Worst music you've ever heard
- Thread starter Ldude893
- Start date
i used to defend rap with a serious face and iron fist.
....then lil wanye made some song about fried chicken, grape soda and watermelons...
anyone who is reading this i implore you not to post the song...please
....then lil wanye made some song about fried chicken, grape soda and watermelons...
anyone who is reading this i implore you not to post the song...please
This, mostly for the disappointment value.
This is from an album which featured Collapse, Savior, and Hero of War. This is a band whose previous album finishers included Rumours of My Demise and Survive. And they gave us this.
It's not even filler. It's just plain bad.
One of the main reasons the album got lower reviews than it should. (speaking of which I've been meaning to write a review of that for ages...)
This is from an album which featured Collapse, Savior, and Hero of War. This is a band whose previous album finishers included Rumours of My Demise and Survive. And they gave us this.
It's not even filler. It's just plain bad.
One of the main reasons the album got lower reviews than it should. (speaking of which I've been meaning to write a review of that for ages...)
The two worst songs in the history of ever are Trivium's cover of Iron Maiden and Five Finger Death Punch's cover of Bad Company. Bad songs are so much worse when you know they're ruining a masterpiece.
And generally, when metal gets much heavier than say, Devildriver it starts to become unintelligible noise.
And generally, when metal gets much heavier than say, Devildriver it starts to become unintelligible noise.
Tough one. There's so much bad music, where do I start?
alright,
I: Every grunge band that wasn't Nirvana
This is pretty wide ranging. I thought they were all almost uniformly crap. From Eddie Vedder's vocals to everyone who tried to sound like Eddie Vedder afterwords. Creed missed the grunge thing but you can be damned sure that lead singer studied the Vedder bible. Also it tended to be muddy, took itself entirely too seriously, they all gave people this idea that they were "beyond fashion", yet they all inexplicably dressed in the same fucking clothes.
II: Nirvana
Yeah, they weren't going to dodge this bullet (oh too soon?) TO BE CONTINUED...
alright,
I: Every grunge band that wasn't Nirvana
This is pretty wide ranging. I thought they were all almost uniformly crap. From Eddie Vedder's vocals to everyone who tried to sound like Eddie Vedder afterwords. Creed missed the grunge thing but you can be damned sure that lead singer studied the Vedder bible. Also it tended to be muddy, took itself entirely too seriously, they all gave people this idea that they were "beyond fashion", yet they all inexplicably dressed in the same fucking clothes.
II: Nirvana
Yeah, they weren't going to dodge this bullet (oh too soon?) TO BE CONTINUED...
fucking hilarious. oooh boy... I cant even fucking breathe god damnit... what the fuck was THAT!?Z of the Na said:
II: Nirvana
I feel the need to separate Nirvana from the rest of the grunge movement. Grunge really solidified into a marketable sound and image after Nirvana, but Nirvana didn't really...fit in with that. I mean, don't get me wrong they definitely birthed it in many ways, but they were definitely their own band.
Doesn't save them in my eyes. They still made muddy depressing fucking music, and I still didn't like it. I grew up when Nirvana hit it big. I didn't like what came before, the glam metal of the 80's was certainly not glam (Bowie, NY Dolls, T-Rex), and it (I'm assuming the metal heads out there will agree) certainly wasn't metal. It really took the dumbest elements of both glam and metal, left out the good elements of either, and made something just plain bad. So you'd think that I'd appreciate what Nirvana did then, right? I think it's a testament to how much I dislike Nirvana and the sound they birthed into the mainstream that I don't. I appreciate some of the precursors to Nirvana oddly enough, I'm actually a big Pixies fan.
But Nirvana were such a fucking downer. They're music sounded muddy, dirty. The amount of distortion...ugh. I would've welcomed almost anything else to come along and kill glam metal, but Nirvana and the grunge thing they brought with them was just as bad. Just on the polar opposite end of the spectrum. If glam metal was an unintentional parody of celebration, sex drugs and alcohol, Nirvana was an unintentional parody of Woe is me bullshit.
It also really didn't lose any of the machismo from the previous generation. It was still "Guy" music. The modern "Indie" movement (god I hate the term for a genre, but what are ya gonna do), despite what some may say, is a great thing. It doesn't have any of these macho hangups that we've been plagued with for the last thirty years of music.
I feel the need to separate Nirvana from the rest of the grunge movement. Grunge really solidified into a marketable sound and image after Nirvana, but Nirvana didn't really...fit in with that. I mean, don't get me wrong they definitely birthed it in many ways, but they were definitely their own band.
Doesn't save them in my eyes. They still made muddy depressing fucking music, and I still didn't like it. I grew up when Nirvana hit it big. I didn't like what came before, the glam metal of the 80's was certainly not glam (Bowie, NY Dolls, T-Rex), and it (I'm assuming the metal heads out there will agree) certainly wasn't metal. It really took the dumbest elements of both glam and metal, left out the good elements of either, and made something just plain bad. So you'd think that I'd appreciate what Nirvana did then, right? I think it's a testament to how much I dislike Nirvana and the sound they birthed into the mainstream that I don't. I appreciate some of the precursors to Nirvana oddly enough, I'm actually a big Pixies fan.
But Nirvana were such a fucking downer. They're music sounded muddy, dirty. The amount of distortion...ugh. I would've welcomed almost anything else to come along and kill glam metal, but Nirvana and the grunge thing they brought with them was just as bad. Just on the polar opposite end of the spectrum. If glam metal was an unintentional parody of celebration, sex drugs and alcohol, Nirvana was an unintentional parody of Woe is me bullshit.
It also really didn't lose any of the machismo from the previous generation. It was still "Guy" music. The modern "Indie" movement (god I hate the term for a genre, but what are ya gonna do), despite what some may say, is a great thing. It doesn't have any of these macho hangups that we've been plagued with for the last thirty years of music.
Metallica easily ones that award for me.
Which is weird, because Rock is the type of music I like.
Which is weird, because Rock is the type of music I like.
Its iwresteledabearonce but i was making a joke.PurpleSky said:
Let me end this
Anything with core in its genere
/thread
Your guess is as good as mine. There was nothing of value in that song, just a sweaty gorilla howling into a mic. I seriously believe that the lyrics consist of nothing but "OOOOOOOOOOOoooooo oooo ooo oooo oooooo!!!!"Z(ombie)fan said:
Awful.
Now in what world was Kurt Cobain, or any other of the grunge frontmen macho?... Except maybe Chris Cornell, but Soundgarden is really on the line between grunge and heavy...AgentNein said:
As for it being "guy" music, where'd you get that from?
Matter of fact, I'm not even sure I know what you mean about it? Do you mean that it´s music for guys, or that there are only bands made by guys?
The latter might be slightly true, but the first one I dare to say is complete bullshit.