Five For Fighting's first album sucked really bad.
The New Moral
Five For Fighting's first album sucked really bad.
The color of this signature is really blue. If you see otherwise, please adjust your monitor settings.
Long live Hissyfit
BT Rep: +1
Sparsley asked you a question? Do you even no any "emo" bands?Originally Posted by TheCanuk
There are many diverse groups, that could be considered "emo"
Sunny Day Real Estate
Fugazi
Weezer
Jawbox
Coheed And Cambria
My Chemical Romance
Sparta
Husker Du
Mission Of Burma
Heroin
So, shut it...pussy.
Peace bd
Poster
yeah but most of those bands are priddy shiddy. besides, like, husker du and mission of burma. and their emo-ness is... questionable.
not a very good argument in emo's favor.
as for the original question, it's difficult to put things in such extreme terms as "worst ever"... but then maybe i've been lucky to not spend a whole lot of time listening to music that i've thought was completely horrible. however! i bought joan of arc's first album shortly after it came out, on the recommendation of somebody whose tastes i generally trusted. they said it was a complex, challenging rock album, all that jazz. i guess that was closet emo fan code for "piece of crap." out of a few hundred LPs and just about as many CDs, it's the worst album i own and i wonder why i've never bothered to sell it. i never made the mistake of buying another record that tim kinsella had anything to do with.
Last edited by 3RA1N1AC; 08-27-2005 at 01:33 PM.
This Is My Clone
BT Rep: +19
I can only name a few off the top of my head...they would be...
Limp Bizkit - Chocolate Starfish & The Hotdog Flavoured Water
Hed PE - Only In Amerika
Interpol - Turn On The Bright Lights (I dont care what people say, it's an over-rated piece of shit)
Metallica - St Anger, Re-Load & Load
Puddle Of Mudd - (the 2nd album they made, i cant remember the title)
P.O.D. - (the album they made after Alive)
Simple Plan - (their first album)
Usher - 8701 or whatever it was called
thats 10...there is most probally more i hate, the interpol album i wouldn't of hated if it wasn't hyped and rated so much, but it was a fkn dissapointment when i first heard it. Everything else more than deserved to be on there.
en(un)lightened
Why would I want to torture myself by listening to all the tracks on an album the first track of which I could not abide without tearing my hair out?
How about a thread titled, Albums That Defied Listening To At All, At All...
Last edited by j2k4; 08-28-2005 at 05:19 PM.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Poster
maybe it's a generation gap thing? kids nowadays seem willing to spend more time trying to get a handle on seemingly difficult records that aren't necessarily sequenced in the conventional rock-album form. sure there are still plenty of albums that put the band's catchiest song at the beginning, and the slower subtler stuff evenly spaced throughout the middle, etc. but that isn't the absolute rule anymore.
imho the once "experimental" attitudes of the later beatles, beach boys, etc albums are becoming the norm, now. so... rather than expecting albums to be like a compilation of catchy singles padded with some filler material, young music fans nowadays think more in terms of the overall structure & consistency & such of each album. they're not so quick to write it off just because the first song stinks for instance, 'cause maybe it gets better toward the middle or the end, or maybe once they've heard the full album it'll all make perfect sense and suddenly that first song no longer stinks after they've got a more complete look at what the band's trying to achieve.
*shrugs* i guess i'm suggesting that the focus has shifted away, somewhat, from individual songs as discrete mini-works of art... and shifted toward the album as a larger more complex work.
Last edited by 3RA1N1AC; 08-28-2005 at 07:19 PM.
en(un)lightened
As good an analysis as any...better than most, I expect.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
yeeehaw
Eleventeen - Daisy Chainsaw
American Idiot - Greenday
Free All Angels - Ash
Gusto - Guttermouth
Walker - Joe Strummer
American Cheese - Nerf Herder
I used to be a flier, now I ramble.
Hey you kids, never suck all the juice out of a tractor.
Pneuberator.
I actually bought that fkn cd
1st cd I paid for in years it seems, and it sucked
never again
it kinda soured me on the whole "let's go and spend money to support teh artists" idea
Last edited by fkdup74; 08-30-2005 at 12:06 AM.
Long live Hissyfit
BT Rep: +1
It's not an argument for "emo". I'm just tired of hearing everyone jump onyeah but most of those bands are priddy shiddy. besides, like, husker du and mission of burma. and their emo-ness is... questionable.
not a very good argument in emo's favor.
as for the original question, it's difficult to put things in such extreme terms as "worst ever"... but then maybe i've been lucky to not spend a whole lot of time listening to music that i've thought was completely horrible. however! i bought joan of arc's first album shortly after it came out, on the recommendation of somebody whose tastes i generally trusted. they said it was a complex, challenging rock album, all that jazz. i guess that was closet emo fan code for "piece of crap." out of a few hundred LPs and just about as many CDs, it's the worst album i own and i wonder why i've never bothered to sell it. i never made the mistake of buying another record that tim kinsella had anything to do with.
the "I hate emo bandwagon". There are some great bands that are considered "emo".
To each their own.
Peace bd
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks