Welcome back ladies and gentleman, to the second half of my rant. Brace yourself; there are some bands on here that are a bit on the controversial side (although it should probably be me bracing myself, come to think of it. So... yeah. Ignore that last comment.) so this should get interesting.
Ghost.
First up in my firing zone is the band Ghost. I saw these guys recently whilst on the 'Defenders of the Faith III' tour. (For those of you that missed it, you really did miss out.) I went into that gig with an open mind, with no knowledge about the band, except that the way they dress looks hilarious, and that they apparently were a Satanic, theatrical band.
Were. They. Shite.
I was on the front row for that gig, and so could see behind the curtain, to the back stage type bit on the side.So when the operatic music hit, and the room filled with the stench of dry ice, all I could see in the dark was a Pope hat bobbing up and down behind all the amps, a pretty funny sight to behold. What made it even funnier was how fake and tacky the 'Ghoul' costumes were, with little slits for mouths and eyes and the bling necklaces they wore. I know they need to breathe and things, as they obviously weren't real ghouls, (duh), but it still looked incredibly funny.
Now, if a band claims to be atmospheric, Satanic, and theatrical, what type of genre would you assume them to be? Doom? Industrial? Black Metal? Something heavy and foreboding, to be sure. Well you would all be completely wrong.
After intro music which is in fact very heavy and atmospheric, you would certainly expect more of the same. But no. The lead singer I think sounds like a weaker version of Matt Bellamy, and the music is just plain bizarre, and incredibly boring, with one dreary sound after another that could lull an insomniac to sleep. Ghost's definition of 'theatre' and 'theatrics' is apparently standing completely still, with some lights flashing here and there. Now that, to most people, isn't even a definition of 'remotely interesting' or 'entertaining'.
Don't get me wrong, there are support bands I've seen which are worse, (but none which have made me laugh so much for all the wrong reasons) and bands out there which are worse musically, to be sure. But they, like Greenday in the previous post, are claiming to be something they're quite clearly not. The music and the image just don't add up, and nor do they compliment one another either.
I wasn't the only one thinking this either, as they didn't exactly go down too well. They were booed the entire way through the set, chants of 'Paedo!' shouted at the singer (if he dresses like the Pope, what did he honestly expect?) and were so uncohesive as a band that when the keyboards stopped working for the final song, it didn't make a blind bit of difference to the sound.
Plus the combination of both incense (a cloying, heady smell which is disgusting in its own terms) and dry-ice is possibly one of THE most vulgar, cough inducing odours I've ever known. And I live in a place which is more often than not on fire.
Opeth.
This is the one which I was nervous about. I should probably guard my front door with my Granda's shotgun right now, or make preparations to get out the country very quickly after saying this. So I'll take a deep breath, and put it out there: I hate Opeth.
Everyone ok still? No one coming to my door wielding pitchforks, fiery torches and sharp, pointy objects? Good, then I can continue whilst only mildly terrified.
All my friends, everyone I know, adores this band. My boyfriend, my friends, some of my family, they all love Opeth. And I just don't get it.
When I saw them in November, with my ecstatic boyfriend and friends, they all adored it, and had an amazing time. To give them credit, Opeth are excellent live; they are completely flawless, so I can't criticise them in any way for that either. Mikael Akerfeldt is one of the best frontman for a band I've witnessed to date, and the light show was superb, but even then after all that, for me, there is something lacking.
There is nothing when I sit and listen to them that I enjoy. Musically, I should technically like it. But I don't. Same with the clean vocals. Again, technically, I should like his voice. I just can't though. It's a perplexing one.
Maybe it's something to do with my strange disliking for people introducing me to bands. I like to find bands by myself, so when people show me a band, I won't listen until I want to. Perhaps a bit unusual and selfish, but I've always been the same. And yet... It was through my boyfriend I learnt of Nevermore. I listened when he showed me, and I liked them. 'Born' still has one of my favourite choruses, and 'This Godless Endeavor' is just plain gorgeous. So why isn't it the same story with Opeth?
Whenever I hear them, time just seems to go in ultraslow motion. I recently resat my AS English Language exam. A full 2 hours of picking out declaratives, exclamatives and many other lexical devices ending in -tives and THAT felt like it was going quicker. I respect them, they are an innovative, creative force to be sure, but the fact of the matter is this - I still cannot stand them.
Sorry.
Bring Me The Horizon.
Right, I'm going to say this immediately - I couldn't give less of a shit how this band look. That isn't what I'm going to moan about (much). I don't like how they look, personally, but that doesn't affect their music in any way, and it isn't a reason for my including them in this list, nor is it a reason why I dislike them in the first place.
