course, singing is hardly important, because everyone knows people prefer bizarre chord progressions over a well sung tune).
A lot of these guys are really well trained, talented and technically proficient, so why don't they harness their ability to making good catchy well played rock songs that the general public will dig and shell out money for??
There's nothing wrong with making experimental music, its just that these guys are creating music that not even they themselves would enjoy buying or listening to in a million years. I don't get it!

 

[arcadeko]

Signals was the last album I liked - but really just for new World Man and Subdivisions. I moved out of range of KSHE 95 in 1982

 

[diggy_dude]

You're joking, right? I never in my life met a person who actually disliked the Beatles. I ate it up, and still eat it up. The talk about how bad rap/hip-hop is, rightfully so, is because we had standards set by these guys and thousdands of others, too.

Rap isn't all bad. Doggystyle was a well-made album. And you can tell they had a shitload of fun making it.

 

[grimtraveller]

I just had never run across a person who actually disliked the Beatles. I did not think there weren't any, just had never met one.

I thought of that while I was typing actually, but my point was more of a general one rather than aimed at you. I seem to run into people who, because they are into something, either believe everyone should be into it or everyone must be into it, especially if it's something/one popular and/or influential.

Then, as the K-SHE DJ historically said, Rock seemed to have died when John Lennon got shot

A more ridiculous statement would be hard, not impossible, but hard to find. Primarilly because it assumes that John Lennon's music and standing in current music was of such calibre and quality in 1980 that with his passing went a major force.
Simply not true. Had he been shot in 1970 when he was at the peak of his powers, the statement would still have been ridiculous.

I was saddened to see the decline, but it happened. It happened, to my ears, so badly that I have come to the point that I do not like RUSH (the past 25 years) anymore. And I used to be their greatest enthusiast

I discovered Rush's music in 1980. "Permanent waves" {the first LP released in the 80s !} was the one. It still takes me right back to the cold November day I first heard it, along with "Black Rose" by Thin Lizzy. And it's still my fave of theirs. A truly seminal album. I go backwards with their stuff too, "2112", "A farewell to kings" etc being the epitome of Rush's contribution to 20th century rock. I saw them live at Wembley in 1983 and it was such a disappointment that after that, I wasn't interested in anything further they were to do. I still love their work up to "Permanent Waves" though and some of their interviews are interesting.
The main point I was going to make before that nostalgia trip was that many, many artists that have been around for a very long time appear to decline to those that have followed them for a long time. It's almost inevitable, unless they only release 5 albums in 20 years or something. One of the smartest things the Beatles did was break up in 1969. One of the daftest things they did was in the mid 90s when they got together to release more new songs. Stupid move. Wrecked a great story.

The dream theater thing reminds me of something a bit different but related. Why is it that a lot of the most talented musicians are obsessed with only playing bizarre crap that nobody would ever want to listen to? Not even themselves! I'm talking about long instrumentals experimental stuff with wierd time signatures and chord progressions, (vocals are a complete afterthought of course, singing is hardly important, because everyone knows people prefer bizarre chord progressions over a well sung tune).
A lot of these guys are really well trained, talented and technically proficient, so why don't they harness their ability to making good catchy well played rock songs that the general public will dig and shell out money for??
There's nothing wrong with making experimental music, its just that these guys are creating music that not even they themselves would enjoy buying or listening to in a million years. I don't get it!

Firstly, I would ask how you know these kinds of bands don't like the kind of music they create ? Secondly, I would make the opposite point and point out that it is by no means unusual for artists of all musical genres and all ages to not like alot of the stuff they've created. Many many people create things because they have that idea at the time and just have to get it out. It doesn't mean they have to spend their lives listening to it ! That's the buyer's job. But ironically, all that 'clever' music by the well trained, theoretically sound bands you mention is sometimes what comes out of the heads of the

well trained, talented and technically proficient

. And from time to time, lots of people have liked and bought it. By the way, different time signatures are simply another aspect of music's rich scope. Some get bored with 4/4 all the time. It can get like painting every room in the house with blue and white stripes. Nothing wrong with it, but having a few more colours elsewhere doesn't hurt either.
It's like musicians can't win. If they constantly knock out catchy sellable stuff, they're accused of not having edge, pandering to the lowest common denominator, not pushing boundaries. And then when they do........
Thankfully, there are so many genres and bands and singers etc that it really doesn't matter !

