Rolling Stone magazine is no stranger to controversy. Of course, one could argue that such controversies surely do not hurt sales, but that is a discussion for another day.
The thing is that this was not so much an opinion of a writer, as much as it was, at least allegedly, a poll conducted. That way, they themselves are not actually claiming these things.
Here is the list of the worst bands of the nineties, according to Rolling Stone:
1. Creed
2. Nickelback
3. Limp Bizkit
4. Hanson
5. Nirvana
6. Hootie and the Blowfish
7. Bush
8. Spin Doctors
9. Ace of Base
10. Dave Matthews Band
Some of the bands are no surprise. At the very top of the list - justifiably, I would say - would be Creed. Is that really any surprise? This band was actually sued by their own fans for a horrible performance during a concert. This is the band that, in the same week, had a major dispute with Limp Bizkit (no surprise that they ranked high on the list also, coming in at number three), and then talked crap about the band that almost everyone felt that they were ripping off...Pearl Jam). Creed's bassist, Brian Marshall, had once said that not only was Creed not a rip off of Pearl Jam (good luck with that argument, buddy), but in fact, Scott Stapp was superior to Eddie Vedder, and could write better lyrics. He claimed that Pearl Jam was clearly in decline, and suggested that the drop in record sales was proof of this. By contrast, of course, he suggested that Creed was on the rise and growing stronger, although the notion that if any comparison should be made, it should start with comparing the two bands from when they began with their first album, and take it from there, evidently never entered his brain. Fact of the matter is, Pearl Jam have influenced tons of bands, and continue to enjoy a huge following right to the present. The drop in sales that Marshall was so quick to harp on was followed by a spike in sales in more recent albums. To their credit, the rest of the band distanced themselves from Marshall's comments. Here is the link to the article about Marshall's absurd comments:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1427593/creed-bassist-disses-pearl-jam-radio-interview.jhtml
And Creed? Well, they broke up, then got back together again. But you rarely hear them, or about them. Why? Because they irk people. The first album sounded good, but perhaps their overly righteous tone as an unofficial Christian right wing rock band began to rub people the wrong way. Having big mouths did not help, either.
As for those amazing record sales, they were undeniably impressive. But that was not evidence of their long-term greatness, or anything. The band broke up in 2004, only to try it again in 2009. They have remained popular among their fans, and have gone on tours, even getting praise as a good live band.
Still, they suck in my book. Their attitudes were just terrible, and they took themselves way too seriously, apparently feeling entitled as huge rock stars.
The "news" that they topped the list hardly made any splash at all, since many people really can't stand them. Frankly, they don't deserve more time or consideration than what I have already given them, so let's move on...
The big shocker on this list was Nirvana, placing number five. Number five? Nirvana? Really? The band that got the whole grunge/alternative music thing of the nineties going in the first place?
Now, let me be clear here. I love Nirvana, but I can understand when some people suggest that they were overrated. I do no subscribe to that view, but I can only guess that this perception is what some, if not most, of those voting probably meant. Fact is, Nirvana possessed an undeniable energy and attitude that went a long way towards defining the new musical spirit of the nineties, with an emphasis on a more overall toned down approach in terms of attitude and celebrity status, rather than the over-hyped and highly superficial decade that had preceded it.
I cannot agree with them being on a list of worst bands, period.
Another band that I do not agree with being on the list is the Dave Matthews Band. Initially, actually, I was not a huge fan, finding Matthew's voice more irritating than anything. Yet, they were hugely popular, and so I guess I can understand how that would be irritating to people not in on the thing. That said, I overcame my initial distaste, and really have come to appreciate and enjoy their music, and that whole scene. This is way too good of a band to be anywhere on this list.
So, now for some of the others. I can definitely see Nickelback being on the list (at least as one of the most hated, although they've got nothing on Creed). This is a band that does not have an original sound, and who take themselves (particularly the lead singer) waaayyyyy too seriously. That said, I will say this: they should not be on this list, either. While I am not a big fan of their music, it is music, and I can see the appeal. Nothing that they have said or done is so bad that it completely overshadows the music, as is the case with Creed. And now that I have said that, I will also say that this really was not a surprise to me, to see them make this list (and so high on the list), even if I disagree.
Ditto with Limp Bizkit. Not the best, and certainly not the most original sound. Yet another band that took themselves way too seriously, and once again, this is particularly true with the lead singer, Fred Durst. Not the best lyricist of all time. Yet, again, I beg to differ with this list. It is not surprising that they rank high, because they were a hated band. Frankly, they had some good stuff. I listened to them, and if their stuff came on the radio today, I would not be in a rush to turn it off, like with some other bands. They were nowhere near my favorite band, don't get me wrong. I found Durst to be unlikable, often classless, and far too egotistical. But like with Nickelback, it does not so much overshadow the band's music. It is easy enough to see why so many would hate them, and I certainly would not place them among a list of best bands of the nineties. But one of the worst bands of the nineties? they don't quite fit there, either.
Hanson? Well, I understand that they changed their image since. But the cutsie-wootsie crap that this band represented in the nineties was indeed sickening, and so their name belongs in this list.
Hootie and the Blowfish was one of those bands that shot up to the very top quickly, and everyone jumped on their bandwagon. Overrated is the word I would think applies for this band. Among the worst bands of the nineties? No.
Bush? Bush should definitely not be on this list. They also are not going to make the top ten list for the most original band, but they certainly were not horrendous or anything like that. Some of their stuff actually rocked. I am not sure why they even made this list, and disagree with this placement.
Ah, the Spin Doctors. Now, there's a blast from the past. But why are they on this list for worst bands of the nineties? They had some good, solid music. Overplayed and over-hyped? Sure, maybe. But they were not a bad band by any means, and do not serve to be on this list. Hell, if they had a reunion, I might just try to get tickets!
Ace of Base? Well, they recently made news, because the founder of this band, Ulf Eckberg, had formerly been a neo-Nazi. Not sure why that made news, though, because this was already known back in the nineties. I remember my friend telling me about it when an Ace of Base song came on the radio, either in '94 or '95. I wonder if that had some part in this band qualifying for this list? In any case, although their music was not great or anything, they probably don't belong on this list, either.
So, who would I say are bands that deserved to be on this list, but did not quite make it? Well, how about Milli Vanilli? Were they actually the nineties? Backstreet Boys definitely make the list, and I'm pretty sure they were in the nineties. 98 Degrees. The Spice Girls. Maybe MC Hammer. Vanilla Ice. Snow.
Like with the eighties, there are a whole bunch of one-hit wonders that could qualify. I was surprised that Kid Rock did not make this list. I am not a big fan of his, but he would not belong on this list, either, although he seems like a superficial, redneck hick.
Speaking of which, just to reiterate, I again will not argue with the prime placement of Creed on this list. It is well-deserved. Hanson belongs here, also, but probably not as high. Plenty of room for mediocrity, because there was plenty of mediocre music in the nineties, alongside some of the great, more exciting stuff.
I still think Rolling Stone was just trying to make headlines, hoping to see a spike in sales. Maybe this itself would rank high on a worst polls ever about nineties music?
Here is the link to the piece by Rolling Stone (Readers' Poll: The Ten Worst Bands of the Nineties Picks include Creed, Limp Bizkit, Hanson - and one big surprise):
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/readers-poll-the-ten-worst-bands-of-the-nineties-20130509
No comments:
Post a Comment