[Closed] Universally critically-lauded artists that you just can't stand

Led Zeppelin

ABBA and agree with you on Floyd and McCartney. Not a big fan of Led Zep either.

Elbow.
Bob Dylan.
Coldplay.

Rolling Stones

Wouldn't say I can't stand Floyd, but I really struggle to see what the fuss was all about. Same for Zep and - steady now - The Beatles.

Can't stand though? Muse for sure. A lot of Radiohead. And let's not forget Oasis.

The latter were probably not "universally critically-lauded" though.

Coldplay definitely weren't.

Artists? mcmoonter

😉

Coldplay

Fails the universally critically-lauded test

All of them with a few exceptions.

Nirvana

I don't get Tom Waits at all. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to but leaves me cold.

Fails the universally critically-lauded test

Hmmm...I did think that after I typed it.
Whatever - I can't **** stand them.

Beatles.

Anyone who doesn't get Pink Floyd needs to take more drugs.... then you will see.

Sigur Ros
The XX (Jamie excepted)
A lot of Radiohead (but not all)

Yep, Pink Floyd
Radiohead
Does Adele count as Universally critically lauded?
Springsteen
Dylan

There's loads more that aren't in the "can't stand" bracket, but go in the "Really? You think they're that good" category. So they seem alright, a few good or goodish songs, but nothing deserving the pedestal they exist upon:
Kate Bush
Beatles, especially Lennon
Sheeran
Sade
... basically all that 'coffee table' stuff. I might hum along every now and then, but I wouldn't miss any of it.

I don't get Pink Floyd and it's them who need to take more drugs, I'll let Syd off he did his bit.

McCartney
Coldplay, more accurately chris Martin

Adele
Sheeran
Coldplay, more accurately chris Martin

All fail the universally critically-lauded test

Beatles and Bob Dylan.

I won't change the song if a Beatles tune is playing, but I don't actively seek them out. I will change song if Bob Dylan is playing though.

Beatles I just don't get, clearly unaware of the history but I do think it was purely right place-right time and were the fist produced boy band (happy to have people correct me on that, but afraid my view won't change).

Dylan, none of his songs work for me, they all just seem to sound like a drone - suspect I've never been in the right frame of mind, but stone cold sober clearly doesn't have the desired impact!

Of late.. Michael Kiwanuka. Absolutely nothing of any quality I can hear in that bland, generic, music.

I read the title and immediately thought Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin, pair of talentless twunts.

But, then I read and realised musical (sic) artists so yes Pink Floyd. utter drivel

Tracey Emin was absolutely my first thought.

Then when I realised it was about music my immediate thought was Muse.

Amy Winehouse, a voice like nails dragged down a blackboard.

Agree about the Winehouse thing too, like a drunk pubsinger doing 40s jazz karaoke
(actually, that sounds quite entertaining 😆)

So they seem alright, a few good or goodish songs, but nothing deserving the pedestal they exist upon

You could ask what about those who didn't even do a few good or good-ish songs or debatably music at all?

The spice girls etc. seem to fit that for me.

Ray Davies - solo or in The Kinks

John Lennon - solo

Jason Williamson - Sleaford Mods

Courtney Barnett

Alex Rice - Sports Team

Adele. ****ing pub singer.

And while I'm here:

I quite like the Spice Girls. I'd certainly rather listen to the Spice Girls and watch Spiceworld than listen to Pink Floyd and watch The Wall

Just in case anyone is interested,

http://www.stuckism.com/Hirst/StoleArt.html

Adele. **** pub singer.

This is a guess a different question but there are plenty of very good pub singers much better than many universally critically-lauded artists

...whereas I think, I dunno, The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, say, or even Everyone I Have Ever Slept With 1963–1995, add something worthwhile to how I see the world.

But yeah, Kiwanuka and Winehouse do zero for me whilst being critics' faves. Pink Floyd? Echoes is okay, particularly Seamus the Dog. And pre-Echoes that song about the guy who nicked knickers. And the intro guitar to Shine on You Crazy Diamond. And the Scissor Sisters' version of Comfortably Numb.

Beatles, very variable, some absolute classics like Eleanor Rigby, Lucy in the sky with diamonds and then utter rubbish like when I'm 64 or yellow submarine.

Amy Winehouse and Pink Floyd.

I think a lot of it is whether you're into that type of music. Also, a lot of successful artists had a great album or two, but also lots of dross.

Pink Floyd had two great albums, Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here. You have to be in the right state of relaxation to appreciate it though. Sitting there completely sober would not work for me. Their earlier stuff (the Sid Barrett years) is a bit tiresome. The later stuff (The Wall and The Final Cut) was Roger Waters letting his pretentious ego run amok. Best avoided.

