Bands/Artists whos fans are even more annoying than the band itself....

Cafe Society
101

Even what they did in the early EMI days? Though even then they were like nothing anybody had heard, they were still producing highly commercial pop music, and a big component of that was danceability.

Of course from the middle period onward I agree with you, as they had already gone beyond simply trying to produce successful commercial numbers.

FTR I think it’s only fair to say that the Beatles had a huge impact on my tastes and on the culture of the generation in which I grew up, and I do consider them to be probably the finest all around band that ever was. However, I hardly ever listen to them, and there are other musicians of the era who, though not as gifted as Lennon and McCartney, have more meaning to me based on my own experiences.

As for fandom in general, when I saw the thread I thought it was going to be about Phish-heads and Dead-heads, pretty much, and maybe with a few metalheads thrown in. But it’s really just about obsessive people who like to bore everyone else with their latest faves, whom you can find in every context. So what…er…mehhhhh.

102

When I knock the Beatles, I do it as someone who was a huge fan of them back in the day. I considered myself to be John Lennon’s number one fan, until I realised that Mark Chapman considered himself to have that title locked in. I’ve been leery of Beatlemania ever since.

That said… Feel free to disagree with me about the danceability of Beatles tunes, but the next person who does is obliged to name a Beatles single that can decently be danced to.

103

Off the top of my head: “Twist and Shout.” “Can’t Buy Me Love.” “I Should Have Known Better.” “Day Tripper.” “Revolution.” “Get Back.”

Anyone who can’t dance to the Beatles can’t dance.

104

Like the good DoctorJ, I find many of my favorites in here – Beatles, Neutral Milk Hotel, Bright Eyes, Radiohead, Matador Liz Phair, Phish, Wilco, Rush, Springsteen, etc. – but I fool myself and tell myself I’m not one of those fans because I listen to so many bands that I don’t really have the time to get obsessive about any one group (except Stereolab and I don’t try to force that on anyone because even I realize that a lot of their stuff is 7 minute one chord drones and random noises with announcements).

I’ll add a few:
-Blues and jazz fans who listen to nothing else. Especially post jazz fans of reed-biting-era Coltrane and later Ornette Coleman. Or blues fans who can’t stop talking about how every fundamental rock band are just cheap copies of Muddy Waters/Robert Johnson/Leadbelly whatever. How (blues|jazz) is the only true American art form. I like the blues, but I also like the Stones and Cream/Clapton and Elvis and the Beatles and all the others who followed, and acknowledge that the early guys got ripped, but hey, Richards and Jagger and Clapton were doing it as much out of reverence as anything else. At least the art form got some exposure that way.

-Dylan fans. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not really a true fan but I have Blonde on Blonde, Highway 61 Revisited, Blood on the Tracks, Another Side of Dylan, Bringing It All Back Home, Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan, Nashville Skyline and The Times They Are A-Changin’ but I find his music at times unlistenable because he just makes no effort to sing or play the harmonica well at all. I can take an album of his at a time. I just don’t understand those who can listen and listen and listen to him and prattle on about how brilliant the man is.

He could sing about 5 notes, and he had big difficulties with about 4 of those. His lyrics can be profound, when they make some sense. His best stuff is definitely up there in the pantheon of 20th century music. But why is it then that his stuff is so much better when other people cover it? – All Along the Watchtower and Like A Rolling Stone by Hendrix, Hey Mr. Tambourine Man by Shatner (I mean the Byrds), etc.

His fans are always on about “he’s the man who changed everything.” Yeah, he plugged in. Yeah, he kind of formed a center to the counterculture movement. But his impact, IMHO, has been far less pervasive than the Beatles. His music isn’t standing up as well, apart from a few highlights. That Rolling Stone put IIRC 3 of his albums in the top 20 in their top 500, and that’s just a crime (even though those 3 albums are truly great albums). He changed the 1960s, but I don’t think he ever really changed the world.

-As a corollary, I think the same kind of applies to Tom Waits. I understand their appeal – the lyrics are great and sometimes the music is very good. But who let this guy front a band? (and yes I own some Waits too) Much of the time, I’ll take Nick Cave, a man who can write and sing with a great backup band. If I want to listen to spoken word I’ll listen to spoken word.