 

[diggy_dude]

John Lennon wasn't even doing rock when he died. Double Fantasy was what we would have called "adult contemporary" back then.

My first Rush album was Moving Pictures. Permanent Waves was an awesome record, but Moving Pictures still epitomizes the Rush sound for me.

 

[achillies000]

watched the Attack Attack video. It was really nice.

 

[Toddskins]

The dream theater thing reminds me of something a bit different but related. Why is it that a lot of the most talented musicians are obsessed with only playing bizarre crap that nobody would ever want to listen to? Not even themselves! I'm talking about long instrumentals experimental stuff with wierd time signatures and chord progressions, (vocals are a complete afterthought of course, singing is hardly important, because everyone knows people prefer bizarre chord progressions over a well sung tune).
A lot of these guys are really well trained, talented and technically proficient, so why don't they harness their ability to making good catchy well played rock songs that the general public will dig and shell out money for??
There's nothing wrong with making experimental music, its just that these guys are creating music that not even they themselves would enjoy buying or listening to in a million years. I don't get it!

An example, and your writing reminds me of it, is that the pianist Franz Liszt was a ridiculously proficient pianist, superior to Chopin. And yet, admittedly, he was hardly a composer. He did compose, but nothing of any merit. And the vice versa was true, too, that Chopin knew Liszt was a better player than he, but Chopin was the better composer.

Being a composer is a totally different gift (talent?) than technical proficiency.

To GrimTraveller: I know, and the DJ knew, that Lennon did not hold some type of enchantment on the industry, and thus with his death, so the demise of Rock n Roll. That was not what was in anybody's thinking who happened to agree with the statement. It was just more or less a marker. And maybe, he made Lennon the marker because it was suited to it - like, Lennon (from the Beatles) was one of the original rock bands that launched the British invasion and was a major contributor to Rock's huge lift during the 60's. That's all.

And to emphasize that point, I was never a Lennon fan per se'.

 

[Toddskins]

I also think that it's not an age prejudice. I know that all my piers who grew up in high school during the late 70's, also very much liked the music from the 60's. We saw a type of evolution in sound, song writing, production, but it's like we were tapped into that spirit that we enjoyed as far back as our older siblings were raised on.

But then as the 80's went on, all that competitive juice that made Rock in the 70's so awesome, seemed to disappear.

I, unlike the DJ quoted, believe that MTV was part of the major kill, since it took all those Sesame street kids with a 30 second attention span, and queued them into the visual entertainment brainwash, and so music was no longer a purely listening activity. We could throw in a few other ideas like how Sony was buying up record labels and everything under the sun they could get their hands on, and record companies were less willing to take chances on unproven bands, and then somehow RAP was given a nod by some dimwit and influenced yet another group of youngsters called Gen-X and Gen Next, and last but not least,

the Democrats were rubbing everybody's brains in welfare ideas like "no kid left behind" and Bill Clinton...and


LOL

Gimme a break. I'm just having fun. <grin>

 

[arcadeko]

My first Rush album was Moving Pictures. Permanent Waves was an awesome record, but Moving Pictures still epitomizes the Rush sound for me.

I had the Moving Pictures cassette in my Sony Walkman 24/7

 

[grimtraveller]

Simplistic rock journalism ~ another lame trend.