Bruce Springsteen nailed the working class guys driving cars and chasing girls in Born to Run. If you're not into that, you aren't going to like his music. He has written an astonishing number of songs. A few of them are excellent, most of them average.

Bob Dylan is probably simultaneously the most overrated and most underrated musician ever. I like his early stuff. The haters who say he can't sing don't know what they're talking about, but he also wrote an astonishing number of songs, most of which aren't great.

Bands like the Spice Girls and Oasis aren't in the same league. They're catchy, but unoriginal.

The singer I really can't stand is Billy Joel. He's trying so hard to do the Springsteen working class guy thing, but it's a nerdy middle class guy's idea of what working class guys are like. He's not a terrible singer, but his songs are just cliched rubbish.

Beatles, very variable

they don't need me to defend them, but whilst for sure there was a right place right time thing, who'd have predicted the place would be Liverpool (or Hamburg)?

Their earlier recordings really swung. And they could sing. And they did a few songs in more of a music hall tradition. The fact they got Ringo to sing most of those should convey that a polished rendition of good music wasn't the main intention.

I quite like the Spice Girls. I’d certainly rather listen to the Spice Girls and watch Spiceworld than listen to Pink Floyd and watch The Wall

Me too, but, come on people, the universally critically-lauded test isn't that hard, and I don't remember the Spice Girls ever passing it.

**EDIT**

Billy Joel

FFS, really?

Sigur Ros
Bob Dylan
Tom Waits

. ABBA and agree with you on Floyd and McCartney. Not a big fan of Led Zep either.

Not having that.

Under attack, on and on. ABBA are great.

Sleaford Mods. Sounds like a drunk ranting at a pillar box.

Elton John, a couple of good tunes but a mega star? Really?

Radiohead have a couple of good tunes but come across, Thom Yorke in particular, as right up their own arses.

I don’t get Pink Floyd and it’s them who need to take more drugs, I’ll let Syd off he did his bit.

Comment of the year 😀

Couldn't agree more. Always used to think of Floyd as psychedelic music for amateurs. Their only really great work is Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun and the few minutes of Interstellar Overdrive where it really kicks off.

On The Beatles - Yeah they had a few good tunes, but no soul or emotional engagement for me.

I'm excepting Here Comes the Sun and Tomorrow Never Knows, both of which I love.

I'm sure Abba took their share of kickings from cool critics BITD, I bloody love them.

the universally critically-lauded test isn’t that hard, and I don’t remember the Spice Girls ever passing it.

I wasn't saying the SG were a Universally lauded band who I didn't like. I was saying I thought they were better than PF when another poster said they didn't like them.

BTW I don't think anyone is "Universally Critically Lauded". Even the Beatles and Dylan get criticism ... not enough in my opinion. That's why I suggested Adele - pretty much all the critics I read seem to think she is some sort of white Aretha with top grade material, whereas I think she's someone who has quite a good voice and some average songs.

Prince. He did one good song about alphabet soup or something. The rest is awful 80s soft rock.

Radiohead have a couple of good tunes but come across, Thom Yorke in particular, as right up their own arses.

Their music certainly gives you that impression, but, whenever I've heard any of them interviewed, it's really, really not the case. They seem really sound, down to earth, witty fellas.

Prince. One good track about alphabeti spaghetti, and the rest is tiresome 80s soft rock. Clearly talented at what he did, just a shame what he did was so crap.

The problem here is that any view is clouded by hindsight and, likely, overexposure. Which bands NOW do you think will change musical direction in 10 years time? Art has to be viewed in context. Muse - even though they are my home town's most famous export.

Yep, Radiohead seem like very smart, switched on people.

Who just happen to make a miserable, caterwauling din.

Were Muse trying to do a "pop" version of them? I have similar, but more intense feelings about their music.

Prince was making some of the best pop music in the world for a few years.

Abba

Unbelievable dirge

Useful thread this, anything named is likely to go down well when busking (with the exception of Pink Floyd, I couldn't bring myself to play that even if people threw tenners in the hat)

Struggling to think of an artist I can't stand that's held in high regard as I can usually find a song I like or appreciate one of the musicians in the group/band having some decent skill. The closest I can think of is the Beatles or U2 but they're more to do with how they're perceived now rather than the actual music as they both have the odd good song in their back catalogue.

Will have a think.

Abba

Unbelievable dirge

Like 'em or not, you need to brush up on your understanding of the word 'dirge', cos they are definitely not that.

Radiohead
Pink floyd
Rolling stones
Paul McCartney
John Lennon
Beatles
Led Zeppelin
Black Sabbath

Michael Jackson
Mariah Carey

She is the reason I no longer mind Last Christmas and the Lennon Christmas song as at least its not her.

