Worst rock bands

I much prefer your average bar-playing band than Nickelback.

And the OP specified that this is about famous bands.
 
Yeah it's pointless to even have a thread like this if we don't exclude bands nobody has ever heard of. We'd all just make something up in an attempt to sound cool.

I think the worst band of all time is The Monthly Cheese Explosion, they're just terrible!

(Sounds like a Frank Zappa cover band)
 
This local (i think they are from Athens) band is pretty horrible. I think they are dead now (as a band). :)


Link to video.

I only listened to this song, and tried to hear another one, but gave up after 5 sec and repressed its title.
 
I don't know how a band with a catalog like U2 could possibly even be considered among the worst bands. Their music may have been better 30 years ago, when Bono still worshipped Christ and before he started worshipping, well, Bono - but they managed to reinvent themselves and stand out and remain relevant at a time when pretty much every other band of their era was reduced to a novelty touring act.

Here's U2, circa 1993. One of their more underappreciated songs:


Link to video.
 
The 'worst rock band ever' is probably a group of higschoolers that barely know how to even play and can't write anything coherent. In other words, people that can't make money, certainly not enough for an actual living, off their music.
High schoolers who barely know how to play is Punk Rock, therefore, not the worst band ever.

To genuinely qualify for "worst ever" status, they'd have to make a living at least, because then the redeeming "at least they're in it for the music" card is not automatically available.
 
Every single band that I think is horrible excels at sucking in some particular way... and usually is so good at that particular way of sucking that I can't really call them horrible. Nickelback is for example a very successful band. They sell out shows and know how to play instruments. Their vocalst can even sing. These qualifications are already well beyond "the worst". And then on top of that there's the fact that they've created a cookie cutter method of creating generic & bland rock-like lullabies that appeal to a large segment of the population. These guys are succeeding big time while also sucking big time. At the same time. That's not easy to do.

I think to be in the worst band, you can't really be financially successful on such a scale, some of your band members can't know how to play instruments, and you have to suck at a lot more than just writing good songs and performing them.

I used to go to a lot of punk shows when I was in highschool, and most of the time it was random local bands. You pay $5, you see 6 bands, you get a good workout in the moshpit for a couple hours, and go home with your ears ringing.. And some of those bands were absolutely horrible. They just sucked at everything. Oh, there were a lot of good bands too! It's just that there were some really bad ones in the mix. It just came with the territory. A lot of good bands, but when they got bad, the standards were very low, so anything was possible. And some of them might have just been kids or part timers, but there were actual "this is my full time job, i drive from town to town and play punk rock wherever I go" type dudes..

So I've definitely at some point seen a couple bands that might qualify for a "the worst band ever" type label.. but I couldn't really tell you which bands that might have been. So let's go with the black eyed peas? They look rock enough to me.
 
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure no one in the Black Eyed Peas even plays the guitar. You might as well call the Pet Shop Boys "Rock".

Although if you think they're simply the worst band/musical group in general, fair enough. :lol:
 
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure no one in the Black Eyed Peas even plays the guitar.

That's how bad of a rock band they are, they don't even have anyone playing the guitar.
 
I don't understand where you're coming from. They don't resemble a rock band at all. Have you listened to any of their music?
 
That's how bad of a rock band they are, they don't even have anyone playing the guitar.

You're missing the point. No one playing the guitar = in no way rock begin with. Which doesn't mean they can't be legitimately criticized regardless... but "worst rock band" couldn't be one.
 
Having a guitar is a prerequisite to being a rock band, but not a guarantee.
 
What if several limestones could sing, play the drums, lay down sick beats, etc. but lacked the ability to play the guitar? Would that be a rock band?
 
You're missing the point. No one playing the guitar = in no way rock begin with. Which doesn't mean they can't be legitimately criticized regardless... but "worst rock band" couldn't be one.

They're rock stars in a band that doesn't play rock.

But it's all a bit of a joke to be honest.
 
You're missing the point. No one playing the guitar = in no way rock begin with. Which doesn't mean they can't be legitimately criticized regardless... but "worst rock band" couldn't be one.

Interestingly, it depends.

In the earliest rock and roll styles of the late 1940s and early 1950s, either the piano or saxophone was often the lead instrument,

but...

these were generally replaced or supplemented by guitar in the middle to late 1950s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_and_roll

which I didn't know. But it seems you're pretty much correct, anyway. Despite being quite wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom