ilovefuzz.com

Most music is lacking in creativity.

Being loud for the sole sake of being loud is a pain in the ass.

Releasing self titled albums that aren't a band's first album. Or worse, releasing multiple self titled albums.

Alternatively, not titling any of your songs, ala the first Buried At Sea record.

RR Bigman wrote:bands that synchronize headbang every other riff

Headbanging of all forms is rad.

(I'm just catching up on this thread... ) - pretty much all bands should read this entire thread then fuck off. So much good music drowned out by suckage.

D.o.S. wrote:Most music is lacking in creativity.

But it's hard for me to comprehend an entire realm of genres that are fundamentally based on staying "within the box" (moreso referring to folk-derivatives there).

jfrey wrote:Releasing self titled albums that aren't a band's first album. Or worse, releasing multiple self titled albums.

So, Metallica and Weezer?

God I hate Weezer so much. Also Killswitch Engage, and any other bands that do that.

Bands *not* having a female bass players. :P

mathias wrote:Bands *not* having a female bass players. :P

Shit son, I forced my bassist to switch genders just to appease this.

And Weezer are the most mediocre band ever. Like they try really hard to not sound all that interesting.

mathias wrote:Bands *not* having a female bass players. :P

would kill to find one. you would think in a booming metropolis this would not be such a hassle.

snipelfritz wrote:

mathias wrote:Bands *not* having a female bass players. :P

Shit son, I forced my bassist to switch genders just to appease this.

And Weezer are the most mediocre band ever. Like they try really hard to not sound all that interesting.

Except for how the blue album was good and Pinkerton is just about the best thing ever, and Songs from the Black Hole is one of my favourite "lost projects that should have been amazing", I totally agree. What the hell happened to them?

Along those lines, bands getting LESS interesting later in their career. That's not the way that should work.

monkeydancer wrote:Along those lines, bands getting LESS interesting later in their career. That's not the way that should work.

That describes almost every band I can think of. The only bands I can think of that don't fit that pattern either broke up at their peak, or someone died.

If a band broke up at their peak, how do you know it was their peak? But that is totally true, most bands do hit a peak. What I think is cool is when after that, even if I don't enjoy their new stuff as much, they're still trying new stuff, like say Radiohead or The Clash (Sandinista and Combat Rock were largely bad but you can't deny that the band was experimenting and also both contained some fuckin gold). I can totally respect that even if I don't love the music, but bands just doing the same thing over and over? That's pretty bad, unless it's a really great thing, I guess.

Finding it hard to properly articulate my thoughts on this, it's confusing, I'm bad at explaining things and a little tipsy.

lazy rhythm sections. Bassists should be doing more than just miming the guitarist/root notes all the time. Drummers: no more boring Lars Ulrich beats. I know I'm just a dirty six stringer, but sometimes I do want the rest of musical instrumentation to be exciting/prominent in music (which brings up something else; not being able to distinguish the bassist from the guitarist sonically)

monkeydancer wrote:If a band broke up at their peak, how do you know it was their peak? But that is totally true, most bands do hit a peak. What I think is cool is when after that, even if I don't enjoy their new stuff as much, they're still trying new stuff, like say Radiohead or The Clash (Sandinista and Combat Rock were largely bad but you can't deny that the band was experimenting and also both contained some fuckin gold). I can totally respect that even if I don't love the music, but bands just doing the same thing over and over? That's pretty bad, unless it's a really great thing, I guess.

Finding it hard to properly articulate my thoughts on this, it's confusing, I'm bad at explaining things and a little tipsy.

Yeah, I hear ya. I guess the one I keep thinking of is Isis, which broke up right after releasing either their best album, or their second best (I would be fine agreeing with either statement). They hadn't gone stale or run out of ideas, in fact, they openly said they wanted to stop before that happened. And I really respect that, even if I would have loved to hear another album or two from them.

But then so many bands end up staying together at least 2 or 3 albums too long (or like 6 albums too long in Metallica's case ), and it's just really depressing to watch sometimes.

Or take Mogwai. I don't hate them, not at all. But for their first four albums, I liked each one more and more, and then after Happy Songs, I've liked each successive one less and less.