The Ten Most Hated Men In Rock

[MindGoneHaywire]

Cute, good for a laugh. I love this opening salvo at Paul McCartney:

"Barely qualified to carry John Lennon's roach clip while both toiled with a grotesquely overrated boy band known as the Beatles"...

http://www.riverfronttimes.com/issue...-01/music.html

[mad rhetorik]

Jay, this is awesome (not to mention long overdue). I'm printing out the "Least Wanted" posters as we speak.

Especially loved that blurb about Carraba/Oberst. Emo-hipster douches.

Speaking of douches, where's John Mayer?

[3-LockBox]

Good thing I have guys like you on this board, who like to surf and report your findings back here at RR. (I rarely, if ever, surf)

Thanks for the laugh.

[tentoze]

A beauty, Jay. Thanks.

[Swish]

...for me, although the bios they wrote are really a hoot, and I had to read each and every one. Thanks J, best thing I read all day.

Swish

[Jim Clark]

I even laughed when the nailed the one I like.

jc

[DarrenH]

It's really a shame that Carlos Santana has morphed into the pop/rock schlock guitarist that he's become. I still respect his work from the late 60's and into the 70's and own quite a few CD's from that era. I will always hold Carlos in some high regard.

Never ever was a Buffet fan. Never saw the appeal in his music. Not even Margaritaville.

Never like Bryan Adams either. Had no idea Ryan was even related to him. Tells you how much I know about him, eh.

I like Elton John's music. Just don't go past 1974.

Macca was okay. Buy Wings Greatest Hits and Band On The Run and you have all the good stuff with some fluff.

Fred Durst? Wasn't he the lead singer for some rap/metal band? Shows you much I care for that style of music. Or him for that matter.I wasn't paying attention.

Never knew anything about G.E. Smith beyond SNL. And never cared.

Conor Oberst & Chris Carrabba - couldn't even begin to tell you who they are or what they played or who they played it with. No clue. No importance to me at all.

The Dead will always have a following. I could care less if they're still on the road. Apparently, there's still a bunch of Dead Heads out there who still want this. I won't pay to see them but I do enjoy some of thier live stuff from the early 70's. At least Phil Lesh is doing some creative things lately.

Thanks for the post Jay. An interesting read.

Darren

[kexodusc]

My question is why isn't there one corporate shopping-mall punk frontman on the list?
Maybe nobody'd recognize the name?

Still this was pretty good. Can't believe Courtney Love didn't crack the top 10 (well, guess she's not a MAN per se...but Fred Durst is?).

[Mike]

run your career over ten years and you run the risk of being savaged by critics/hacks at some point, basically after 10 years very few acts have anything new or interesting to offer.
The exception being if an artist goes solo from a band or the band takes on some new blood.

Can anybody name a artist/band still doing the business after 10 years - I'm diving for cover as you type.

Cheers
Mike

[MindGoneHaywire]

>Korn was raw, fresh, and just what we needed. It took something like that to get rid of all the Nirvana grungies and bring music back to it's raw roots.

Post of the year.

[N. Abstentia]

Have I made my hatred for Kurt Cobain's useless, no talent a$$ clear?

Thanks for the post of the year nomination

[kexodusc]

I liked Korn, until the unforgiveable incident: Limp Bizkit

I blame them, and them alone....

No excuses...
Time to go, Korn, thanks alot guys.

[N. Abstentia]

I liked Korn, until the unforgiveable incident: Limp Bizkit

I blame them, and them alone....

No excuses...
Time to go, Korn, thanks alot guys.

Makes me sick to think back on the two Limp Bizkit CD's I owned. *shudder*

But hey, they got me $3 off a Yes-Fragile DVD-Audio at the used CD store

[MindGoneHaywire]

I would suggest that talent has more to do with what you perceive it as if that's how you feel about one of the most talented mofos to come down the pike in quite some time. In the meantime, I might be more willing to accept that bundle of joy in the form of a list you threw down there a few posts back that are supposed to have something to do with a continued legacy of quality after ten years in the biz, if I ever accepted that they produced a single, solitary note worth listening to. That would take some convincing. In short, I think tentoze's comments pretty much sum it up for me here.

[N. Abstentia]

I'll agree that tentoze is right..it all boils down to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

Were you referring to Cobain as 'the most talented mofo to ever come down the pike'? I assume you never saw that 'mofo' live. He can't sing or play a note in tune when playing live. The MTV unplugged show was the best performace the guy ever gave because he didn't have to scream and had plenty of backing musicians. I guess I just never bought into the whole grunge/MTV hype.

