Bands and artists you "just don't get"

[Commodore 64***]

I don't care for:

Bruce Springsteen
The Doors
The Beatles
Led Zeppelin
I can take or leave Hendrix too.
Grateful Dead do nothing for me, nor do Phish


HATE LIST
NiN
Smashing Cumkins
Nirvana
Foo Shitters
Eric, because he doesn't like Iron Maiden.

[sumitomo]

Clara and the Clambumpers. Sumi

[Eric***]

HATE LIST
Eric, because he doesn't like Iron Maiden.

I'm trying to come up with something witty in response to this, but it's just not happening...

I do find it interesting how not 'getting' a band can quickly turn into not liking said band.

[tremoloman***]

I have to agree with those who don't like metal bands with those awful screaming/growling vocals. I grew up in the 80s so when I think metal I think Megadeth, Metallica, Iron Maiden, Anthrax and so on. You can hear each instrument, they have decent singing in most cases, and the musicians can play.

I got my cousin into metal and he loves Lamb of God. I tried giving them a listen but the singing is just God awful. :P

[Jimi75]

Beatles
Pink Floyd
David Bowie

[Retro Hound]

See when I saw the name of this thread, I was thinking "bands that I should like but don't" not whole genres of music that I don't like. For example, I was (and am) very into 1980s alternative, but I just don't "get" Elvis Costello or The Smiths. Everyone is so surprised that I don't listen to them because they are some of the biggest names in my favorite style. That's the direction I was expecting from this thread.

[Kazz]

My list is miles long, but here are the ones that come to mind.

Readying myself for the coming firestorm...

Stevie Ray Vaughn
Iron Maiden
Yngwie Malmsteen

And possibly more understandable to some:

Slipknot
Captain Beefheart
Ponytail
Sun Ra Arkestra

Honestly, I just never quite got any of these groups. That's not to say that I won't eventually, or that they have no redeeming qualities, but they just all seem not to click with me for whatever reason.

This might be in bad taste...but after the news I read today....we may not have to worry about Slipknot any more. Their bass player was found dead in a Des Moines Iowa hotel room

[Tonz]

I don't get tons of bands, far too many to list. As far as one post that said something like guys who play jazz , blues or country because they aren't good enough to play metal, well that is just nuts, some of the best players on this planet are country, blues and jazz players. I know lots of great metal players but when you take away their effects they suck. Many classical guitar players will make you wonder why you ever took up playing in the first place. The things is it is not about who is good or who sucks, but being out their working at it and getting paid for it. Oh yeah I forgot Jeff Beck blows away everyone.

[guitartango]

What bands or artists out there do many people love that you just never understood or got the fascination with that others do?

For me, the bands I never got were:

KISS
Pink Floyd
The Grateful Dead

I suggest you listen to the following Floyd albums

Dark side of the moon (45 Million Sales)
Animals
Wish you were here
The Wall (heavy going)
The Division Bell

It's British Music at it's best !

[R_of_G]

...As far as one post that said something like guys who play jazz , blues or country because they aren't good enough to play metal...

Ok, I have read and re-read this entire thread and I don't see where anyone said anything even close to this.

[Eric***]

Ok, I have read and re-read this entire thread and I don't see where anyone said anything even close to this.

I think he was referring to this:

I suppose the biggest 'I don't get' is blues and country music, always thought it was like if there are musicians who seriously lack creativity they can find salvation in playing the blues. JAzz sometimes seems the same to me. BUT there are some, like Grateful Dead's two country-rock albums, that are great (Those two are incredibly sweet vocal work and really nice. I don't like any other Grateful Dead stuff.)

But yes, it was misinterpreted and then...off to the races.

I do get what deeaa is saying with this comment, and there are times when I agree that using blues, jazz, or country comes off as a gimmick and attempt to forge an identity by what would otherwise be a pop/rock group. However, saying that kind of cheapens anyone who plays those styles, so I find it to be a little bit unfair.

For me, fusion and free jazz just take so much work to listen to, it's almost not worth it.

[Bloozcat]

Fleetwood Mac sans Peter Green...

Can you bleat like a goat? Stevie Nicks can...and BTW, Happy Birthday to the old goat!

[deeaa*]

Yeah maybe I should elaborate...while I think there are certainly great blues and jazz players and probably also country players out there, the whole genres seem to me, well somehow so cast in molds nothing new seems to happen there.

Perhaps it's just that I'm not sufficiently learned in the way of the blues for instance, but a lot of it seems as repetitive and similar to each other as top-10 music seems to be. Nothing new.

