…well that sort of covers it for now…anybody got any others?
Pink Floyd=plodding shite, The Romantics 1st album=guitar masterpiece, and other musical blasphemies
Are we agreeing or disagreeing with your statements? Pink Floyd’s early stuff is, yeah, pretty horrible, but their famous albums are justly famous and even their less-famous later stuff is pleasant and interesting.
No argument from me. I’ve always thought Pink Floyd was plodding shite (though I like the Syd Barrett stuff). I’ll say that Led Zeppelin was dull, screechy and sloppy-sounding. The worst punk band rocked harder.
Ugh, these words…I read them on the page arranged so, but they make no sense! Look at the silly monkey! He lives on Endor!
No and no.
Gram Parsons was a spoiled rich druggie whose best career move, next to dying, was glomming on to the Stones.
Eric Clapton is boring as fuck. As the dude from BJM said “all he ever did was throw a baby out the window and write a song about it”.
U2 are a bunch of pussies.
Paul McCartney is a smarmy, glad-handing butthole.
Bob Dylan should have died in 1969-70, along with all those other freaks.
And amen, woodstockbirdybird. Fuck Led Zeppelin, poser thiefing dicks.
Louis Armstrong was fucking Tom.
Oh, and Paul Revere and The Raiders are Evil Incarnate.
You and he are sick.
Heh.
Those [del]trolls[/del] masters of quality music, Anal Cunt 
have a song called “Connor Clapton Committed Suicide Because His Father Sucks.” I have seen a picture of a Japanese album by “Eric Crapton.”
Lots of people say he sucks because his voice is terrible. His fans say that it doesn’t matter, as he is a lyrical and musical genius. The main problem is that his is one of the worst plagiarists in musical history, stealing from “Patriot Game” and a novel about the Yakuza (the appropriately named “Love and Theft”), among other places I’m sure. He is unrepentant about deriving his lyrics and tunes from others.
I’m sure I won’t find much argument from 95% of people, but 95% of the Grateful Dead’s songs suck. Maybe 99% for each, I don’t know how many songs they wrote, possibly while high.
I can’t see why Janis Joplin or Kurt Cobain are considered anything special. Decidedly ordinary, from what I can tell.
But then, I am not much into music, so my opinion counts for little.
When I read your title I somehow thought of The Smithereens- A Girl Like You and Edwyn Collins- A gIRL lIKE yOU. But I like both of the songs… don’t really have that much against them.
Strongly agree with woodstockbirdybird re: Led Zeppelin.
95% of Beatles songs are trite and dull.
Now that’s just crazy talk. His best move was discovering Emmylou Harris, but inventing country rock wasn’t a bad move either.
Oh, and the Beatles suck.
The mind boggles at anyone claiming Led Zeppelin sucks, or that they were outright thieves of other’s music. Sure, they borrowed riffs and even lyrics from those that came before them, but what rock band isn’t doing that? And Zep did it better than most, and in a very musical and interesting fashion as well.
I just cannot wrap my head around that line of thinking. And I can barely stand to hear much of their catalogue anymore as its been played to death, but props to them for their many accomplishments. Its not like they never ever wrote an original song of their own, ya know.
And Floyd is shite? Jesus wept. You know what is largely shite? The noise that passes for punk music, a few examples aside. Its funny that most people that think Pink Floyd sucks immediately cite punk as some elevated form of rock and roll…its not.
Punk is more primal, Floyd is cerebral. The essence at the core is the same. Sheesh. Some people!
Punk is just noise. So is rap, hip-hop, crunk, and anything else anybody under 30 likes.
This I believe:
Frank Sinatra is the worst wannabe crooner ever and he couldn’t act.
Ditto for Neil Diamond.
Neil Young and Willie Nelson should always write songs and never, ever perform them.
Rap and hip hop are not musical genres. They are examples of plagiarism and a contest to see who can get the most sheepish audience members to repeat “Yeah!” and “Oh” the loudest.
