Maroon 5 or Clean Bandit? Who is the absolute worst band in the world?

13567

Comments

  • mgvsmithmgvsmith Posts: 16,452
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Rocketpop wrote: »
    That's it though they are a rock band for people who only listen to the charts, you get em spring up every now and then Nickelback, Crazy Town, Wheatus, that 'Heaven is a Halfpipe' band and yeah Maroon 5 too etc....bands that make rock fans facepalm wondering why it's nearly always the dross that represents the genre in the charts. That's why I call them Fisher Price - aka my first rock band, it appeals to the kiddies who are still into the pop acts.
    nowt wrong with that..... the charts have had loads of such acts over the last 55 years and have produced some great guitar based pop.

    ......

    I tend to agree. There have been some great rock groups who have made pop songs that have dominated the chart. The Kinks, T.Rex, Roxy Music, Blondie, The Clash, Queen, Duran Duran, Oasis, etc etc. There has also been some incredible rock songs that have done well in the charts...'You Really Got Me', 'Layla', "Get it On', 'Alright Now' , 'Paint it Black', 'Purple Rain', 'All Along the Watchtower', 'Smells like Teen Spirit', 'London's Calling', 'Pretty Vacant' etc.

    Is this the case in modern times? Not so sure.
  • jlp95bwfcjlp95bwfc Posts: 18,259
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Rocketpop wrote: »
    That's it though they are a rock band for people who only listen to the charts, you get em spring up every now and then Nickelback, Crazy Town, Wheatus, that 'Heaven is a Halfpipe' band and yeah Maroon 5 too etc....bands that make rock fans facepalm wondering why it's nearly always the dross that represents the genre in the charts. That's why I call them Fisher Price - aka my first rock band, it appeals to the kiddies who are still into the pop acts.

    Rubbish. Twenty one pilots aren't a rock band at all actually.
  • mushymanrobmushymanrob Posts: 17,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Thorney wrote: »
    Totally true but they have their uses Busted fans may have evolved into Deftones or Queens Of The Stone Age fans and 21Pilots should lead the kids onto something better as well

    exactly! what busted and mcfly did was make guitar based pop fashionable again to a younger generation . they DID progress onto more mature rock groups, i know several who went on to evanescence and the rasmus .
    Rocketpop wrote: »
    It's a song title.

    so?.... it still suggests a liking for pop
    Has anyone said Lighthouse Family?

    Because well.....Lighthouse Family!

    oh god yes..... i cannot abide the shitehouse family nor m people...
    mgvsmith wrote: »
    I tend to agree. There have been some great rock groups who have made pop songs that have dominated the chart. The Kinks, T.Rex, Roxy Music, Blondie, The Clash, Queen, Duran Duran, Oasis, etc etc. There has also been some incredible rock songs that have done well in the charts...'You Really Got Me', 'Layla', "Get it On', 'Alright Now' , 'Paint it Black', 'Purple Rain', 'All Along the Watchtower', 'Smells like Teen Spirit', 'London's Calling', 'Pretty Vacant' etc.

    Is this the case in modern times? Not so sure.

    i dont think theres an argument for suggesting recent charts have had classic rock songs in them. there clearly hasnt been anything of the calibre of those tracks you mention,. plus, great guitar based pop has been woefully under represented too.
    jlp95bwfc wrote: »
    Rubbish. Twenty one pilots aren't a rock band at all actually.

    i agree, as far as im concerned they are a good old fashioned guitar based pop group.
  • barbelerbarbeler Posts: 23,827
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    barbeler wrote: »
    Not a band, but Elvis Costello. How is it possible to be as bad as that and be regarded seriously as a performer?
    mgvsmith wrote: »
    Probably because he is a brilliant writer (Shipbuilding, Everyday I Write the Book, Red Shoes, Chelsea, Alison, Man out of Time etc). And if you mean Elvis and the Attractions, Steve Nieve, Bruce Thomas and Pete Thomas are three great session musicians.
    That's why I said the BIB. His voice is like a mixture of a dog barking and a baby crying – so painfull that he makes Ian Brown sound like Pavarotti and Bob Dylan sound like Caruso. Shipbuilding was quite touching when sung by Robert Wyatt but I can't stand the others. His voice has tainted them so much that I don't think I could enjoy hearing nyone singing them.
  • willrelf92willrelf92 Posts: 15,305
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Some of the comments on this thread are laughable. It is of course all subjective but to suggest two bands with a number of number one hits between them as the 'worst' seems a bit unlogical. Whatever you may think of their songs personally, they can't be that bad to sell millions of singles.
  • ThorneyThorney Posts: 3,361
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    willrelf92 wrote: »
    Some of the comments on this thread are laughable. It is of course all subjective but to suggest two bands with a number of number one hits between them as the 'worst' seems a bit unlogical. Whatever you may think of their songs personally, they can't be that bad to sell millions of singles.

    I love posts like this so bad music cant sell millions of records tell that to Westlife.
    Bad music has been selling millions for over 50 years, most people don't know taste if it hit them in the face that's just they way it is. Sales do not equate to quality.

    But I do agree with you in the sense that their are much worse bands than the two the OP posted, how about so bad it makes your skin crawl and possibly a bit sick maybe in a good way like these guys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syfZU4kGiSE
  • willrelf92willrelf92 Posts: 15,305
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Thorney wrote: »
    I love posts like this so bad music cant sell millions of records tell that to Westlife.
    Bad music has been selling millions for over 50 years, most people don't know taste if it hit them in the face that's just they way it is. Sales do not equate to quality.

    But I do agree with you in the sense that their are much worse bands than the two the OP posted, how about so bad it makes your skin crawl and possibly a bit sick maybe in a good way like these guys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syfZU4kGiSE
    Again it's subjective, we all have our favourites and least favourites and if we all liked the same thing then life would be pretty boring. I wasn't a fan of Westlife personally but I wouldn't call them bad because they were extremely successful.
  • barbelerbarbeler Posts: 23,827
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    willrelf92 wrote: »
    Some of the comments on this thread are laughable. It is of course all subjective but to suggest two bands with a number of number one hits between them as the 'worst' seems a bit unlogical. Whatever you may think of their songs personally, they can't be that bad to sell millions of singles.
    I grudgingly accept that you're correct, which is why I didn't nominate Madness – a band that always has me racing for the Off button, yet some people seem to like them.
  • ÆnimaÆnima Posts: 38,548
    Forum Member
    willrelf92 wrote: »
    Some of the comments on this thread are laughable. It is of course all subjective but to suggest two bands with a number of number one hits between them as the 'worst' seems a bit unlogical. Whatever you may think of their songs personally, they can't be that bad to sell millions of singles.

    That's because you fail to understand the difference between someone personally thinking something is bad and a lot of people liking it.

    You also contradict yourself. If something is subjective, thinking it is the worst would be a subjective opinion and whether or not a lot of other people like it doesn't even factor into it, so I fail to see how it's "unlogical".

    The only illogical thing here is you saying someone can't consider something the worst if a lot of other people happen to like it. People can think the most popular band in the world is their least favourite band if they want to and there's nothing illogical about it, it's their opinion.

    That some people think they can't say something is bad that's successful has always baffled me. Really, it'd be the definition of following the herd and not having your own opinion.
    willrelf92 wrote: »
    Again it's subjective, we all have our favourites and least favourites and if we all liked the same thing then life would be pretty boring. I wasn't a fan of Westlife personally but I wouldn't call them bad because they were extremely successful.

    Eh?! :confused:

    So are you saying you are unable to have a negative opinion of something if a lot of other people like it?

    Pretty shallow isn't it?

    I personally couldn't give a toss how successful a group is, if I dislike it, I dislike it, simple as that.
  • willrelf92willrelf92 Posts: 15,305
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ænima wrote: »
    That's because you fail to understand the difference between someone personally thinking something is bad and a lot of people liking it.

    You also contradict yourself. If something is subjective, thinking it is the worst would be a subjective opinion and whether or not a lot of other people like it doesn't even factor into it, so I fail to see how it's "unlogical".

    The only illogical thing here is you saying someone can't consider something the worst if a lot of other people happen to like it. People can think the most popular band in the world is their least favourite band if they want to and there's nothing illogical about it, it's their opinion.

    That some people think they can't say something is bad that's successful has always baffled me. Really, it'd be the definition of following the herd and not having your own opinion.



    Eh?! :confused:

    So are you saying you are unable to have a negative opinion of something if a lot of other people like it?

    Pretty shallow isn't it?

    I personally couldn't give a toss how successful a group is, if I dislike it, I dislike it, simple as that.
    It's all in the wording. Of course anyone can have their own opinion on anything and if people think something is bad then fair enough, but I was just stating what the facts are. :)
  • ÆnimaÆnima Posts: 38,548
    Forum Member
    willrelf92 wrote: »
    It's all in the wording. Of course anyone can have their own opinion on anything and if people think something is bad then fair enough, but I was just stating what the facts are. :)

    We all know the facts though! We all know Maroon 5 are a successful group and fair play to them- I've nothing personally against them, I just hear their music and it makes me want to vomit :)

    You're conflating peoples individual opinions on what the worst band is with success for said band. It's not the same thing, nor can it be a fact, it's a set of opinions, sure they may not always agree with public consensus, but they are opinions nonetheless.

