Musicians Who Suck

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'>Have you ever noticed that a lot of the musicians who suck seem to work and stick together? Musicians like Sting (a.k.a. Stink), John Melloncamp, Billy Joel, Elton John, Bruce Springstink, Rod Stewart, Phil Collins, Paul McCartney, Gloria Estefan, Celine Dion, Eric Clapton, Don Henley, Brian Adams, etc. *You may have noticed some of these artists touring and collaborating together. They also love to do live aid type stuff to show how much they &quot;care&quot; and because it's a great photo op. Anyone remember &quot;We Are The World&quot; and stuff like that? Those were the biggest conglomerations of sucky musicians that ever gathered in one place. When you think about it, there was enough money between them all to end hunger in a Large portion of Africa for years, if they REALLY cared. From what I seen it didn't happen. Have you ever noticed that really good, serious musicians don't have anything to do with these people? *<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/glare.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':glare:'></font>

[jeffsg4mac]

<font color='#000000'>Yeah I noticed that, I guess people that suck together tend to stay together.</font>

[zipper]

<font color='#000000'>What,since you don't like them they suck? No one on your list is my favorite but I wouldn't say they suck.</font>

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>zipper : What,since you don't like them they suck? No one on your list is my favorite but I wouldn't say they suck.
Do they suck compared to your average bar band? No. Do they suck compared to other famous musicians in the public domain? Yes. Some of these musicians may have been good at one time, or may have had a couple of good songs, but they've been living off their reputation for far too long. Some of them are egotists who think they are bigger and better than the bands that made them famous, and some have just plain sucked from day one. I don't know about you, but I've never met anyone personally who has admitted to being big fans of these musicians or having attended their concerts.</font>

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#8D38C9'>I'll certainly admit to reverance for Sting &amp; Springsteen. &nbsp;Their recent faux pas aside, they have collectively dozens of albums that verge on genius. &nbsp;Sting particularly has forgotten more about songwriting than most of his peers ever knew. &nbsp;Yeah, his last couple of albums are pretty lame but that doesn't dilute the genius of the first half dozen.

Do you just not like rock, A/V, or are you just a closet Avril Lasagne fan? <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':laugh:'></font>

[abe]

<font color='#000000'>A. Vivaldi,

A list of 'sucky' musicians is not very constructive because people have very different tastes. &nbsp;Why not share with us some of the musicians that you think are good?

Best,

Abe</font>

[A. Vivaldi]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>abe : <font color='#000000'>A. Vivaldi,

A list of 'sucky' musicians is not very constructive because people have very different tastes. *Why not share with us some of the musicians that you think are good?

Best,

Abe</font>
<font color='#000000'>A list of &quot;good&quot; musicians isn't very constructive either for the same reason, but you're right, I should try to be more positive. I should've put this thread in The Steam Vent.</font>

[abe]

<font color='#000000'>I think recommendations will help, but of course that by no means will make everyone instant fans. * Given thousands bands, song, albums, videos just in US alone, *non of us have the time, energy, resource, or knowlede to explore all of them. * So we do need all kinds of reviews, recommandations, even comercials to be exposed. * Say some people love classical music and have extensive knowledge, they can definitely recommend the rest of us of what they think are good. *I may not like all (or even any) of the recommended pieces, but it is a good starting point. *

Just my $0.02.


Abe</font>

[Unregistered]

Look up narrow-minded in the dictionary and your picture will be there.

[Unregistered]

Ok, I'll admit to knowing and liking almost all of those artists/bands. As has been said, everyone has different tastes and what one considers to be a "sucky" band may well draw criticisms from those with exactly the opposite feeling.

The OP's statements remind me of the various reviews on Amazon. Ridiculous comments like the Beatles white album sucks and we should go out and get bands like Limp Bizkit, Incubus, etc. YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT BANDS THAT SUCK? There are a few. Whether you like the Beatles or not, you have to at least recognize that they were pioneers AND they are still popular 40 years later. The artists listed all have had careers spanning decades and are still selling. NONE of the grunge, rap, hip-hop, etc bands will be popular even 5 years from now - many are already fading away.

Another thing. Most of the artists listed also have written hit songs for OTHER artists. Do you think we'll ever see an artist in 2020 doing a cover of a Limp Bizkit song? Not a chance.

[Unregistered]

Love, love love Eric Clapton. I even like Incubus. Not much on Limp Biskit though. My point is this - variety is the spice of life. Different strokes for different folks. Maybe Vivaldi should read Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" and be thankful we can all choose to listen to what we want.

[Unregistered]

Alright. This is to the Unregistered Guest from the bottom of Page One.

I would like to disprove your theory on how none (in all caps on your post) of the bands mentioned in your post will be popular in five years. This will be proven in a simplistic manner.

Queen was started over 20 years ago. They are still popular today. Freddie Mercury had a wonderful range that I'm sure is wider than yours. Of course, so was his range of man-friends.
The Beatles was started over 30 years ago. They are sill popular today. I have nothing to say about the beatles except for "
Nirvana, a GRUNGE BAND, was started over fifteen years ago. The popularity of Kurt Cobain, the lead singer alone, is so high that even ten years (April was the ten year anniversary of his death) after his death, he is on the cover of every music magazine on the shelf.
Run-DMC, a RAP band, was started over twenty years ago. They collaborated with Aerosmith, a band popular 30 years ago, to create a hit single that sold millions of copies. They are popular today. Ever heard "It's Tricky"?
Tupac Shakur, a rapper, has released over three albums SINCE HIS DEATH that still sell millions of copies each. I would be willing to bet that Tupac sold more than Rod Stewart last year. And Stewart is still alive.
And please don't get me started on Incubus. They have a good sound and are great at what they do, which is sell music. They've created "smart-rock" which is complicated enough for musicians to like, yet catchy enough to sell a few hit singles here and there. Listen to "Southern Girl" on the lastest album, "A Crow Left Of the Murder" and tell me that gentleman can't sing. Go ahead.
I do not like Limp Bizkit. I think Fred Durst struggles with most of his notes, and I don't really care for the way they arrange their music. However, they have produced a few good songs, and Durst has done a lot for the music industry.
I hate Eminem, but that white boy can rap.

The bottom line is, your whole statement was ridiculous. Why would you openly exploit how incredibly closed-mided you are by giving thumbs up to the bands that the original post said sucked, yet being completely thumbs down to any genre you don't like?

In conclusion, yes. I do think we will see an artist in 2020 doing a cover of a Limp Bizkit song. It may actually be a George Micheal song, (btw, Wham! was probably not the best band to start a side project from) but I would be willing to bet we'll see Rap, Hip-Hop, Funk, Techno, Disco, Vocal, Showtunes, Reggae and Progressive Rock all being produced, covered, and sampled for years to come. How about the rest of you?

[surveyor]

My 2 cents!

Eric Clapton is one of the very very best!!
To state that he is not, might indicate some sort of serios misjudgement of obvious talent and dedication!!!

Nuff Said

:confused:

[Unregistered]

Interesting how you use bands from the era I cited with 20 or 30 year histories and then magically equate them to bands (and I use that term loosely) of recent vintage and make the leap that they will also be around and selling like hotcakes in 20 years. Your 'proof' is equally ridiculous.

Let's use your Nirvana example. Now I do like Nirvana, but I would not put them in the same league as Queen, Eric Clapton, or the Beatles in terms of longevity and album sales. Curt Kobain is in the news and magazine covers because he killed himself, Tupac because he was killed - the media will keep it going as long people are paying attention to it. When was the last time you heard Nirvana on the radio? Not lately, but you still hear the older bands you cited.