What exactly was Cobain talented at? Guitar playing? Satriani. Vai. Bonnamassa. Tabor. Lifeson. Mustaine. Howe. Rabin. McCready. Matheos. Adrian Smith. DeGarmo. Gilmour. Petrucci. You should check them out too.

Song writing? He's better than me, that's for sure. But I urge you to check out Neal Morse, Neil Peart, Jim Matheos, Steve Harris, DeGarmo/Tate, Chris Cornell, Portnoy/Petrucci, Becker/***an. These are the song writers I've always looked up to.

[kexodusc]

I saw Cobain live...I think it was the lack of talent that made them so appealing.
After Skid Row, Damn Yankees, Dokken, etc (and that flaming Yngwie Malmsteen) drama bombed the world with insincere album after insincere album, it was aweful nice to have something more grass roots.
It was 578 copy-cats that ruined it for me.
But live, Alice In Chains was way better than Nirvana.

[N. Abstentia]

The worst thing about the whole 'Seattle Grunge Craze' is that real bands like Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, and even Queensryche (somewhat) got lumped into it.

[Dusty Chalk]

I'll agree that tentoze is right..it all boils down to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

Were you referring to Cobain as 'the most talented mofo to ever come down the pike'? I assume you never saw that 'mofo' live. He can't sing or play a note in tune when playing live. The MTV unplugged show was the best performace the guy ever gave because he didn't have to scream and had plenty of backing musicians. I guess I just never bought into the whole grunge/MTV hype.

What exactly was Cobain talented at? Guitar playing? Satriani. Vai. Bonnamassa. Tabor. Lifeson. Mustaine. Howe. Rabin. McCready. Matheos. Adrian Smith. DeGarmo. Gilmour. Petrucci. You should check them out too.

Song writing? He's better than me, that's for sure. But I urge you to check out Neal Morse, Neil Peart, Jim Matheos, Steve Harris, DeGarmo/Tate, Chris Cornell, Portnoy/Petrucci, Becker/Fagan. These are the song writers I've always looked up to.

Oh, man, Jay's gonna have a field day with this.

Just FYI -- he hates prog, he hates "overplayers", etc.

Oh, and BTW, Cobain was a great songwriter -- not as great as his legacy, but great all the same.

[DariusNYC]

Oh, man, Jay's gonna have a field day with this.

Just FYI -- he hates prog, he hates "overplayers", etc.

Oh, and BTW, Cobain was a great songwriter -- not as great as his legacy, but great all the same.

I would have a field day with this too, but alas I don't have the time or energy.

I think Cobain had a great guitar sound (favorite example of this is the awesome "Serve the Servants", second favorite is the initial chugging riff in "Teen Spirit"), one of the best pure rock-n-roll voices ever (in the general tradition of John Lennon but quite unique), and was an excellent songwriter and a compelling frontman. His sloppy, emotionally reckless style has never been and will never be appreciated by the "chops" school of music fandom, but then they didn't like Lennon or Buddy Holly or the Clash either -- fair enough; I'm tempted to think they're missing out royally but if they don't like it then for them, they're not missing out. So it's all good.

[Swish]

I'll agree that tentoze is right..it all boils down to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

Were you referring to Cobain as 'the most talented mofo to ever come down the pike'? I assume you never saw that 'mofo' live. He can't sing or play a note in tune when playing live. The MTV unplugged show was the best performace the guy ever gave because he didn't have to scream and had plenty of backing musicians. I guess I just never bought into the whole grunge/MTV hype.

What exactly was Cobain talented at? Guitar playing? Satriani. Vai. Bonnamassa. Tabor. Lifeson. Mustaine. Howe. Rabin. McCready. Matheos. Adrian Smith. DeGarmo. Gilmour. Petrucci. You should check them out too.

Song writing? He's better than me, that's for sure. But I urge you to check out Neal Morse, Neil Peart, Jim Matheos, Steve Harris, DeGarmo/Tate, Chris Cornell, Portnoy/Petrucci, Becker/***an. These are the song writers I've always looked up to.

I certainly don't want to speak for J, but I'm sure he would agree with most of my response to your comments. First of all, I would concur that most of the guys you mention are very good musicians. That's fine if you want to sit around and jam to show off how accomplished you are on your instrument, but in the end, it really doesn't matter to me how well they play, but what they play. I can't think of one memorable record, or even one "critically acclaimed" record, from any of them, and I don't think many rock historians will have much to say about any of them. Maybe some of Howe's work in Yes, but beyond that, I just don't know and really don't care.