    If I were to only judge music on success and not what I actually heard and enjoyed listening to, I'd say most of what I listen to would be some of the worst bands in the world, because most of them aren't commercially successful, but thankfully I don't judge music on success, only on what I like to listen to.

    I assume most people in this thread were along the same lines and were naming bands they personally thought were the worst, rather than what is the worst based on wider public opinion.
  • willrelf92willrelf92 Posts: 15,305
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ænima wrote: »
    We all know the facts though! We all know Maroon 5 are a successful group and fair play to them- I've nothing personally against them, I just hear their music and it makes me want to vomit :)

    You're conflating peoples individual opinions on what the worst band is with success for said band. It's not the same thing, nor can it be a fact, it's a set of opinions, sure they may not always agree with public consensus, but they are opinions nonetheless.

    If I were to only judge music on success and not what I actually heard and enjoyed listening to, I'd say most of what I listen to would be some of the worst bands in the world, because most of them aren't commercially successful, but thankfully I don't judge music on success, only on what I like to listen to.

    I assume most people in this thread were along the same lines and were naming bands they personally thought were the worst, rather than what is the worst based on wider public opinion.
    That's all fair enough, I was only commenting how I saw things. :)
  • ÆnimaÆnima Posts: 38,548
    Forum Member
    willrelf92 wrote: »
    That's all fair enough, I was only commenting how I saw things. :)

    Ok, no worries :)
  • mgvsmithmgvsmith Posts: 16,452
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ænima wrote: »
    We all know the facts though! We all know Maroon 5 are a successful group and fair play to them- I've nothing personally against them, I just hear their music and it makes me want to vomit :)

    You're conflating peoples individual opinions on what the worst band is with success for said band. It's not the same thing, nor can it be a fact, it's a set of opinions, sure they may not always agree with public consensus, but they are opinions nonetheless.

    If I were to only judge music on success and not what I actually heard and enjoyed listening to, I'd say most of what I listen to would be some of the worst bands in the world, because most of them aren't commercially successful, but thankfully I don't judge music on success, only on what I like to listen to.

    I assume most people in this thread were along the same lines and were naming bands they personally thought were the worst, rather than what is the worst based on wider public opinion.

    The only thing about this subjective nature of taste thing is that if a band or an album or a song is particularly popular, does that not mean that a considerable number of people have the same subjective opinion? Do some people opinions matter more than others?

    And after all we are talking about popular music, being able to create music that is popular must have some merit to it? Because if quality is subjective and difficult to define, commercial success is largely objective and relatively easy to define.

    The Beatles are an amazing band and there are millions of people who think the same. This means that anyone who thinks they are not amazing is in a tiny minority and they are probably wrong.
  • ÆnimaÆnima Posts: 38,548
    Forum Member
    mgvsmith wrote: »
    The only thing about this subjective nature of taste thing is that if a band or an album or a song is particularly popular, does that not mean that a considerable number of people have the same subjective opinion? Do some people opinions matter more than others?

    And after all we are talking about popular music, being able to create music that is popular must have some merit to it? Because if quality is subjective and difficult to define, commercial success is largely objective.

    Just because a lot of people share taste in music doesn't mean others shouldn't have their say, so no I don't think some opinions matter more than others. It may have merit to some people, but if I personally am being asked what I think is bad, I'll say what I think is bad.

    I mean this thread would be pretty boring if everyone just deduced that the best bands in the world were all the top selling bands (even if they hated them) and all the worst bands in the world were the ones with no commercial success.

    That's not an opinion either, that's just looking at sales figures, which was also my point. If you want a persons opinion on it, they'll say what they personally do or don't like.
  • mushymanrobmushymanrob Posts: 17,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    willrelf92 wrote: »
    Again it's subjective, we all have our favourites and least favourites and if we all liked the same thing then life would be pretty boring. I wasn't a fan of Westlife personally but I wouldn't call them bad because they were extremely successful.

    typical snowflake pov.... everybodys great, no ones bad, no ones superior...

    seriously, can you not understand why westlife are musically crap? that has nothing to do with popularity, popularity doesnt = good musically.

    look through musical history, youll see that many of the greatest artists biggest/most popular hits were musically their worst.. take stevie wonder for eg, 'i just called to say i love you' was his biggest hit here in the uk, but no one would argue that it was his best, because its a pile of utter crap.

    there IS good music and there IS crap music, subjective? not really, a track either has depth, levels, a message, intelligently composed, possibly ground breaking, influential .... or it doesnt.

    i will never subscribe to the notion that all music is great and its subjective, because 'tomorrow never knows' IS superior to 'flying without wings' musically. of course that doesnt mean you must prefer tomorrow never knows, taste is subjective, but personal taste isnt the measure of whether a track is good or not (to anyone else but you).
  • mushymanrobmushymanrob Posts: 17,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ænima wrote: »
    , so no I don't think some opinions matter more than others. It may have merit to some people, but if I personally am being asked what I think is bad, I'll say what I think is bad.