No, the reason I dislike them is because, frankly, I detest their music. More specifically, I hate Oli Sykes attempts at screaming. They're rubbish on album, and even worse live. I don't know if he just doesn't understand the technique to scream without sounding like a cat yowling at the moon, or how to scream in a way where the lyrics are actually decipherable, but either way, he can't do it. The latter part of that is something many a screamer struggles with, so it seems, and so it isn't just something I loathe in BMTH. In their case it is, however, incredibly noticeable.
Some bands can get away with it due to the clean passages being impressive, or at least monotonous enough to sound like every other post-metalcore band that is popular this week. Oli Sykes isn't one of them. The only conceivable reason I can think of for their success is that they were one of the first to sound like they do.
By that I of course mean sounding like one big breakdown. Which brings me neatly onto my next point:
WHY DO YOU NEED SO MANY BREAKDOWNS?!! Seriously? Just why?
You can't really tell, but even now they are midway through a breakdown.
It's something which I just cannot comprehend. I don't see the need to fill a song with something so meaningless and dull. A small breakdown section, sure, I can understand. It can be emotive, atmospheric, dynamic. But if there is a higher ratio of breakdown to actual song, it seems stupid to me. Why not use a guitar solo? An opening lick, to entice the listener? A great chugging riff? No?
I understand there is a certain audience demographic with bands like this, and I'm perhaps not part of that demographic. I won't pretend to understand everything (or anything near everything) when it comes to music, but even then, surely they must see that enough is enough?
Will it reach a point where the there isn't anything in a song which isn't a breakdown? If that happens, I don't think I want to live on this planet anymore.
Guns 'n' Roses.
Guns 'n' Roses are a band which I have always thought to be highly overrated. There are riffs, and a song or two, which I do like, but overall, I wouldn't call myself a fan. The problem isn't the music, by any means, in fact, I really like the music. The problem for me is Axl Rose. I hate his singing. It sounds like a pig being slaughtered slowly whilst being strung up. Harsh (on the pig that is) as it may be, his voice is one which I cannot abide. I will throw my hands up in the air and say that I am very picky about vocalists, and many people don't get how irratic and random I am about which vocalists I do and don't like.
That isn't my main problem with Axl, or GnR though. Lets not forget that GnR are a different band now (or as I call them 'Axl Rose and Pals') and that they still produce music. When he finally regurgitated 'Chinese Democracy' after however many years, even if it had been made of pure gold and embellished with diamonds and unicorns, after so long, there was no way feedback would be positive. It had been too long, and there was too much hype about it for it to even stand a chance.
Even then, I think everyone was expecting a lot more than what we actually got. Riddled with all sorts of shit, 'Chinese Democracy' was possibly better left as a myth until the end all time, the 'What If?' album as it were. The musicians that work with Rose, such as Buckethead, aren't to blame, don't get me wrong. I've nothing against them. No, the blame lands squarely on Axl's shoulders. Maybe his short shorts were too tight (most probably) and somehow stopped oxygen getting to his brain, and so he just wrote whatever he could as fast as he could.
My other main problem with Axl is how he treats his fans these days. A few years ago, with BFMV supporting, Axl and co toured the UK. Being massive GnR fans, my mother, as well as a few other people I am acquaintenced/friends with went to see him. On this particular night, he refused to get off the plane until he got his Sunday dinner, so they didn't start until 10 p.m and even then apparently someone threw a penny at him, and so he stormed off stage mid-song, and refused to come back on again for an encore. They didn't even play 'Paradise City', one of the most well known and loved Roses songs.
Chances are that he dropped the penny himself, but that is against the point. The point is that those people had paid a lot of money to go to see this little temper tantrum. What's more, a lot of people are still going to Roses gigs, and it has become a common occurance, often with gigs not starting until about midnight. How can he think that behaving like that is acceptable? I know 2 year olds that have grasped the concept of manners and social decorum better than Mr. Rose. Being an A list rock star doesn't entitle you to slaughter your legacy every night, butcher your own songs brutally with every note you miss (which is all of them) and treat your fans, the people that have stood by you all this time, and have waited for you whilst you threw a hissy fit, and then treat them worse than the ground you walk on. Nothing entitles anyone to do that. Ever.
Do you know who I feel worst for though? The rest of the band who put up with this behaviour. The manager, the road crew, the people that have to work with him on a day to day basis. They might get paid a lot to put up with this shit, but imagine how humiliating it must still be. Night in, night out, gig after gig having the same embarressing outcome. I know I couldn't be that patient, and I don't understand how they can be. They must have the patience of a saint and the most powerful stomachs known to man, considering how, even now, Axl won't drop the short shorts.
Imagine working with this, everyday.
I feel bad for those that still pay to see this circus, this relic of a band which were once so great. It's such a shame.
Black Veil Brides.
