Which Influential Band Inspired The Worst Bands?

**Janszoon** · 08-31-2010, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raust

Metallica

The thrash movement helped create a few genres that followed that were influenced by there style such as Grindcore, Nu Metal and Metalcore all dispicable genres. I blame the thrash movement for this, in particular Metallica.

Grindcore really doesn't belong in that list. It (a) predates Metallica's debut album and (b) can be really, really good.

~~TumorAttitude~~ · 08-31-2010, 10:45 PM

The Beach Boys. "Pet Sounds" was alright the first time, I don't like the thousands of bands trying to regurgitate it....

fritter · 08-31-2010, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

Aerosmith 70`s>Van Halen>New York Dolls>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Aerosmith 80`s-90`s>Kiss>Motley Crue

Motley Crue is awesome. They're total badasses who make music that's fun, catchy and unpretentious. No one's gonna suddenly love Motley Crue just because I think they rule, but I'll defend them anyways:
70s Aerosmith: Even I'll admit 70s Aerosmith is better than Motley Crue, even if I don't like it as much. 80s Motley Crue was way better than 80s Aerosmith and had more good songs that decade than Aerosmith did. On a side note, Motley Crue actually inspired 80s Aerosmith's best song, "Dude (Looks like a Lady)".
Van Halen: Not really much better or worse than Motley Crue, even though 1984 is probably better than any Motley Crue album. The two are comparable because they're the two best bands making invariably unintelligent hard rock/heavy metal. Van Halen is more innovative and technical than Motley Crue, and they've produced more classic albums. However, Motley Crue has always had and still has a better look than Van Halen, and their better-known songs are generally more catchy, memorable, and exciting than Van Halen's are. On the downside, David Lee Roth and Vince Neil are both seemingly charismatic frontmen who suck at singing live.
New York Dolls: Motley Crue is better at almost everything than the New York Dolls are, except maybe creativity in fashion. Motley Crue isn't bad in that department that either, though they actually owe a lot to the New York Dolls. Now you could say New York Dolls is a good in a punk sense in that they're crude and have lots of attitude, and that might be true, but Motley Crue is just as good by those standards.
Kiss: Besides the classic face-paint and the scene in The Decline of Western Civilization Part II where Paul Stanley's on the mattress surrounded by lingerie models, Kiss just plain sucks. Motley Crue's "Dr. Feelgood," "Shout at the Devil," "Wild Side," "Take Me to the Top," "Girls, Girls, Girls," "Kickstart my Heart," "Live Wire" and "Too Young to Fall in Love" are better than anything by Kiss besides "Detroit Rock City." 80s Kiss was worse than dozens of hair metal bands, and every 80s Kiss single was worse than every 80s Motley Crue single.

As I said there was probably no point in saying all that, and it's not pertinent to the thread topic, but this is the first time I've seen a bunch of people bringing up how they don't like Motley Crue (I haven't been here long though). I'm not shocked people here feel that way because most people with good taste in music don't like stuff that's stupid and ugly. I know Motley Crue won't win any converts here, and a couple years ago, I too considered myself above liking Motley Crue. But now I've explored the band's discography and I've read The Dirt, and I think Motley Crue is one of the most definitive rock bands ever and worth defending.

Oh yeah and Tommy Lee banged Heather Locklear, Bobbie Brown (the girl from the "Cherry Pie" music video), Pamela Anderson AND Carmen Electra back when they were hot.

Insane Guest · 08-31-2010, 11:38 PM

Motley Crue has no catchy songs in my opinion, they are just guys who make music to get girls, drugs, and party. They are better known for their attitudes and they're lifestyle more than their music. I have yet to hear one Crue song that is catchy, and I think that Van Halen is a better band in so many levels. To start off and just end it on one note, they have talent. I admit that Kiss sucks, but in my opinion they are still better than the Crue. I think that rock could have gone by with any band with the attitude of Motley Crue, but their music does nothing.
This our opinions like you said.

fritter · 09-01-2010, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xEMGx

Motley Crue has no catchy songs in my opinion, they are just guys who make music to get girls, drugs, and party. They are better known for their attitudes and they're lifestyle more than their music. I have yet to hear one Crue song that is catchy, and I think that Van Halen is a better band in so many levels. To start off and just end it on one note, they have talent. I admit that Kiss sucks, but in my opinion they are still better than the Crue. I think that rock could have gone by with any band with the attitude of Motley Crue, but their music does nothing.
This our opinions like you said.

I never said "Motley Crue is awesome" isn't an objective fact but okay.

Anyways, this song is catchy:

mr dave · 09-01-2010, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fritter

As I said there was probably no point in saying all that, and it's not pertinent to the thread topic, but this is the first time I've seen a bunch of people bringing up how they don't like Motley Crue (I haven't been here long though). I'm not shocked people here feel that way because most people with good taste in music don't like stuff that's stupid and ugly. I know Motley Crue won't win any converts here, and a couple years ago, I too considered myself above liking Motley Crue. But now I've explored the band's discography and I've read The Dirt, and I think Motley Crue is one of the most definitive rock bands ever and worth defending.

HELL YES! The Crue IS freaking awesome. while i personally despise the decadence of the sex, drugs, and rock and roll attitude, there's no denying that it was and still is a major element of rock music. to try denying that Motley Crue were one of the purest embodiments of this attitude is absolute folly.

Unknown Soldier · 09-01-2010, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fritter

Motley Crue is awesome. They're total badasses who make music that's fun, catchy and unpretentious. No one's gonna suddenly love Motley Crue just because I think they rule, but I'll defend them anyways:
70s Aerosmith: Even I'll admit 70s Aerosmith is better than Motley Crue, even if I don't like it as much. 80s Motley Crue was way better than 80s Aerosmith and had more good songs that decade than Aerosmith did. On a side note, Motley Crue actually inspired 80s Aerosmith's best song, "Dude (Looks like a Lady)".
Van Halen: Not really much better or worse than Motley Crue, even though 1984 is probably better than any Motley Crue album. The two are comparable because they're the two best bands making invariably unintelligent hard rock/heavy metal. Van Halen is more innovative and technical than Motley Crue, and they've produced more classic albums. However, Motley Crue has always had and still has a better look than Van Halen, and their better-known songs are generally more catchy, memorable, and exciting than Van Halen's are. On the downside, David Lee Roth and Vince Neil are both seemingly charismatic frontmen who suck at singing live.
New York Dolls: Motley Crue is better at almost everything than the New York Dolls are, except maybe creativity in fashion. Motley Crue isn't bad in that department that either, though they actually owe a lot to the New York Dolls. Now you could say New York Dolls is a good in a punk sense in that they're crude and have lots of attitude, and that might be true, but Motley Crue is just as good by those standards.
Kiss: Besides the classic face-paint and the scene in The Decline of Western Civilization Part II where Paul Stanley's on the mattress surrounded by lingerie models, Kiss just plain sucks. Motley Crue's "Dr. Feelgood," "Shout at the Devil," "Wild Side," "Take Me to the Top," "Girls, Girls, Girls," "Kickstart my Heart," "Live Wire" and "Too Young to Fall in Love" are better than anything by Kiss besides "Detroit Rock City." 80s Kiss was worse than dozens of hair metal bands, and every 80s Kiss single was worse than every 80s Motley Crue single.

As I said there was probably no point in saying all that, and it's not pertinent to the thread topic, but this is the first time I've seen a bunch of people bringing up how they don't like Motley Crue (I haven't been here long though). I'm not shocked people here feel that way because most people with good taste in music don't like stuff that's stupid and ugly. I know Motley Crue won't win any converts here, and a couple years ago, I too considered myself above liking Motley Crue. But now I've explored the band's discography and I've read The Dirt, and I think Motley Crue is one of the most definitive rock bands ever and worth defending.

Oh yeah and Tommy Lee banged Heather Locklear, Bobbie Brown (the girl from the "Cherry Pie" music video), Pamela Anderson AND Carmen Electra back when they were hot.