Most of the guitarists you mention are playing the same effects-laiden excesses that have been around for years, and it's all so, well...boring if you ask me. Their guitar playing is akin to the vocals of Celine Dion and Whitney Houston. Sure they can sing, but the ballads they do are mindless, unemotional drivel geared toward the masses who buy their records. There are plenty of incredibly talented vocalists who know how to hold it back, giving you that little extra every so often so you know it's there. I can't think of a better example of this than Sinead O'Connor, whether you like her or not.

I've been playing guitar since I was 12, so we're talkin' 34 years, and I went through the "guitar hero" phase for a time, but I came to realize that the songs and the music were much more important to me than how well you played. Kurt Cobain was indeed a unique talent and his guitar playing was perfect for his songs. His music and his legacy will endure long after the guys you mentioned, at least in the musical circles where I hang my hat. Yes he was a mess of a person, but his upbringing was a hell that many of us (I hope) never had to endure.

Hey, I still appreciate great guitar playing, but I'd take Richard Lloyd and Tom Verlain of Television before the guitarists you mentioned. Or how about Jeff Beck during his "Blow By Blow" period? Or Duane Allman and Dickie Betts doing "Statesboro Blues"? Jimi Hendrix is still #1 in my book, he also had great songs. Voodoo Chile (Slight Return) is still outta sight if you ask me. None of these guys relied too heavily on effects, save some wah-wah and distortion pedals, and all of them had great songs.

Anyway, I think you'll find a large contingent here on Rave Recs who will essentially agree with me, although there is another gang that likes your kind of thing. Hey, you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how ridiculous it may be. Ok, that was a joke.

G'Night,
Swish

P.S. I fully expect J to write a lengthy response as well.

[tentoze]

I like Mitch Miller a whole lot. Sounds like teen ennui.

[N. Abstentia]

[QUOTE=Swish] I can't think of one memorable record, or even one "critically acclaimed" record, from any of them, and I don't think many rock historians will have much to say about any of them. QUOTE]

Some would argue that Aja by Steely Dan is quite memorable. As would Fragile or Close To the Edge by Yes. Or Moving Pictures by Rush.

[tentoze]

No doubt, some would. Others would not. Post a new thread on a different topic.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Tentoze is correct here, and I don't really want to take this much further. So, of course, I will. Hey, there was a question directed at me, I believe.

N. Abstentia:

>Were you referring to Cobain as 'the most talented mofo to ever come down the pike'?

No. I said 'one of the.' But I have a feeling that if someone wanted to make some case that he were indeed the most talented, they would have some substance to work with. I say it takes talent to come up with something that change the music business, not to mention pop culture, as radically as his song did. The guy's song had a tremendous impact on a vast cross-section of pop culture all through the Western World; can the same be said of Vai or Satriani or Mustaine? I think the number of people or outfits who impacted popular music in the 20th Century as much as he did can probably be counted on the fingers of two hands.

>I assume you never saw that 'mofo' live.

You assume correctly.

>He can't sing or play a note in tune when playing live.

I have live recordings, a videotape of an MTV broadcast of a live show (not Unplugged), and a bootleg live show somewhere around here...and something called Nirvana Live Tonight, I think...a video release, not the MTV broadcast. Based on them I'd dispute that contention. Remember, also, he played junk guitars on purpose at times. I remember him talking about the sorts of sounds you can get out of pawnshop guitars, which of course don't stay in tune as much as a Paul Reed Smith or a Hamer.

>The MTV unplugged show was the best performace the guy ever gave because he didn't have to scream and had plenty of backing musicians.

What, a cello player? The Meat Puppets? Pat Smear? This makes no sense.

>I guess I just never bought into the whole grunge/MTV hype.

That makes sense. Neither did I. I thought all of those bands sucked, every last one of them except for Mudhoney. But then I never considered Nirvana to be a grunge band. That's because Cobain understood how to write a melody & the guitar playing was fairly straightforward, instead of chords that sound like there's an electric can opener in there somewhere. Nirvana never sounded all that much like the Screaming Trees or Tad or the Melvins to me. Or Alice In Chains or Soundgarden or Pearl Jam, for that matter.

>What exactly was Cobain talented at? Guitar playing?

Among other things. That's a very nice list you put together there. You like yr guys, I like my guys. We can leave it at that; I have nothing to add to what Swish had to say on that score. You want to listen to guys like Satriani, knock yrself out. I've heard enough of that sort of thing. I won't bother telling you how good I think Cobain was if you give me a break & don't try to convince me that I should like what you like. I don't.