With Jazz guys I have quite a lot of experience...and jazz...well, how should I put it. I know a few jazz guys who do it for a profession, and to me it seems incredible how poor they are at creating new music and ideas. They just jam endlessly and discuss some phrasing issues etc, and hardly produce a new tune once a year or so. And when they do, it's like this seemingly complex thing with quirky division etc. but I usually fail to realize what's so fine about it.

One time I pissed off this jazz guy, he was showing off his latest tune he had been composing most of the year, and it seemed pretty complex and interesting. He was like, listen, how do you like the phrasing? etc. and I listened to it for a while, then picked up the guitar and played the tune - I don't know how complex the timing etc. was in music terms, probably something überfine, but to me it was simply just first count 7, then 5, then 3,5 and then start over, and with a simple melody that kind of doubled back on itself. Very simple, and I told him that to me it seems like a simple rhythm, but it'd be way better if it'd just lose the quirky rotation, drop in some backbeat accents and some proper guitar and not a dull synth line, and he got all red in the face and didn't speak to me no more.

[Eric***]

Yeah maybe I should elaborate...while I think there are certainly great blues and jazz players and probably also country players out there, the whole genres seem to me, well somehow so cast in molds nothing new seems to happen there.

Perhaps it's just that I'm not sufficiently learned in the way of the blues for instance, but a lot of it seems as repetitive and similar to each other as top-10 music seems to be. Nothing new.

With Jazz guys I have quite a lot of experience...and jazz...well, how should I put it. I know a few jazz guys who do it for a profession, and to me it seems incredible how poor they are at creating new music and ideas. They just jam endlessly and discuss some phrasing issues etc, and hardly produce a new tune once a year or so. And when they do, it's like this seemingly complex thing with quirky division etc. but I usually fail to realize what's so fine about it.

One time I pissed off this jazz guy, he was showing off his latest tune he had been composing most of the year, and it seemed pretty complex and interesting. He was like, listen, how do you like the phrasing? etc. and I listened to it for a while, then picked up the guitar and played the tune - I don't know how complex the timing etc. was in music terms, probably something überfine, but to me it was simply just first count 7, then 5, then 3,5 and then start over, and with a simple melody that kind of doubled back on itself. Very simple, and I told him that to me it seems like a simple rhythm, but it'd be way better if it'd just lose the quirky rotation, drop in some backbeat accents and some proper guitar and not a dull synth line, and he got all red in the face and didn't speak to me no more.

I get you. I ultimately like music that has good hooks and makes you want to listen. A lot of blues and jazz to me does seem like the same stuff rewarmed a bunch of times. I ASSUME that's because I don't understand, but nuances to me are only good if they are a part of something people want to hear in the first place.

Isn't it the job of the artist to help the listener understand their music, not just whine when people don't see how brilliant you are?

It's kind of like tone: great tone doesn't matter if you're playing a song that sucks and playing it poorly.

[Commodore 64***]

I'm with you on the "hook". It may not be cool or artsy fartsy to admit it, but I like the hook. That's what drives me nuts about a lot of Springsteen music. He just rambles on forever.

[FrankenFretter***]

All this talk about the hook, and this is what I keep thinking about...



I think I liked Mr. Popper better when he was big. He seemed to have more sustain. Maybe it was due to the larger body mass?

[Eric***]

All this talk about the hook, and this is what I keep thinking about...

I think I liked Mr. Popper better when he was big. He seemed to have more sustain. Maybe it was due to the larger body mass?

The lyrics to that song are actually pretty funny when you take the time to read them.

The thing is, most people like melody and hooks when it comes right down to it. If you can get those across in music without being stylistically uncreative and/or having stupid lyrics, I think you'll be in pretty good company. Don't ask people to bear with you while you wail some tuneless melody about Goethe; your audience won't last too long, or at least it won't be very sizable.

[hubberjub***]

I think I liked Mr. Popper better when he was big. He seemed to have more sustain. Maybe it was due to the larger body mass?

So, in Gibson terms we can now call him weight relieved? Do you think he prefers the term chambered?

[red]

No, Heywood--it is most definitely NOT just you....

I obviously meant that as a joke (hence the smiley), as I'm sure everyone knows, but just to avert any future misunderstandings.

As for the purpose of the thread, I suppose it doesn't have to have one, or maybe it can have a few different ones for different people: as far as I'm concerned, I see it as a very interesting "emperor's clothes"-type experiment. That is, some artists/bands have been accused in the past of being over-hyped, more of a marketing product than a real artistic endeavour, etc. - sometimes by other artists, for example I think Keith Richards at some point said it about Bowie.

So it might be interesting to see if we can find at least one artist/band that most of us just don't get and see if there's anything to those claims.

But most likely, it's just me .