True, I don't care for Rap, Hip-Hop and the other offshoots of that. Neither do the old hands of the record industry - tons of documentaries and other info on that topic. The music industry has changed from concentrating on the music to selling an image. It is now aimed at teenagers and white kids who think its 'cool' to fancy themselves a gangster. Great role models. I love how MTV has shows like 'greatest hip-hop feuds' where they tell how these losers are writing songs about capping each other and living the gangster life, as if that is to be commended.

The rappers and other 'artists' of the ilk have no musical talent whatsoever. It's all a flash in the pan and will go away very soon.

[Unregistered]

You can't use radio as the basis of whether a group or band has longevity. They are going to play whatever the fat cats that own the stations tell them to play, crap or not.

[Unregistered]

True, nearly all radio stations are owned by Clear Channel and they mandate what gets played. I personally only listen to radio in the car now. I'm just saying that if even Clear Channel who think they have the pulse of the music listening population will allow older music to be played, then it is likely far more popular than even recent music.

[Unregistered]

I don't want to offend anybody, but I certainly wouldn't mind it they stopped playing Toby Keith on the radio. I'm not talking so much about the political message, (I don't really care for that either), but his songs just sound awful. I think I could probably write one, including lyrics, in about an hour. His voice sucks too and I just don't understand his popularity unless you conribute it to blind patriotism. "I'll put a boot in your ***, it's the American way". Come on.

[Rob Babcock]

I've never heard of him. What does he sing/play?

[Unregistered]

You can find Toby Keith on most country stations. I don't really like country but I live in south Texas and that's every other station. He sings a song called "American Soldier," he got into a big feud with the Dixie Chicks because he exploited 9/11 and the war in Iraq with some really bad songs. If you haven't heard of him, you probably have decent taste in music. His music has easily got to be some of the worst I have ever heard.

[Ramblinmad]

Dear Vivaldi
You really must expand a little, otherwise you have an unfair advantage in being the only one who knows exactly what you mean by "sucks". Do you mean, you never liked the people in your list, or you did, but then went off them when you consider they began to "suck"?. To go some way to what I think you are trying to say, I would describe someone like Mick Jagger as a musician that ended up "sucking", and I would support my opinion by saying that I think spending the last 40 years partying has left him with nothing to say, and poor sales of his solo albums bear this out. That said, as long as the Rolling Stones can produce a professional show for those that want to see and hear them, that seems fine to me. I would be interested to know the spectrum of music you have experienced. If somone can do something well, should they not continue, whether you or I or anyone else likes it?. Music is a an art and craft, like anything else, learned and honed for years. You wouldn't expect a scultptor to stop working because he/she was out of fashion or not popular. The people you have mentioned are all still very popular, not with youself or myself, maybe, but surley that's just different taste isn't it?. Actually, as a musician, I always thought "sucked" meant "played/performed badly", but what would I know I've "sucked" at times myself - but as I'm sure you know - words can mean anything today.

"The one who asks a question, is a fool for the moment. The one who never questions, is a fool forever" - old zen saying

Love y'all
ramblin'

[pearljamfan]

NONE of the grunge, rap, hip-hop, etc bands will be popular even 5 years from now - many are already fading away.

Uh..Scott Stapp fired bassist Brian Marshall from "Creed" because Brian made some comment about "Pearl Jam should go back to the music they started out with" So at least some people still care about "grunge" bands...now don't tell me Creed sucks and Scott's opinion is BS....I think somebody WILL cover "Higher" or "With Arms Wide Open" 20 years from now:)

I think a lot of bands even 50 years from now will take a keen interest in covering songs by Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, Nirvana or Soundgarden even if you think "Grunge Died"

Music is a very personal choice. I can't stand Classical music but I'm not going to go on record and say "Vivaldi sucks...Beethoven sucks...Mozart sucks" If you like it, good for you. If you don't like it, change the channel or put on your headphones and block out the offensive airwaves...

[Stryf3]

Uh..Scott Stapp fired bassist Brian Marshall from "Creed" because Brian made some comment about "Pearl Jam should go back to the music they started out with" So at least some people still care about "grunge" bands...now don't tell me Creed sucks and Scott's opinion is BS....I think somebody WILL cover "Higher" or "With Arms Wide Open" 20 years from now:)

I think a lot of bands even 50 years from now will take a keen interest in covering songs by Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, Nirvana or Soundgarden even if you think "Grunge Died"

Music is a very personal choice. I can't stand Classical music but I'm not going to go on record and say "Vivaldi sucks...Beethoven sucks...Mozart sucks" If you like it, good for you. If you don't like it, change the channel or put on your headphones and block out the offensive airwaves...

No offense, but I htink your smoking dope. Creed does suck, and the former members new band sucks even more. There is always interest in covering old songs from all kinds of diverse genres, but to say alot of bands will have an interest in covering these bands (and I like all of them) is overly optimistic. The original poster was either trolling or just ignorant. Most of the artists he listed are actually very good. Another thing I've read in this thread that is concerning is that popularity = good. Definitely a bad argument. Otherwise we would have to acknowledge Brittney Spears and N'Sync as genius artsits of our time. The reason alot of the artsits mentioned in the original thread aren't popular anymore has to do with the nature of the music industry today. It's all about image; there are very few popular artists of any musical merit (wether technical excellence or great song writing ability)

flame on

[toquemon]

Well, i won´t say that Creed sucks, there're a lot of bands that REALLY suck, like blink 182 and all of those "happy punk" S#%T. I think Creed is a bad copy of Pearl Jam. And yes, I can hear "With arms wide open" being played in a wedding while the "just married" couple is dancing.

Bye.

[Unregistered]

'With arms wide open' is a good song but the dark, dreary Creed sound makes it rather unsuitable as a ballad for occassions such as a wedding as far as I am concerned.

[WmAx]

Well, I suppose every musician has some dedicated fans. But, if asked which musician pegs my PUKE meter, I would answer "Kid Rock". This is especially the case after i once saw him on a live special on TV where he was brave enough to use his own, non-prercorded, non hevily processed voice. Ack!

-Chris

[Polkfan]

Well, I suppose every musician has some dedicated fans. But, if asked which musician pegs my PUKE meter, I would answer "Kid Rock". This is especially the case after i once saw him on a live special on TV where he was brave enough to use his own, non-prercorded, non hevily processed voice. Ack!

-Chris

I absolutely agree with you! I cringe everytime I see that guy.

[Stryf3]

I absolutely agree with you! I cringe everytime I see that guy.


Add my vote. I can't stand Kid Rock.

[pearljamfan]

No offense, but I think your smoking dope.

None taken. I actually DO smoke dope and that's not the first time I've been told that in a forum! People tell me that even when i'm NOT smoking dope. So maybe I really am screwed!!!

{QUOTE=toquemon]I think Creed is a bad copy of Pearl Jam[/QUOTE]
Uh, hell no. Sorry, but Creed and Pearl Jam are two bands with vocalists who sound VERY similar, But their music styles are anything but that. Maybe the first two Pearl Jam albums have that Hard Rock sound that Creed makes. But the other 5 Studio Albums, Creed could NEVER come close. Two bands, similar sounding vocalists, both pretty good in their own right, although there's no way they can be mentioned in the same sentence (as far as musical merit is concerned)

Anyway, nobody is hailing Spears and N'Sync as great musicians so don't tell me I am just hailing Popular Modern Rock Bands as Great and ignoring "real" good artists. This topic is about Artists that SUCK and if you heard Kid Rock's "WCSR" on Cocky, you know you chose an excellent candidate for sucky artists (or artists with ONE good album and taking themselves too seriously): Kid Rock.

[Gerald]

Morris Albert singing "Feelings". :p

[Rip Van Woofer]

The only way to determine the suck factor of music and musicians, of course, is with double-blind testing at matched levels. But only after you have created a valid "suck scale" metric.

We at Van Woofer Laboratories are perfecting advanced suckiness measurement systems and protocols. Gene and Hawke are beta testing a prototype as we speak! Much of the details are proprietary with many patents pending, but I can say that we found the "laff meter" technology of 50's TV shows to be an instructive precursor.