>I urge you to check out

Again--no thank you. I've heard enough in that realm. I really cringe when I hear that stuff. It's really not what I thought Mike Portnoy'd end up doing. Back in Jr. High & High School his tastes always seemed a little more diverse than his band ended up being. What can you do. Mike was a nice guy, and I'm sure he still is, and I'm glad for his success, but boy do I think his band's music sucks.

>The worst thing about the whole 'Seattle Grunge Craze' is that real bands like Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, and even Queensryche (somewhat) got lumped into it.

Well, that's one view, I guess.


Kexodusc:

>I saw Cobain live...I think it was the lack of talent that made them so appealing.

Look, I don't know how you define talent, but the more I read stuff like this, the more curious I get. I have to remind myself that sort of thing kills cats, I think.

Sorry, I should've just let this lie. Oh, well.

[kexodusc]

I'll chime in on this thread

Kexodusc:
Look, I don't know how you define talent, but the more I read stuff like this, the more curious I get. I have to remind myself that sort of thing kills cats, I think.
Sorry, I should've just let this lie. Oh, well.

What I meant by that statements was simple. Any complete idiot like myself who's ever bothered to sit and look back at the history of rock music can put it together. At the end of the 1980's we had hundreds of overblown drama-queen singers in glam-rock bands pumping out the same formulaic songs with some good degree of technical ability thrown in for good measure.
This got old, stale, and insincere very quick.
Then there was Metallica, who like them or not, are the single-most influential band in the last 25 years(but should have quit 12 years ago), and who literally opened the door for groups like Nirvana to be accepted by the mainstream. If "One" got radio play, anything could.
But Metallica was still (in 1990) just a bit too much for the pop side of rock.
Enter Nirvana (not just Cobain, despite popular belief he didn't write all the songs all by himself).
I'm proud to say I own every major release of Nirvana (though some of it like Zeppelin has been overplayed to death). When Nirvana hit the scene they were outselling groups like Guns N' Roses, Poison, Aerosmith, or Michael Jackson and the pop music stuff.
It wasn't 2 minute solo's and drama-queen singing that did it. It was primitive song-writing WITH sincerity, a catchy hook, a driving riff and a brand new image that wasn't (yet) being forced upon society. Nirvana's blend of retro everything WAS the new sound.
It was a matter of right place, right time, luck, and song-writing ability.

On the talent side of things...well, there's creativity, then there's talent. I distinguish between the two for simplicity, but creativity is talent. Song-writing in itself is a talent, but it can't really be measured easily because of the subjective nature. Pure musical talent, proficiency with an instrument can. Nirvana lacked this side of talent big-time. It didn't matter though, there was too much of that everywhere else. The world was sick of it. Nirvana played anyway, and made the music more important than the degree of difficulty.

BTW: Ever wonder where Nirvana would have been if they were still around today? Not "legends" at all, but probably something along the lines of Stone Temple Pilots or Foo Fighters. Fact is Nirvana's legacy didn't begin until after Cobain died. This made them big. Bigger than they ever were alive. Record sales in 1994 will prove that.

As for Portnoy and Dream Theater (and even prog in general). Since 1994 we've been bombarded mostly with 1000's of Nirvana parodies (you'd figure we would have learned our lesson). In the 1980's it was glam-rock and pop about love, partying, rebelling, etc...
Dream Theater has always had a very unique sound that blends large, theatrical themes with technical ability. But, despite their technical ability, they are first and foremost about the music (ie: songwriting). They borrow from their influences too, but the synergy they have is incredible. I can't put my finger on it, but Dream Theater could have been just another Symphony X or Spock's Beard, but they've made a more unlikely transition into the mainstream. This is an accomplishment, especially doing it during the Nirvana-Grunge/Alternative, Punk Rock, and Nu Metal explosions of the 90's.

They aren't as popular as the MTV/radio "Cowboy Growl" Cher singing sleaze rock bands you find in Nickelback, Puddle of Mudd, Creed, etc (some of which I don't mind) but that's okay. It's not for everyone. I think Dream Theater's appeal is the opposite of Nirvana's. Good progressive rock to me has always been the anti-mainstream. It's too complex, and requires a greater attention span than a 3 minute, radio-friendly rocking tune. So does Jazz, Classical, etc. But,as a musician, there are times when I truly feel the need to listen to something far less "primitive and formulaic" than simple "Rock Music". Some people like their music to be grand, with vision, incorporating emotions OTHER THAN angst and hatred, with themes other than broken-hearts and bad times...Dream Theater oozes this.
It's not for everyone, you don't have to like it.
Which style of music is better? Who cares? To each, his own.