I, unlike the DJ quoted, believe that MTV was part of the major kill, since it took all those Sesame street kids with a 30 second attention span, and queued them into the visual entertainment brainwash, and so music was no longer a purely listening activity. We could throw in a few other ideas like how Sony was buying up record labels and everything under the sun they could get their hands on, and record companies were less willing to take chances on unproven bands, and then somehow RAP was given a nod by some dimwit and influenced yet another group of youngsters called Gen-X and Gen Next

I've found that very rarely is any one thing purely the result of any one thing. Many different strands come together at particular times to 'create' or build something up or knock it down. A couple of weeks ago, this statue of Ronald Reagan was unveiled at the US embassy in London to mark what would have been his 100th birthday and on the radio and telly were these programmes in which they talked about how he and Mrs Thatcher ended the cold war and brought communism to it's knees. I couldn't help thinking 'how insulting' to all of those people who sacrificed a great deal over a 45 year period to help end what was a partly Western inspired mess in the first place. The point being, like apartheid in South Africa, a series of happenings that had been gathering pace for a long time came together at that one period.
It's debatable whether rock 'died' {more like it entered 'approaching middle age'}, but if one wants to make the argument, it'll follow more the lines of Toddskins argument where a series of things all met at a particular juncture. It's not as sexy or dramatic as pointing to a single event ["The Beatles took off in the USA because the nation was in mourning over the death of JFK and needed something to fill the gap"/"Punk was a much needed shake up of rock as it had all degenerated into obscure lyricism and endless guitar solos and no one could relate to rock musicians anymore...."] but it's alot closer to the truth.

 

[Toddskins]

I've found that very rarely is any one thing purely the result of any one thing. Many different strands come together at particular times to 'create' or build something up or knock it down. A couple of weeks ago, this statue of Ronald Reagan was unveiled at the US embassy in London to mark what would have been his 100th birthday and on the radio and telly were these programmes in which they talked about how he and Mrs Thatcher ended the cold war and brought communism to it's knees. I couldn't help thinking 'how insulting' to all of those people who sacrificed a great deal over a 45 year period to help end what was a partly Western inspired mess in the first place. The point being, like apartheid in South Africa, a series of happenings that had been gathering pace for a long time came together at that one period.
It's debatable whether rock 'died' {more like it entered 'approaching middle age'}, but if one wants to make the argument, it'll follow more the lines of Toddskins argument where a series of things all met at a particular juncture. It's not as sexy or dramatic as pointing to a single event ["The Beatles took off in the USA because the nation was in mourning over the death of JFK and needed something to fill the gap"/"Punk was a much needed shake up of rock as it had all degenerated into obscure lyricism and endless guitar solos and no one could relate to rock musicians anymore...."] but it's alot closer to the truth.

Y'think?

 

[grimtraveller]

Some random thoughts. Prog rock isn't inherently bad, its just ruined by the kind of people who play it. There's nothing "rock" about it any more, it lost all that spirit. Nowadays its played exclusively by ultra music-nerds, who think that the measure of how good a tune is from how many time signature changes and unusual chords they can use.

Having thought about this for some years {blame the petrol fumes I gorge on while driving around London each day}, I'm of the opinion that there is a universe of difference between 'progressive rock' and 'prog'. You could say that 'prog' is what 'progressive rock' mutated into, eventually. I'd actually say that progressive rock doesn't exist anymore and hasn't done since just before British punk came into the national and then global consciousness.
Progressive rock was, like many of the best things in rock, part accidental, part deliberate, or let's say, unconscious. The intention was certainly not "Let's begin a new genre". Certain pop/rock bands by 1966 were simply bored with the music that had gotten them to where they were at and were subconsciously looking to expand their scope. Marijuana and LSD had already begun ripping peoples' heads and singing boy meets girl songs within pop formats was getting kind of tired for young people who found themselves with more freedom of expression than young people had ever really had in recorded human history. Folk rock and British invasion rock paved the way for psychedelia, without which progressive rock couldn't have happened.
I find this really interesting; prog has been assumed to be a largely British phenomena. Every author that I've read makes that point and many of the players themselves do. But I find the denial of the American influence and contribution bizarre to say the least.
Anyway, that said, so far as I can determine, I'd say "Revolver" was the first progressive rock album. Many LPs after that that went against the pre~1966 trends and formats were dubbed as being progressive rock. Santana, Fleetwood Mac, Caravan,Ten years after, Family, Traffic, Steve Miller band, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Soft Machine, Spirit, Barclay James Harvest...........these were all marketed as progressive rock groups back in the day, as were tons of other groups . Then, as nearly always happens, people become more deliberate about things and definite genres evolve and you get what you get.
What was good about progressive rock in the mid to late 60s~ very early 70s, was that the artists still thought in terms of songs, just that these were fused with sensibilities that included classical, jazz, folk, medieval, Indian as well as the results of mind expanding drugs so songs after psychedelia got longer, more multipart. Made for great music much of the time. Prog on the other hand, sometimes felt like complexity and meandering for it's own sake. I'm not saying it was, just that sometimes perhaps the song element got slightly lost amongst the expansion.
There was once a rock format to progress and move forward, which is why progressive rock worked. That ceased to apply a long time ago, which is why, in my mind, prog exists but progressive rock does not. The irony of prog is that far from being limitless, it has very definite limits.

