Here, in no particular order are some Canadian - and mostly, Vancouver - bands that suck. Nickelback because they're boring and that Chad guy's voice is irritating and his lyrics suck; Theory of a Deadman, because even their name sucks, and they're just another cookie cutter rock act and the singer looks like a Village People reject (he's the biker); Default (see Theory of a Deadman - augh I puke); Econoline Crush because I knew the guy who originally formed the band and they stole the name from him and their music just irritates me; 5440 because they haven't changed in the last 15 years and that Neil guy's voice is so monotone it's not even funny and they ripped off Molly's Lips; Moist causes me physical pain - that guy whines and calls it singing; Avril - she's not really a band but I hear she's a little bitch and they have to use a pitch shifter to fix her voice in the studio; Sloan because they can't pick a sound and stick to it and they over-produced their first album and ruined Underwhelmed; Simple Plan are unoriginal and the guy's voice hurts my ears. I'm sure there are more but this is getting embarrassing. Even though I can't stand Matthew Good I can still respect his talent. Bryan Adams also totally sucks. Ok, on to the bands that don't suck!
Posted by Lord Maniac at September 16, 2003 09:11 PMSloan because they can't pick a sound and stick to it
You mean like the Beatles, or U2, or Led Zeppelin , or the Cure? Wait a minute, you complain that Sloan can'tg stick to something but then complain about 54-40 not changing? Put down the crack pipe!! And when did Matthew Good have any talent?
Listen Khensu - don't make me come over there! Sloan had an ok sound at first but now it's just regurgitated Canadian rock pap. As for 54-40, maybe I should have said "evolving". As for U2, they SUCK! And as for Matthew Good, he has talent but I don't like his music much.
Posted by: Lord Maniac at September 16, 2003 11:46 PMSo how do you define Canadian rock pap exactly? Is rock music that's Canadian some how sub-par just by that label?
In this article
you refer to Sloan as a BTO/Chicago ripoff. Although I fail to see the comparison, are you saying that BTO and Chicago suck now given that Sloan's sound has sucked? And by labelling Sloan as a BTO/Chicago ripoff, doesn't that mean sloan has a specific unchanging sound that you can label?
I don't understand how you can say that Sloan had an ok sound at first but in the blog entry you say it was overproduced and ruined.
Also I didn't say that I thought U2 was good or bad. I said they were not stagnant in their sound.
Regarding 54-40, Although I don't listen to them much anymore as my musical tastes have changed since the 90's, I can point to the chain of albums, "Fight For Love", "Dear, Dear" and " Smilin Buddha Cabaret" for one example of evolution in the 54-40 sound. The song "Assoholic" certainly wouldn't be found among the songs self-titled album.
Are we having fun yet?
Posted by: KhensU at September 17, 2003 12:56 AM
Music's a pretty personal and subjective thing and apparently I've pushed a few of your buttons here. But I can actually back up everything I've said. Regarding pap, I didn't intend to define it as Canadian or otherwise. And by saying that Sloan is pap, I mean in the sense of regurgitating music that's already been made and not really giving us anything new or of substance.
Perhaps Sloan belongs in a third category for bands that disappointed me. Then I could add Smashing Pumpkins among others. To see where I'm coming from, take the whole grunge genre as an example. When Sloan first appeared on the scene, they were lumped into that category, good or bad. But the original version of Underwhelmed certainly fit nicely. And when they redid it for their debut album it didn't sound like grunge anymore – see if you can find the two different versions and compare – you might have to watch the videos. Along these lines we have Smashing Pumpkins. Gish was a great album, Lull wasn't bad, and everything after that was just lame. Billy Corgan even admitted that he'd let a lot of his former fans down with their change in direction.
So what's my point? A lot of my animosity comes from these kinds of things. I guess where I'm going with this is that people have bands that they like and get disappointed when they make a change – as they see it – for the worse. It’s ok if the band grows and evolves and changes along with its audience, but sometimes they make a complete 180 or go off on some tangent that leaves a lot of people scratching their heads.
Sloan to me sounds like a combination of Chicago, BTO and even AC/DC – among others. 54-40 is one of those bands that maybe I just outgrew. U2 blatantly ripped off A-Ha’s “Sun Always Shines on TV. I have reasons for feeling the way I do about all these bands. I suppose people want bands like the Rolling Stones to sound like the Rolling Stones, and when they don’t it’s a bad thing. I personally don’t care for the Rolling Stones but you get the idea. There are lots of Canadian bands that I like and many even helped define rock music as it is today – like Lighthouse, BTO and the Guess Who. But that doesn’t mean I owe Sloan anything just because they’re Canadian. They have yet to define anything new in my eyes.
How about we talk about bands that rock...mainly because it's more challenging. I do realize that being challenged involves work...and I'm not sure if people can handle that! How come so many people talk like they're an authority anyway? Anyways, check out http://www.starewell.com. I like the band. You might not, but I don't really care what anybody thinks about bands. If I did, I'd have these people listen to music for me too!
Posted by: Dozzel at October 23, 2003 05:58 PM