[JoeE SP9]

As far as musicians/singers who suck go Kenny *. is right at the top. The question about him is where does his taste come from. The Guy can play, he just has the most nasal pinched tone I've ever heard. His selection of music to play also leaves a lot to be desired. :cool:

[Markus]

Whether you like the Beatles or not, you have to at least recognize that they were pioneers AND they are still popular 40 years later. The artists listed all have had careers spanning decades and are still selling. NONE of the grunge, rap, hip-hop, etc bands will be popular even 5 years from now - many are already fading away.



While I do not agree with the narrow minded view of the first poster in saying those artists Suck. I also think this poster is just a narrow minded to say that rap musicians wont be big after 5 years. Hell 2pac has over 25 albums, he was on top for a decade, and he has been in the public's eye for almost a decade after his death still coming out with more and more albums to this very day. So it is also wrong to say rappers only have a 5 year career. How about LL Cool J, Run DMC, Pete Rock, Slick Rick, even Eminem has been out for well over 5 years and still reigning strong.

[Starmax]

I like liver and licorice. Anyone want to try and convince me that I don't?

[Alex2507]

But only after you have created a valid "suck scale".
.

Nah.... too easy.:D

[Joe Schmoe]

I hate to pick on individual musicians who suck, but there are certainly trends that suck. One of the worst is including rap passages in otherwise good songs. A few seconds of rap can spoil a decent rock song just as surely as a teaspoon of vinegar can spoil a gallon of milk. I blame Aerosmith for this, since "Walk This Way" was a classic until they ruined it with rap.

[highfihoney]

My 2 cents!

Eric Clapton is one of the very very best!!
To state that he is not, might indicate some sort of serios misjudgement of obvious talent and dedication!!!

Nuff Said

:confused:

From your Blind Faith avatar im guessing your a clapton fan,me too:D

Simply absurd.:rolleyes:

[highfihoney]

Uh..Scott Stapp fired bassist Brian Marshall from "Creed" because Brian made some comment about "Pearl Jam should go back to the music they started out with" So at least some people still care about "grunge" bands...now don't tell me Creed sucks and Scott's opinion is BS....I think somebody WILL cover "Higher" or "With Arms Wide Open" 20 years from now:)

I think a lot of bands even 50 years from now will take a keen interest in covering songs by Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, Nirvana or Soundgarden even if you think "Grunge Died"

Music is a very personal choice. I can't stand Classical music but I'm not going to go on record and say "Vivaldi sucks...Beethoven sucks...Mozart sucks" If you like it, good for you. If you don't like it, change the channel or put on your headphones and block out the offensive airwaves...

Great music is that which will stand the test of time not relegated to cover bands in whiskey bars,some new group with the fancy new style hair doo's & mtv videos where their all wearing wife beater t shirts to show their cool tribal tattoo's & angry looking face's to impress the kids may cover their tunes but thats bout it.

I die laughing every time i see creed's guitar player doing a riff ,if you can call it a riff,big tough posturing pose to show how hard he's wailing away all the while his solo sucks,i'd be willing to bet his fingers are as soft as a womans breast.

I like creed's music but great music it isnt,nor is their material, they are just another band who's 5 minutes of fame have burnt out,same goes for Alice in chains.

[highfihoney]

The only way to determine the suck factor of music and musicians, of course, is with double-blind testing at matched levels. But only after you have created a valid "suck scale" metric.

WOW! Long time no post.:)

I think Kenny G should be the RED LINE for the suck meter.

[highfihoney]

While I do not agree with the narrow minded view of the first poster in saying those artists Suck. I also think this poster is just a narrow minded to say that rap musicians wont be big after 5 years. Hell 2pac has over 25 albums, he was on top for a decade, and he has been in the public's eye for almost a decade after his death still coming out with more and more albums to this very day. So it is also wrong to say rappers only have a 5 year career. How about LL Cool J, Run DMC, Pete Rock, Slick Rick, even Eminem has been out for well over 5 years and still reigning strong.