 

[grimtraveller]

The defence rests......!

Which leads me to the "incorporating unusual instruments" trend. With this gimmick bands reason that their music is inherently better because they have x instrument not usually used in rock. Nobody else does that, wow you're so unique! Kazoos are especially annoying, and no they're not "fun".

There is another exit to this particular door.........
It's worth remembering that when rock and roll began, the dominant instrument was the piano followed by saxophones. The guitar was pretty rare and was seen as something of a novelty. The drums were important only to establish a beat and the almost inaudible double bass was 'the low end'.
The electric guitar had a bit of novelty value but by late '61 was already being seen as passe. As Decca's A&R man told one manager after turning down his group {who went on to be pretty famous}, "Groups of guitars are on the way out". This in 1962. But the guitar gained in popularity and took over as the kingpin instrument, to the exclusion of almost all others {barring of course, drums}. The bass only really gained in popularity by default - drums are naturally loud and as guitars got louder, the double bass was wasting it's time trying to keep up. The low end needed volume !
What made rock really unique in it's infancy was it's natural penchant for absorbing other styles in a way that none of those styles could, certainly not with the durability that rock had or it's scope. And so it was kind of inevitable that there would come a point when other instruments would enter the fray. Rock'n'roll had grabbed the attentions of all kinds of kids from all kinds of backgrounds with a wide variety of instrumental and choir training and these leaked into the music on both sides of the Atlantic. So not only did you get bands utilizing Indian and Arabic instrumental colours, you also had rockers that played strings, woodwinds and brass {Jim King from Family, Chris Wood from Traffic, Rick Grech from Blind Faith/Family, Ian Anderson from Jethro Tull, Daevid Allen from Gong, David LaFlamme from It's a beautiful day, Ian McDonald from King Crimson, John Entwisle from the Who, Brian Jones from the Rolling Stones among scores of others} as well as the many keyboardists that utilized the mellotron.
In other words, unusual instuments in rock music was no longer unusual by the end of the 60s. Kind of linked into the psychedelic and progressive rock way of thinking ~ greater scope and expansion and all that.
But there's another angle to the thing of unusual instruments in rock. Britain and America were the twin spearheads of rock supremacy at it's highpoint in the 60s. And among the many things the two nations had in common was this; despite being superpowers that had co~opted many different nationalities into their enclave, both countries were amazingly closed minded to those not seen as the same as themselves. Definitely viewed as kind of inferior. But after WW2 that really began to change and as more immigrants came to the shores of the USA and the UK and more British and Americans travelled abroad and at home mixed a little more with 'foreigners' and television and radio made the world a smaller place, certain attitudes opened up and loosened up somewhat. This was naturally reflected in the music that band members listened to and by extension, played. So unusual instruments in rock has a social aspect that can't be gotten away from ~ it marks a decisive moment when important shifts were taking place in the Western psyche. That it's something of a fixture now indicates how much certain things have changed.

 

[tbone88]

Skinny jeans. Jk.