nu metal, any band (comprised of at least a guitar, bass and drum player) that has a dj. fookin useless
WHAT?!?! Reggae is perhaps one of the world's greatest music genres. And I am not talking about just Marley. I mean all roots reggae artists. If you like Bob Marley you'll like plenty of other artists too.
Country Not old school stuff like Johnny Cash, Hank Williams, Willie Nelson....etc. It's the new stuff that I literally cannot tolerate.
Not saying that you feel this way but your post made me think of this. I hate this notion that underground rap is the only good stuff and that any rapper that makes it big suddenly sucks. For example I've heard several people talk about how much better Eminem's Infinite is his best album because he was still underground when he put it out, Infinite isn't ******** compared to the Slim Shady LP or Marshal Mathers LP or even the Eminem show. Just because people have heard of an artist or band doesn't mean they suck, ********ers. Hip-pop is something completely different than what I described though. This includes most radio singles and ******** like the aformentioned Chingy and J-Kwon or whatever his name is. I wouldn't include 50 with these guys though, he put out some popish singles like in da club and that ******** and whatever G unit was but his last solo album still had some pretty gangster tracks. Personally I prefer early to mid 90s gangsta rap, The Chronic is my favorite album easy.
I think generally, the better Hip-Hop artists stay sort of underground nowadays. But in the 90s the best Hip-Hop was more mainstream: De La, Dre, Tribe, early Nas, Wu-Tang, Biggie, etc.
1. Rap/Hip-Hop/Urban 2. modern R&B 3. smooth jazz 4. modern country western 5. teen pop 6. salsa 7. gospel 8. christian rock 9. blue grass 10. tejano
Not criticizing at all or anything but were you one of those people who went to the boatload of reaggae concerts form the Israel Vibrations and whatnots in the Anfiteatro Muñoz Marin ?
My favorite radio station (KFJC) plays 4 hours of the stuff on Sundays, so it isn't like I havn't heard it quite a bit. It is a subjective thing, so I am only defending my earnestness in exploring the music, not my musical taste which needs no defending. I'm sure you would hate the stuff I like.
Hmm......Michael Buble. Don't know what genre he's considered. From what I've heard, it seems he only does cover songs like Come Fly With Me, Fever, and some others. Not that he's bad or anything. I think he has a great voice. But if his whole career is based on doing covers of other people's music, then well, ya suck pal.
The thing about Kenny G is that he sounds good for 6 or 7 seconds, the tone of his sax being pretty clean and the overall orchestration of the piece he is playing in keeping with actual music. Then, after about 8 or 9 seconds one realizes that he isn't creating anything. It's almost exactly like Velveeta or chicken strips: it gives the impression of being food, or a type of food, but in reality it's the most onerous imitation of food, something with a little taste but not "real" taste. And so, people who are determined to have "music" infiltrate their sensory sphere can crank up their Bose Wave Wanker and play Kenny G discs at 3.2 and have the unique experience of being exposed to the Velveeta of moosick. --- Now onto something completely different. To those of you fellows who are jocking the "Creed sucks" position, take a moment and explain briefly your aesthetic. What makes that particular band so bad, and what makes another band better. Feel free to mention specific qualities of music in general to support your position.
See, I'm still of the belief that Clapton and SRV are third-rate bluesmen. But your point is well taken.
You get repped for summarizing and three page thread into 6 words. Brevity like that should be rewarded.
--- from a music craft perspective, both Clapton and Vaughn are very gifted technicians. Clapton, in particular, is very adept at channelling ( for lack of a better term ) the musician from whose well he dips his ladle most often, Freddie King ( as opposed to Vaughn, who is more an Albert King borrower, i think ). but to call Clapton third rate is a bit misguided, i think. if you are saying that he isn't particularly original, and that makes him second rate, that's fair( even if i disagree ), but it would be true for most of the second generation blues men, including, to a lesser extent Muddy Waters and the three Kings. beyond TBoneWalker( on the electric guitar ) and Son House and Broonzy and Leadbelly, just to name a few, who are the true originals? to me the only "modern" bluesman that is clearly superior to Clapton is Buddy Guy, but i think he's the best guitarist ever. i guess that disqualifies me from any consideration.
Nobody has yet mentioned "New Age", they have whole sections in stores devoted to this "crappy music for lame people." Does anyone know anyone who buys, or listens to this sh!t? BTW, I'm not sure I even really know what it is.
The ********ing Beatles. I can't think of a band that annoys me more unless Eric Clapton is playing his puissy ass guitar in some other one.
--- two birds with one stone. excellent. i firmly believe that it's best to identify yourself as a complete lunatic early in the game. that way other lunatics will lift you onto their shoulders and carry you on to glory, when you eventually convert the infidels.
I'm surprised that only one person has listed "new metal." Linkin Park, Hoobastank, Staind, et al. are crimes against humanity. Of course, none of them are as bad as the ringleaders, Limp Bizkit. How on earth did System of a Down ever get famous? They're the sloppiest musicians ever recorded. Seriously, I've heard tighter garage bands.