every band that i don’t like
post
Nickelback
AC/DC and CCR come to mind. Doesn’t bother me though. It’s the audio equivalent to eating a bag of Doritos. The flavor doesn’t change, but every now and then there’s one with a little more powder on it.
sabaton. I still love it though
Surprised no one's mentioned U2
As much as I dislike them, their music has evolved. Their 80s stuff sounds different than their 90s stuff. However, after 'Achung baby', they have not made any interesting music whatsoever. To be honest, 'Achtung baby' did not stand the test of time for me either.
Wesley Willis
Imagine Dragons. I don't know a lot of their songs but when I hear them I can guess it's them with pretty good accuracy.
"look at this photograph"
Can't even be bothered to name them, they suck so fucking hard
You fuck. Now I have this fucking shit song stuck in my head!
Sorry about my rage ...
Curb is still a great album
Offspring.
And that's why we like it.
The Ramones.
If it’s been a while, I’ll listen to 5 tracks and be like “Yes, The Ramones!!!”
Then after a couple of tracks more I suddenly really need to put on something else.
God The Ramones are such a weak band. I've never understood people's fanaticism.
They were reactionary, trying to destroy the pompousness of 70s stadium and prog rock. Fast and simple the way rock and roll began.
I saw them live twice and they were great shows.
I'm not debating that they bring the hype, people love them and yes they have their influential place in the history of rock.
I'm just saying in this era, I am lost as to why anybody would seek that music out. It had its place and it had its time, but that was like 50+ years ago.
I don't need to hear these boots are made for walkin', and I don't need to hear I wanna be sedated. They're anthems from an ancient time.
You're missing my point.
These are dried up, shallow pieces of music that had their place. Once you've heard one of their 2 minutes songs, you've heard their entire discography!
There's actually great music you could spend your time on, which is what I do. There's 20 new albums every day, there's amazing jazz, amazing punk, amazing growth in various forms of music. In a way, listening to primitive music like Ramones is depriving oneself of what's out there now, which makes it sound like children's jingles in comparison.
I realize I may be coming off harsh, but that is my personal perspective, I think it's weak and one dimensional. Then again, that statement could be applied to many popular acts.
Krudler is coming at it like music is a zero sum game, which is silly. I love the Ramones. I also love more innovative, complex music, as well as plenty of vapid garbage. I'm happy jumping from Art Pepper to Guatafán. None of it is a waste of time if it's what I'm in the mood for.
The Ramones were a fresh slap in the face back in the day, and without them punk & new wave wouldn't be what they are. In the meantime, other artists have built on the Ramones' foundation. Similarly, Jimi Hendrix revolutionised how people used the electeic guitar as an instrument, but other artists ran with it to the point that his stuff is archaic (I can't listen to Hendrix for the same reason K dismissed the Ramones, but to each their own).
I guess what I'm saying is that even if you personally don't like an influential band, you have to acknowledge that they might be exactly what resonates with someone else. That's why we have so much music in the world. To the original topic though, Ramones music does all sound the same. Why mess with perfection?
Maybe they're sedated?
That's how I feel about Michael Jackson. Except he wasn't a band. He was just 1 person who whispered like a shy little girl & flailed around onstage like a noodle and he kept grabbing his crotch and nobody asked him to grab his crotch. I've never understood people's fanaticism.
That was my fault. I asked him to do it ONCE, and he just wouldn't quit after that!
Mystery solved. The rhinoplasty was the reason MJ couldn't stop grabbing his own crotch onstage.
You ever start trimming something and one side is longer than the other so, you try to even it up, but you go a little too far, so you have cut the other side some more, and it's still not quite right, so you just keep cutting until nothing's left?
Let's just say Michael got that one on the house.
All your personal issues with the man are yours and not in dispute. I think a big difference here is that MJ was a musical virtuoso, not just a singer and showman.
Was he virtuoso though? I feel like his best work was with Quincy Jones and Rod Temperton and without them he was just meh.
Yes, look into the man. He composed a shitload of his music.
I personally don't even like the man's musical output. That said, I can recognize genius. The man was nothing short of a musical genius with very few I could even list next to him, perhaps with the exceptions of Stevie, Herbie, Prince, Eno, and other brilliant minds. The guy was out of his tree, but on a level of musicality most people can't even grasp.
Only two and one co-written on Off the Wall and three and one co-written on Thriller (although they are bangers). He did write most of Bad but anything outside of that is imo sub-par. I'm not denying he had a lot of talent but I think he's far from a virtuoso.
Lol right. Give me a god damned break! You can't be serious, you're trolling, or genuinley know nothing of music.
AC/DC for sure. Every song has the same vibe. It's a good vibe, but once you've heard one song, you've heard them all.
...is it going to be controversial if I also say The Beatles? Maybe not ALL of their music, but most.
I appreciate Angus Young's self-awareness.
"I'm sick and tired of people saying that we put out 11 albums that sound exactly the same. In fact, we’ve put out 12 albums that sound exactly the same."
It is very controversial to say that of the Beatles. Once they stopped doing live shows they reinvented themselves.
Pre 1964 Beatles I will give you. After, say, Revolver? I don’t see how you could compare Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds to Tomorrow Never Knows to Martha My Dear to Back in the USSR to Sun King, etc etc etc
Often you can tell it’s the same band, but these are meaningfully different sonic experiences.
Say what you will about AC/DC, nobody else can convey the idea of sweaty testicles in musical form as effectively as they do.
AC/DC music is nothing more than 4 chords and a beat.
And you know, sometimes that's all you need.
Whole lotta Rosie is on my husband's workout playlist and it is a jam. So good.
I feel like there was at least some variety during the Bon Scott era but yeah everything from Back in Black on is the same.
Fyi Bon Scot suggested Brian Johnson replace him if he died early.
Check out Geordie if you want to see what he was doing before joining AC/DC.... Is different.
Oh I like Brian Johnson but that is when everything started sounding the same. Good thing that I like that one thing they did :-)
Geordie sounds pretty good. I'll have to check out more.
There's also Rabbit with Dave Evans who was the singer on the first AC/DC single. They are, well, eh.
The Beatles is like 4 bands wearing a trenchcoat, so I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. I wouldn't even say any individual album is samey from at least sgt peppers on
The Beatles did evolve over time. Their early stuff all sounds the same and their late stuff all sounds the same, but there's a big difference between their boy band phase and their stoner phase.
Jack Johnson. If you hear one of his songs in public just say “oh, Banana Pancakes” and move on with your life. Not a soul on earth will be able to correct you
Andrew WK had some good tunes, but they all sound the same.
Ozfest 2001 was one of the first concerts I went to, right as AWK started his brief rise. Absolute blast to see live, the music was still fresh at that point. And the guy is just a goofball, total respect for him and his act. But you're also 100% correct. You know what you're getting with them. Early 2000s, they were on every bill, they played constantly.
I think that is true for the vast majority of bands. What some band manage to do is reinvent their sound with different albums and often that is not well received by the fans.
Yeah, I think it's very difficult for bands to reinvent themselves, and the majority who try lose fans because of it. The two bands who always spring to kind for me are Radiohead and Brand New, whose discographies are a bit of a roller coaster genre-wise, the former much more so.
Coldplay springs to mind. The Coldplay who released Moon Music last year is an entirely different band to the one who released Parachutes in 2000. I know of few other bands who've gone through such an enormous transformation. And while the newer stuff may not resonate with me the way the early stuff did, it's fair to say that it's worked for them.
Status Quo ( the clue is in the name)
Really surprised no one's mentioned Everclear, but that might just be because no one thinks about Everclear that much
"The same" always means "these aspects I'm noticing" and not these other aspects I'm not noticing. And when there are aspects I'm not used to they tend to stand out and eclipse the aspects i'm used to and take for granted. Whole genres that i never listen to "sound the same."
U2? Never listened to them besides sometimes on the radio. But seems kinda samey
Their radio singles are same sounding, but they have some very different sounding songs that don't get played.
I was just listening to them for the first time in a long while last week. There's a noticeably difference pre and post elevation album.
To some degree, Goatwhore. Love the band, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I can never remember song titles of theirs, because they are all a bit OTT tbh.
After Bad Guy, i couldn't tell the difference between Billie Eillish songs.
That's absolutely wild, her music is all over the place. None of the singles on her new album sounded anything alike lol
I'm not a huge Eilish fan, but "when the party's over" is excellent and very different from everything else I've heard from her.

top 100 comments