Without dissecting all this, you`ve actually put a good case across for Motley Crue here, and I`ll admit if the thing were about look and image then the Crue score highly, but if we`re talking quality music then no. The albums "Girls, Girls, Girls" and "Dr.Feelgood" are actually good albums as opposed to the one good album by Kiss "Destroyer" but the rest of Kiss`s material is stronger than the rest of Motley Crue`s. Even though thats not saying too much, as the majority of what Kiss put out is poor anyway.

They lived the rock`n roll, sex and drugs lifestyle as Aerosmith did especially in the 70`s, but sadly they could never put out classic albums like "Toys in the Attic" and "Rocks"

fritter · 09-01-2010, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave

HELL YES! The Crue IS freaking awesome. while i personally despise the decadence of the sex, drugs, and rock and roll attitude, there's no denying that it was and still is a major element of rock music. to try denying that Motley Crue were one of the purest embodiments of this attitude is absolute folly.

Yeah people can dismiss them as having no musical talent (even though I can try to argue otherwise) but no band was ever so decadent. Even bands that got as wasted as Motley Crue didn't get as much quality poontang.

fritter · 09-01-2010, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

Without dissecting all this, you`ve actually put a good case across for Motley Crue here, and I`ll admit if the thing were about look and image then the Crue score highly, but if we`re talking quality music then no. The albums "Girls, Girls, Girls" and "Dr.Feelgood" are actually good albums as opposed to the one good album by Kiss "Destroyer" but the rest of Kiss`s material is stronger than the rest of Motley Crue`s. Even though thats not saying too much, as the majority of what Kiss put out is poor anyway.

They lived the rock`n roll, sex and drugs lifestyle as Aerosmith did especially in the 70`s, but sadly they could never put out classic albums like "Toys in the Attic" and "Rocks"

I don't think Girls, Girls, Girls is as good as Shout at the Devil and when you said "the rest of Kiss's material," did you mean 70s Kiss? 80s Kiss is usually overlooked and for good reason:

I don't mind stupidity in music but I have to draw a line somewhere. The video is hilarious but I wouldn't listen to the song on its own. But I guess I should acknowledge that Kiss is great making money and staying popular, because even their horrific 80s albums sold well.
Maybe when I have enough posts, I should start a thread asking people what stuff they know is cheesy but they still like.

Unknown Soldier · 09-01-2010, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fritter

I don't think Girls, Girls, Girls is as good as Shout at the Devil and when you said "the rest of Kiss's material," did you mean 70s Kiss? 80s Kiss is usually overlooked and for good reason:

I meant in general and I don`t see their 80`s material as being much worse than their 70`s material! In the 70`s their very early stuff like Strutter showed they could put out some good songs and "Destroyer" as an album was the best thing they ever did.

View Poll Results: which of the following influential bands inspired the most crap or copycats?
Nirvana	20	44.44%
Iron Maiden	7	15.56%
Sex Pistols	3	6.67%
Jethro Tull	1	2.22%
Radiohead	3	6.67%
Velvet Underground	1	2.22%
Other	10	22.22%
Voters: 45. You may not vote on this poll

08-31-2010, 10:45 PM	#82 (permalink)
~~TumorAttitude~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Purgatory Posts: 749	The Beach Boys. "Pet Sounds" was alright the first time, I don't like the thousands of bands trying to regurgitate it....

08-31-2010, 11:38 PM	#84 (permalink)
Insane Guest Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: CA Posts: 1,322	Motley Crue has no catchy songs in my opinion, they are just guys who make music to get girls, drugs, and party. They are better known for their attitudes and they're lifestyle more than their music. I have yet to hear one Crue song that is catchy, and I think that Van Halen is a better band in so many levels. To start off and just end it on one note, they have talent. I admit that Kiss sucks, but in my opinion they are still better than the Crue. I think that rock could have gone by with any band with the attitude of Motley Crue, but their music does nothing. This our opinions like you said.