    .

    more snowflake bs

    taking that to its extreme logical conclusion, youre saying that john peels opinion has as much merit as 13 year old sharon...

    of COURSE some peoples opinion matter more then others,. because some people know and understand more then others.
  • ThorneyThorney Posts: 3,361
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What is said above and also just coz 100000 people by a Westlife single that makes it good yeh think about the 2 million people that chose to spend their money on other music or the 50 million people who didn't buy anything. With your argument all music must be awful as most people don't actually buy it all
  • willrelf92willrelf92 Posts: 15,305
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    typical snowflake pov.... everybodys great, no ones bad, no ones superior...

    seriously, can you not understand why westlife are musically crap? that has nothing to do with popularity, popularity doesnt = good musically.

    look through musical history, youll see that many of the greatest artists biggest/most popular hits were musically their worst.. take stevie wonder for eg, 'i just called to say i love you' was his biggest hit here in the uk, but no one would argue that it was his best, because its a pile of utter crap.

    there IS good music and there IS crap music, subjective? not really, a track either has depth, levels, a message, intelligently composed, possibly ground breaking, influential .... or it doesnt.

    i will never subscribe to the notion that all music is great and its subjective, because 'tomorrow never knows' IS superior to 'flying without wings' musically. of course that doesnt mean you must prefer tomorrow never knows, taste is subjective, but personal taste isnt the measure of whether a track is good or not (to anyone else but you).
    Again it all just is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that if someone is selling great numbers of records, they can't really be that bad.
  • mushymanrobmushymanrob Posts: 17,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    willrelf92 wrote: »
    Again it all just is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that if someone is selling great numbers of records, they can't really be that bad.

    then you havnt got the mental capacity to understand what has been posted in response to your daft statement.

    see.... snowflake mentality, cant accept/ignore reason that goes against their soft little lives.
  • ThorneyThorney Posts: 3,361
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    willrelf92 wrote: »
    Again it all just is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that if someone is selling great numbers of records, they can't really be that bad.

    Does this apply to Mr Blobby as well ??!

    So if someone has only sold a few hundred records then they must be awful then , nothing to do with them being brand new, not played on radio yet etc ok...
  • mgvsmithmgvsmith Posts: 16,452
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Thorney wrote: »
    Does this apply to Mr Blobby as well ??!

    So if someone has only sold a few hundred records then they must be awful then , nothing to do with them being brand new, not played on radio yet etc ok...

    No, that's not what is being said. It does not follow that because an artist or a musical piece doesn't sell that it is low quality. You know that there are many aspects of the popular music industry that contributes to the commercial sales of a recording, including quality and currency of the music, the popularity of the artist, radio play, advertising, tv exposure, public image, the music video, social media and viral spread etc etc. These factors contribute to the commercial success. Mr Blobby can be understood in that context as being a very current media character of the time.

    ABBA were very popular and they produced very good music and a lot of people accept that. Westlife were very popular but you will get a lot less agreement about the quality of their music, partly because they didn't write much of it themselves. That suggests something about the importance of authorship and therefore throws doubt on how creative they were. That suggests to me an important (and non-subjective) factor in deciding whether people like Westlife and their music. That is, quality is not an entirely subjective thing.
  • SoupietwistSoupietwist Posts: 1,314
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mgvsmith wrote: »

    ABBA were very popular and they produced very good music and a lot of people accept that. Westlife were very popular but you will get a lot less agreement about the quality of their music, partly because they didn't write much of it themselves. That suggests something about the importance of authorship and therefore throws doubt on how creative they were. That suggests to me an important (and non-subjective) factor in deciding whether people like Westlife and their music. That is, quality is not an entirely subjective thing.

    Your making it way more complicated than needed. Go listen to ABBA's greatest hits then Westlife's and you'll see why one is highly regarded and one isn't. Likewise go listen to Elvis greatest hits then listen to Limp Bizkit's and you see why one is highly regarded and one isn't.
  • Lamin_AtorLamin_Ator Posts: 1,488
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    on the voice - gary barlow thing, they were constantly referring to Take That as a band

    they are/were not a band

    if they were, they might be one of the worst
  • ÆnimaÆnima Posts: 38,548
    Forum Member
    more snowflake bs

    taking that to its extreme logical conclusion, youre saying that john peels opinion has as much merit as 13 year old sharon...

    of COURSE some peoples opinion matter more then others,. because some people know and understand more then others.

    Nah sorry Rob, I don't agree with you there.

    Also no need to be rude with the 'snowflake bs'.
Sign In or Register to comment.