-And a minor issue. Fans of technically proficient music that is otherwise unlistenable. Note that (most of) Rush isn’t like this – they can turn a good phrase and write a good song. But I know quite a few Yngwie/Satriani/Eric Johnson/Steve Vai/Al DiMeola fans. The stuff is just wanking. If you want proficiency, go listen to some Zappa and grow up (and yes I realize Vai played for Zappa).

105

I once saw an Oprah show on Manilow fanatics. That was scary!

106

At the risk of sounding like one of those Dylan fans (I’m not, believe me), I think you have to give Dylan credit for bringing poetry to pop music, in a way that hadn’t happened before. All pop lyrics are poetry in the simplest sense, I suppose, but Dylan’s music showed the Beatles (and a host of others) that the poetry of a pop song didn’t have to be limited to the “I loved her but she done me wrong” variety. Dylan opened the door to more elliptical, more socially conscious, and more literate lyrics.

So while I agree with you about Dylan’s very limited vocal abilities, I think you have to give him credit for broadening the horizons of rock/pop in the 60s.

107

I’m not one of those Beatles fans either, but most of their early stuff was danceable, including:

I Saw Her Standing There
She Loves You
I Want to Hold Your Hand
Help!
Day Tripper
Drive My Car
Can’t Buy Me Love
All My Loving

And a host of other early album cuts (many of which were covers of 50s rock songs).

108

I like the Ramones, but I have a friend of mine who thinks they’re the most influential band ever. They’re fun to listen to, but there are some people who think they’re the second coming, and take them too seriously.

109

I’m amazed that this thread has gotten this long and nobody has mentioned Metallica.

110

Kylie fans, blurgh. All the annoying queenie-ness of Madonna fans, with none of the intellectual analysis or cultural import. Plastic, plastic, plastic.

At the Madonna boards, we call them Al-Kylie-da and constantly flamethrow them in Board Wars.

111

I figure the only thing more annoying than Kenny G. is a fan of Kenny G. Fortunately I have only met a couple of those sad frumpy ladies.

Brooks and Dunn (and their ilk) fans… I’ve met a few of them. Beaten to death with their own beltbuckles they should be.

And I’ll echo another mentioned earlier… Arcade Fire. The annoying current fans who think they’re onto something really “hip” and “outside”… and those same people in about year when they’re saying, “Arcade Fire used to be cool, but then they got too big”.

112

Wanna chime in here with the ICP thing. My brother was a rabid Juggalo until just a few years ago… so sad. Add to that pile of refuse Twiztid, Psychopathic Ryda’s, Black Lotus, and any other “Juggalo Family” artist.

What’s the saddest thing about that is that all of those bands have managed to have one song that I think shows they could have really made something of themselves.

On a side note, last year a friend of my brothers was actually AT MY HOUSE and was talking about how “… Revrend Maynard is the greatest living guitar player today.” I came back with Steve Vai, Eddie Van Halen, Santana and of course, BB King.

He had nothing.

113

I know I’m going to regret this - and probably have to lie down in a darkened room once you tell me, but what’s a “juggalo”?

114

They’re ICP Deadheads.

115

Eh?

116
117

I totally forgot to mention Nickleback’s army of buttheads… er, fans.

118

Them juggalos need their bumps felt.

119

Some of the music by these people definitely smacks of wankery at the expense of songcraft, but I believe there’s good music made by these people. Off the top of my head, ‘Always with Me, Always with You’ by Joe Satriani is a pretty darn good song, despite being completely instrumental, though it doesn’t really delve into “wankery” but does display some iota of musical talent. Even Yngwie, who probably best personifies the designation of “wankery at the expense of songcraft”, did ‘Black Star’, which I rather enjoy.

That said, I agree that, like so many other fans of various artists, these people have a decent loyal following of people who, for some reason, seem to prize musical virtuosity (or wankery) above all other aspects of music. The other guitarist in my band sometimes seems like this to me - he applauds artists like Joe Satriani and Dream Theater, who aren’t bad, but he possesses extreme disdain for Nirvana, who (despite the lack of great technical proficiency displayed by Kurt Cobain) wrote some pretty killer songs, the impact of which had not been seen in years. Personally, I’d like to think I’m more open-minded. :slight_smile:

120

I could be wrong, but it seems that superlative chops and superlative melodic sensibilities rarely go hand-in-hand. I know two jazz-fusion guitarists personally whose own compositions are, to my ears, almost oppressively boring and unmelodic. I can admire technical virtuosity to a point, but endless bars of atonal riffs comprised of unrelenting 128th-noted glissando is absolutely numbing after even one song.