Rap musicians,thats an oxymoron isnt it:confused:

Can any of these guy's even play any instrument,i'd be impressed if one of em could even play a tape recorder.

[highfihoney]

Anyone remember &quot;We Are The World&quot; and stuff like that?

HAHAHA,we are the world,wtf were they thinking,man i hated that whole scene.

I agree with everybody you mentioned as sucking except Clapton & Collins,neither one was ever the greatest at what they do but both played with great skill & real feeling & it showed.

Is Phill Collins as good a drummer as Lenny White, Billy Cobham or even Ansley Dunbar ? i think not, his style was different but his style did not mean he was not capable of some pretty complicated beats.

Same goes for Eric Clapton,i cant honestly say he was ever as proficient as players like John Mclaughlin or Steve Vai but once again his style was different,Vai & Mclaughlin's styles are maching gun guitar devised to WOW the listener with speed & proficiency where claptons style invokes emotion & feeling,Clapton's solo in the song "when a man loves a woman" has got to be one of the greatest solo's of all time as far as making the listener FEEL what he is playing.

One of my favorite guitar players in the world is Billy Gibbons from ZZ Top,Nothing he play's could ever be considered technicaly proficient but his style sure does envoke feeling.

My 2 cents:)

[gmichael]

Who's idea was it to brush the cobwebs off this old klunker?

[stratman]

Heeeey HH greetings from the cave,

Yeah Billy is the man, so was SRV, love the Texas blues based rock. But like I always point out there are so many facets to being a musician that when somebody says: "oh this guy sucks because his solos are lame or this guy is good 'cause he can play a gazillion notes per second", you've got to know these people never studied music and see it from a fan's point of view (heck, you find this in any sport) so their passion and lack of knowledge show, sure everyone's entitled to like what they like, but time is the indicator of how a song will be perceived as genius or has-been, by now you know I don't like to ascribe genius to anyone who puts out a catchy tune, far from it, and I don't believe pop is the vehicle that will demonstrate an artist's genius potential, pop is not complex enough to represent the challenge required to be labeled genius. Distill rock and you'll get the blues, keep filtering and you'll arrive at the delta blues, keep distilling you'll get to hymns and gospel sang in churches right after slavery was abolished. Pick up a Robert Johnson CD, and you'll realize where Page copped his chops.:D

[Joe Schmoe]

Is Phill Collins as good a drummer as Lenny White, Billy Cobham or even Ansley Dunbar ? i think not, his style was different but his style did not mean he was not capable of some pretty complicated beats.


Anyone who does not think Phil Collins is a great drummer is probably basing that opinion on his relatively recent material. If they listen to the early Genesis albums (especially The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway), their view is likely to change.

[mech]

Heeeey HH greetings from the cave,

Yeah Billy is the man, so was SRV, love the Texas blues based rock. But like I always point out there are so many facets to being a musician that when somebody says: "oh this guy sucks because his solos are lame or this guy is good 'cause he can play a gazillion notes per second", you've got to know these people never studied music and see it from a fan's point of view (heck, you find this in any sport) so their passion and lack of knowledge show, sure everyone's entitled to like what they like, but time is the indicator of how a song will be perceived as genius or has-been, by now you know I don't like to ascribe genius to anyone who puts out a catchy tune, far from it, and I don't believe pop is the vehicle that will demonstrate an artist's genius potential, pop is not complex enough to represent the challenge required to be labeled genius. Distill rock and you'll get the blues, keep filtering and you'll arrive at the delta blues, keep distilling you'll get to hymns and gospel sang in churches right after slavery was abolished. Pick up a Robert Johnson CD, and you'll realize where Page copped his chops.:D

Spoken like a true guitar player! I totally agree with your statement about the gazillion notes per second. For example Steve Vai is a total and complete shredder, if you were to ask me one famous riff that he came up with, I could not tell you. Now if you asked me any famous riffs that Paige, Angus, or Keith Richards have came up with, I could sit and tell you all day long. Does that mean the Steve Vai sucks? Heck no! Does that mean that I think Keith was a pretty damn sloppy player? Yes, indeed he is and was! But what is a true measure of greatness? To me, the most important talent comes back to catchy riffs and song writting ability.

