No band technically 'sucks'

I'm often put in a bad mood when I hear people say, certain bands suck. Like sure, people might say Fall out Boy sucks, but man they're really rich and popular, they really do suck. No, they don't suck you're just not a fan of them. They just don't suit your tastes. Every band has it's fans, so I think for a band to actually 'SUCK' it won't have any fans. Even then, the band itself will be fans of thereselves...

 

man some bands and solo acts suck like a trillion zillion billion gazzilion dodeckagahillion tons of sucking force per square 0.0000001 of a millimetre. Madonna for example and elton john and U2 - esp bono and FFS no-one can fail to agree - Take That, Blue, Backpassage boys, and all those other dud boybands also sucked that much

 

primus sucks

 

Elton John does not suck! Well, now he does, but he didn't in the seventies!

There are heaps of bands nowadays that suck... it's just that the people who like them don't realize it because their taste in music sucks, and they don't know how to like good music. They're musically challenged, if you will.

 

Of course certain bands do suck. The ones I don't listen to, for example.

 

Pop Idol really sucks, for example.

 

nickelback.

*end thread*

 

actually, i feel the opposite. Every band sucks - at some point even the greatest bands and musicians have off nights, and it happens in a hall full of listeners. If they havent sucked yet, its only a matter of time! Its more a matter of keeping it to a minimum, and learning from it when it happens.

 

For a band to suck is nothing more than a matter of opinion. I do find it funny when people decide to debate it though, as if there's going to be some sort of "victory" or a "win/lose" situation.

Oh, the joys of heckling a fanboy.

 

Eh, it's all relative.

 

Good point Samson. Disregarding live performances, off nights, etc., it depends on your definition of "sucks." Wikipedia defines it as "a slang term that refers to something unpleasant or deficient," and I would certainly be of the opinion that bands like Nickelback or Creed are unpleasant and deficient of artistic merit, and therefore "suck."

:dupe:

 

I agree with snail.​

and we need to be more accepting of bands.​

I like a lot of bands,​

and they range in many different genres.​

from The Beatles to Primus-​

and even bands/music I don't like--​

I still respect it.​

I think it is a very negative way to think​

to say a bad sucks. ​

It really upsets me that you could down​

people that way.​

I am not a rap/pop fan,​

and honestly I'd like to say it sucks​

and say it's not music.​

But music can be anything-​

you just have to accept it ​

and appreciate it. [[=​

​

 

if I don't like them they suck.

 

As I said in another thread... Bad Religion should change their name to just "Bad"

 

Luckily none of these theories apply to mr. bungle...of course

 

i'm not a music snob.

 

I think some bands technically do suck, but can still mean a lot to some or sometimes even many people. In raw primitive black metal for example, the whole purpose is to make truly dilapidated, ugly music to evoke the right bleak and hateful atmosphere THROUGH bad musicianship, utter simplicity in song structure and ultra-raw and barren production. Bands like Ildjarn, Beherit, Countess, Bone Awl and early Absurd.

 

primus sucks (for real, they really suck)