Beatles I just don’t get, clearly unaware of the history but I do think it was purely right place-right time and were the fist produced boy band (happy to have people correct me on that, but afraid my view won’t change).

I think it's unfair to call the Beatles a boy band, that term generally carries the connotations that the band was put together by a record label and the creative input from the band's members is minimal. While I've never particularly clicked with the Beatles (I don't dislike them, I just don't give them much attention) I don't believe that either of those connotations apply to them.

Mariah Carey

I give up

Depends on which Michael Jackson we are talking about, Off the Wall and Thriller are stone cold classics - the later period gets progressively worse, coinciding with Quincy Jones deciding to do one.

I played in a function band that had an ABBA medley (too much like Partridge for comfort) and that sealed the deal on ABBA for me, can't bear them now.

Prince.

Re the Beatles, I didn't think about them too much til I tried to play Yesterday in the guitar. Not a huge technical challenge, but it's quite unlike most other pop songs especially from the era whilst not sounding like it. Only.proper musicians do stuff.like that, most pop bands just re-use the standard forms.

I would agree with Adele (above) who seems to have replaced Annie Lennox as the female singer trotted out at every event/awards ceremony as some sort of beacon. Also, I'm not sure what defines "critically lauded" but, how the hell do Ant and Dec win the TV award every single year?

trawled all the way through the thread expecting to see many posts stating/slating U2. iz disappoint.

so.....U2.

how the hell do Ant and Dec win the TV award every single year?

Public vote innit?

U2.

Not univerally critically lauded at all.

Red hot chilli peppers
U2
REM
Cold play

all so full of themselves have disappeared up their own arseholes, thankfully

how the hell do Ant and Dec win the TV award every single year?

Cos the public vote for it, and we all know how the voting public cannot be relied upon...

Nirvana.

Cold play

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

U2.

Not univerally critically lauded at all.

maybe not by you, but i think its fair to say they were in the 80`s.

maybe not by you, but i think its fair to say they were in the 80`s.

I took the thread title to imply that the acts should be critically acclaimed now, or throughout their working life.

Perhaps we need an adjudication from the OP?

Shouty Florence of Florence and the Machine. That ain't singing that's shouting.

U2

Perhaps we need an adjudication from the OP?

I shall allow it, ditto Micko Jacko

The Smiths / Morrissey. Absolutely horrendous dirge.

Agree with Pink Floyd, Coldplay, Beatles especially McCartney.

We all agree Bananerama are brilliant though, yes?

Sam Smith, a whiney needy cockbag

Ok, I'm going to stir the hornet's nest here.
I can't stand;
Morrissey, or The Smiths
McCartney
Beatles
Dylan
Bowie
Lennon
Ac/dc
Metallica
Oasis
NKOTB!

We all agree Bananerama are brilliant though, yes?

Mais oui, bien sur.

Prince. One good track about alphabeti spaghetti, and the rest is tiresome 80s soft rock

I can let a lot of things slide, each to their own and all that. But i must respond to this. You simply haven't heard any of his music, it is very clear. The man was a genius. I am right and you are wrong 🙂

Oasis

The Beatles

U2

Prince

As a big Hendrix and funkadelic fan I should love him but apart from sign of the times and purple rain. Meh!

My other half had his greatest hits and it had the batman theme and diamonds and pearls on. Double meh

Some "tiresome '80s soft rock"...

And probably my favourite (it's a DJ re-edit of I Wanna Be Your Lover)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYVcRtPDoCs

Pink Floyd , Led Zepp , Tom Waits , Leonard Cohen . I'd also say 90% of Oasis tracks are really overated . Of the big hitters I do like they all have a fair chunk of duff tracks , The Beatles , the Who and the Stones.

I always thought the Beatles were overrated, but one day i just ‘got’ them, cant get enough of them now, I think they thoroughly deserving of their place in music history, and history in general!!
Always loved floyd too, especially early Sid Barret stuff, years ahead of its time!
Manic street preachers music is a dreary, miserable dirge imo (except for motorcycle emptiness - still miserable, but less dreary)

Hmmm. Never understood what so many see in the work of David Hockney. Not that it's terrible necessarily.

With music I can pretty easily ignore the poorly played, predictable or manufactured stuff.

Edit: At The Drive In. Having played in several bands with guitarists who worshipped these guys - nah, don't get it at all. Mars Volta, sure, but not their previous band.

Just so we're clear;

dirge noun

Definition of dirge
1: a song or hymn of grief or lamentation
especially : one intended to accompany funeral or memorial rites
a funeral dirge
2: a slow, solemn, and mournful piece of music
3: something (such as a poem) that has the qualities of a dirge