- #1
RiseAgainst
- 46
- 0
It has to be Nickelback. I know there are other talentless bands out there but Nickelback is completely lacking any form of talent.
Plus they're Canadian.
Plus they're Canadian.
The Dagda said:Nickleback aren't talentless, if you are talentless you don't get a record deal generally. It might work in the pop world but rock tends to be more discerning.
RiseAgainst said:They are in the pop world, you can't tell me that Nickelback is a rock and roll band. The people with "talent" are the song writers because they know what will sell.
The Dagda said:Unfortunately they are rock. And as always the ones with the talent are the song writers, in a perfect world they would also be the band members. Pop rock maybe **** IYO but it's still rock.
RiseAgainst said:Pop rock doesn't make any sense, you're either pop or you're rock, and they are definitely pop. All of their songs sound the same and they all sound like many other pop bands. When I hear them it doesn't remind me of bands like AC/DC and Led Zeppelin, I think of stereotypical pop bands.
RiseAgainst said:It has to be Nickelback. I know there are other talentless bands out there but Nickelback is completely lacking any form of talent.
Plus they're Canadian.
Name me some sucking FWM songs.turbo-1 said:Dave, search Utube to find really old Fleetwood Mac videos, back when the band was headed by Peter Green. 1970 on, the pretty much sucked after the principals were MIA.
lisab said:What about the all the bands that play music that sounds like a blender or other small applicance, and singing that sounds like a combination of yelling and vomitting? What's it called, screamo? Ugh. I nominate every band that plays in that style.
lisab said:What about the all the bands that play music that sounds like a blender or other small applicance, and singing that sounds like a combination of yelling and vomitting? What's it called, screamo? Ugh. I nominate every band that plays in that style.
Compared with the stuff Fleetwood Mac was puting out in the '60's, you can just about take your pick. I should mention that after Peter Green and Jeremy Spencer had both flaked out and left, Danny Kirwan did as well as could be expected, resulting in the Kiln House album with its many Buddy Holly - inspired songs. If you want to see why Fleetwood Mac of Rumours fame (or shame) sounded the way it did, you must pick up a copy of Buckingham - Nicks. That album was a work in progress when Mick, John, and Christine were searching around California looking for somebody new to front the band. Cue up any song from Buckingham - Nicks, and I will guarantee you that people will say "Fleetwood Mac" if they are less than 50 years old or are entirely uneducated about British rock/clues of the '60's. BTW Black Magic Woman was a cover song, as was Green Manilishi, decades later.DaveC426913 said:Name me some sucking FWM songs.
We have a winner! :yuck:Vanadium 50 said:..."The Shaggs" ...
Yeah, I just don't know any but their popular ones.turbo-1 said:Compared with the stuff Fleetwood Mac was puting out in the '60's, you can just about take your pick.
Nabeshin said:All that emo garbage. They're all so bad it's hard to pick the worst.
daveyinaz said:Hands down...Maroon 5
All that emo garbage. They're all so bad it's hard to pick the worst.
The Dagda said:The only music type with no redeeming features for me is dance... particularly hardcore
RiseAgainst said:What does hardcore have to do with dance music? H2O, Rise Against, and Minor Threat are hardcore. I do agree with the emo and dance bands/people. They are equally as bad as nickelback.
DaveC426913 said:Code:All that emo garbage. They're all so bad it's hard to pick the worst.
I think My Chemical Romance and Simple Plan are emo are they not?
I liked both enough to buy an album, which is saying a lot for me.
Hmph. My family - who likes to tease me - would beg to differ.binzing said:No not really either of those. Simple Plan is a 90s punk band and MCR, while odd and dramatic, they're not emo.
DaveC426913 said:Hmph. My family - who likes to tease me - would beg to differ.
DaveC426913 said:Hmph. My family - who likes to tease me - would beg to differ.
This is a subjective question and can vary from person to person. Some may consider a band to be the "least talented" based on their technical abilities, while others may consider a band to be the "worst" based on their personal taste in music.
There are certain measures, such as album sales, critical reception, and awards, that can give an indication of a band's success and talent. However, these measures do not necessarily determine a band's overall talent or quality.
Yes, it is possible for a band to improve and become successful. Many bands have faced criticism early in their careers but have gone on to become highly successful and acclaimed.
Labeling a band as the "least talented" or "worst" is a matter of personal opinion and can be subjective. It is important to recognize that every band has their own unique style and appeal, and what may be considered the "worst" to one person may be the favorite band of another.
A band can overcome this label by continuing to create and perform music that resonates with their audience. They can also work on improving their skills and evolving their sound to appeal to a wider audience. Ultimately, success and talent are subjective, and it is important for a band to stay true to their own style and vision.