Jimmy Buffet should just stick to boats.
Well, I dont agree with the first, but I sure do agree with the second. The wikipedia section on this goes into a number of details. Considering how often they had to change their credits, I think I’m going to have to go along with the general accusation of widespread thievery.
Its rock and roll. Its all a form of thievery couched in terms of respect of those whom came before. So they don’t give credit to Blind Dog Willie from 1954 for a riff? Really? Rock music is nothing if not a gradual building process upon what came before.
I take offense to Jimmy Page in particular as being portrayed as a plagiarist. The guy was amazing. Fuck the haters, I say. YMMV of course.
ETA: and furthermore upon reading your Wiki cite, that accounts for like six songs out of the entire Zep canon. Not a horribly obscene example of plagiarism. Rock music IS plagiaristic by nature.
Why does the mind boggle? I’m sure there are plenty of people whose favorite artists you think are crap. There’s nothing objectively “awesome” about Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd. You just happen to like them. I don’t. I contend that if you showed some alien race “The Song Remains the Same”, they’d come away with the idea that rock music was boring and meandering (and masturbatory). As far as “cerebral”, IMO, any random song by the Ramones or Devo is smarter than the entire canon of people like Floyd or Dylan or Sting. But I don’t claim my aesthetic carries the force of immutable fact.
De gustibus non disputandum est.
It’s disgusting watching people “debate” each other about their favorite bands as if they’ll somehow convince them that their tastes are inherently superior. What someone likes in music others dislike. When someone likes something complex, another complains it’s needlessly complex. When someone likes something simpler, another complains it’s bland. I thought this thread would just be a place to complain about bands you didn’t like and didn’t expect anyone to actually attempt to argue back.
I will say one thing though: music from 1965 or so on has made a much larger impression on younger audiences than music from previous eras. That need not say anything about its quality, but somehow despite the music industry pushing new music down people’s throats, there’s a decent contingent of people still very interested in popular music from before they were born. I can’t imagine people from previous generations being interested in anything resembling the same quantities, or with the same enthusiasm.
Not that many people from previous generations had the sheer easy access to the vast music library that the current generation does.
Growing up I was limited to what I heard on the radio and what was available at a local record shop, and of course my meager budget. I remember a newsprint type mail order catalog that you could order out of the ordinary records from, but it’s hard to listen to a record on the pages of newsprint. Today, it’s easy to listen to whatever the hell I want to. And because of this, I find myself listening to a greater variety of music.
So what does this mean? When I say your music sucks, there is very good chance that I’ve listened to a lot of it (and of course, I am right). 
There will always be people - especially young people - who have to take a contrarian stand and proclaim that the music that came before them sucks, or that the most popular bands all suck or whatever.
For the record:
Frank Sinatra was an interpretive genius.
Led Zeppelin were heavily influenced by the blues - along with about 80% of other rock bands. And here’s a newsflash - great blues players stole from each other, too. That doesn’t change the fact that their reinterpretation of it was fantastic, that Robert Plant is one of the great all-time rock vocalists, and that Jimmy Page was one of the all-time great rock guitarists and songwriters.
Pink Floyd Rocks. Or at least, it did in the 1970’s.
A lot of punk music was great, but a lot of it was just posturing assholishness by people who didn’t know how to play instruments very well.
Eric Clapton and Paul McCartney are similar - two of the most talented musicians of the last century, brought down by questionable taste in soft rock music. But both of them have hit highs in songcraft that lesser artists could only dream of.
U2 is okay, although the Edge’s constant ringing guitar riffs tend to blend into each other after a while and the music loses its impact.
Bob Dylan wrote some of the best songs of the 1960’s, and has been almost unlistenable ever since. Especially live. Here’s a fun game: Go to a Bob Dylan concert, and try to guess what song he’s playing. Hint: The difficulty level will be determined by whether or not his meds have kicked in properly.