One other thing that I wanted to comment on is the whole thing that people say about old blues artisits like Robert Johnson. Yes he was great, but he also copped his riffs as well. Blues is an off shoot of old world folk, gospel and country, but you don't hear many people say it. There was not much blues happening in Africa. It's like I have always said, "everything has already been played before, it's how you play it."

[stratman]

Spoken like a true guitar player! I totally agree with your statement about the gazillion notes per second. For example Steve Vai is a total and complete shredder, if you were to ask me one famous riff that he came up with, I could not tell you. Now if you asked me any famous riffs that Paige, Angus, or Keith Richards have came up with, I could sit and tell you all day long. Does that mean the Steve Vai sucks? Heck no! Does that mean that I think Keith was a pretty damn sloppy player? Yes, indeed he is and was! But what is a true measure of greatness? To me, the most important talent comes back to catchy riffs and song writting ability.

One other thing that I wanted to comment on is the whole thing that people say about old blues artisits like Robert Johnson. Yes he was great, but he also copped his riffs as well. Blues is an off shoot of old world folk, gospel and country, but you don't hear many people say it. There was not much blues happening in Africa. It's like I have always said, "everything has already been played before, it's how you play it."

You my friend are correct, it all boils down some dusty old bar or some old down-south church where it all began for us here. If you take modern music and start dissecting and de-evolving it, eventually you will get to African tribal rhytms. Which the Zulu were some of the best. (again with the best arguement!;) )

[Geno]

I've been following this thread with a lot of gnashing of teeth (some of my favorites are on the OP's list) We've all got our pet performers - personal taste is the final arbiter of who's great and who sucks, IMHO. Every one of my favorites has put out something that I thought stunk, but overall, I like their style and substance. Even the deified Eric Clapton has put out a few oinkers in his time, but he's beein one of my must-haves for decades.
I don't think any artist in the rock/pop/jazz/classical genres has any claim to 100% first-rate product.

Of course, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong;)

[Loxxa]

this thread is pretty pointless

[stratman]

this thread is pretty pointless

It depends on how you look at it. The reason AV exists is because of Audio and Video, the hardware is just a means to the end. The persons (artists) subjected to critique comprise part of the AV community, such as you would critique a film, director, writer and so forth. The original poster had some misgivings that led to the civil but somewhat arguable account of so- called "sucky" musicians. :)

[Loxxa]

lol i suppose i mean to say that on a site like this... tastes probably vary hugely. And I don't know if you're as arrogant as me when it comes to music, but anyone telling me a musician I like "sucks" is going to get nothing but laughter from my side! haha

[genesis471]

Anyone who does not think Phil Collins is a great drummer is probably basing that opinion on his relatively recent material. If they listen to the early Genesis albums (especially The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway), their view is likely to change.

No doubt correct - He played some amazingly difficult stuff back then. For those who think he sucks, you need to do your homework!

Mike

[Sheep]

I think Genesis sucks...

SheepStar

[Joe Schmoe]

I think Genesis sucks...

SheepStar

Now you are just being intentionally provocative.:rolleyes:

[blowinch]

I think its good that you slated those musicians. Apart from paul macca as he was a badass at one point, before he stopped taking drugs or what ever. he does suck now though. elton john, and dion, godfathers of crap. its not just their music, its the way they get in your face all day. its not all about opinion, its about taste too. my suck list:
bono
muse
tool
brian adams gets another shout
garth brooks ha ha
queen- all of them
good charlotte
oasis
these guys should all colabrorate on an album together and give the money to world peace or something. it should be there last album. im sorry if i missed anyone out.