Anyone who knows me at all will have known this was coming. There is nothing about this band that I like. Not their looks, not their music, not their attitude. What I especially hate is their blatant attempt to be Motley Crue. From quoting them and claiming it to be something they've said themselves ('Just because we wear makeup, doesn't mean we can't still kick your ass'), to copying their fucking t-shirt designs, they've imitated it all.
Motley Crue t-shirt of the Crue during the 'Shout At the Devil' era.
Black Veil Brides. Look familiar? If this is a coincidence, my name is Nikki Sixx.
It pisses me off that some band think they can copy from one of the best bands there have ever been, and then pretend like it's their own idea. Ok, the makeup hasn't been stolen from the Crue, that's been stolen from KISS instead, but the surname originally used by lead singer Andy Biersack, originally Andy Sixx, is as obvious as you can get without shouting the words 'I wanna be like Nikki Sixx!' (That priviledge instead goes to Zakk Sandler, of Black Tide). It's like they don't even care that they are trampling all over two of the biggest and best bands there are.
I listened to the entire album diplomatically when I went to review it, ignoring all preconceptions I had of the band, their image and their ridiculous music video for Fallen Angels, and even then I couldn't find a single thing I liked. One song was a watered down, bad imitation of Avenged Sevenfold. They're like one of those gimmick bands for Sex Pistols or Iron Maiden. Except they're far more musically challenged and less creative.
A lot of their material fades into nothingness, behind all the imagery and makeup, there is just nothing there. They're like a porcelain vase; attractive to some, repulsive to others, and beyond that just completely empty. They lack musicianship, skill and the general traits that make a band actually good. There is a difference between success and popularity. A band like Muse (even if I'm not a fan) are successful, and so can sell out stadiums anywhere they like. Bands like BVB and Asking Alexandria, BMTH and Of Mice and Men are popular. That is to say, they're here today, and gone tomorrow. They're just another musical fad, lacking the substance and strength to keep going, even when that style isn't popular.
The singers can't sing, screamers lack the ability to scream properly, and there is breakdown after breakdown after breakdown. Followed swiftly by another breakdown. It's just... tiring.
After all that though, I feel like I should say that I don't think that all modern bands are like that. I think there is a light at the end of the tunnel, in the not too distant future. I talk of bands such as Rise to Remain, whom do use breakdowns, but not to the same extent. They also understand musicianship, are exhilirating to watch live, and their material is catchy, good to sing along to and there are some tremendous guitar solos in there. Yes, I said solos. Not just breakdowns.
A band that care about more than just 15 minutes of fame. And can actually play their instruments.
It gives me hope that there are still bands out there like this. Yes they can relate to the same audience demographic, but they also have the ability to pull away from post-hardcore, and don't sound like the same old shit as everything else out there at the moment.
There are bands like Savage Messiah too, revitilising and revising the old thrash era, much like Evile are becoming known for doing.
I've seen all three of these bands in action, and it was a breath of fresh air. Bands that are in it for the longitudinal success, not the instant popularity. Bands who are in it for the music, the fans, the freedom, not just instant fame and fortune. Bands that aren't afraid to be just a little bit different to everyone else, to break the mould just that little bit.
So it's nice to know that, even with all these bands I dislike, there are plenty of bands out there, new and old, that I love, and that there are many more exciting young bands that I have yet to discover.
GNR live off Appetite which in its time was as game changing as Smells like teen spirit was years later and really blew any othe other big Hair Metal bands of the time away.
ReplyDeleteI will come round pitchfork in hand next time round re opeth.
The guy from Gallows has been kicked out so you might need to remove them from the list, Grey Britain was amazing as well.
Green Day were punk, there was a load of sub genres mainly in the US that came out of US punk which was different in sounds and attitude over UK punk, bands like Black Flag, Dead Kennedy's, Ramones etc some were heavy hardcore stuff like Sick of it All, Integrity and Slapshot and the pop punk stuff that I guess is what you would see on the Vans type tour now but basically all came through Fat Mike records and Epitaph stuff like NOFX, Pennywise etc. Green Day and Offspring came out of that got picked up by the majors left their original fanbase behind (who hated the band as soon as they signed to the majors accusing them of sell outs)and definatley moved towards the more commercial side. I would add Rage against the machine in the faux revolutionaries category, fuck the system from my mansion.
I know about G'n'R, they were genre defying, but I still think they are overrated.
ReplyDeleteI'll bear that in mind next time and make sure to flee to safetly.
I know Frank was kicked out, replaced by some fat guy that looks a bit like a bear. They're still a band I dislike though, with or without him, because I detest shouting screams, so that's why i included them on the list.
The thing is, Green Day may have punk roots, but they aren't punk now. Not at all. They still claim to be though, and that really irks me. I don't like using the word sell out or mainstream, but their recent albums are very much liek that. Can't say for Offspring though.
And I know, Tom Morello makes a lot of revolutionary speeches and things really, but it just feels like words after awhile, like he is just going through the motions.