Guilty anti-pleasures

It’s well established that I typically steal others’ ideas when coming up with posts for my blog. Among my favorite authors from whom to pilfer would be AnonCom and UnHuff (just came up with that; hope that’s acceptable… ). For today’s stolen topic idea, I give credit (and my apologies) to Dan over at Blog Free Springfield.

He had a post the other day in which he talks about bands about which he feels “guilty” for not liking. Guilty annoyances, he called them. My first thought is that one shouldn’t feel guilty in the least for their opinions (”how can you NOT like [insert artist name here]?!”), but I understand what he means. In this case, he essentially refers to feeling guilty for not liking bands that the grand majority of people you would encounter would like. His main “guilty annoyance” was the Beatles. I read some of the reader comments and their favorite bands they love to hate. Some I agreed with, some I didn’t. Rush? THAT hurts, Henny Penny.

Anyway, that got me thinking about bands I can’t stand that, for reasons inexplicable to me, are others’ favorites, but there again, everyone’s entitled to their opinions. So, without further ado, here are my top musical annoyances. Let me preface by saying that I give credit where it is due, with regard to a particular band’s (or genre’s) impact on music, but that still doesn’t mean I have to “like” them.

• The Rolling Stones. Typically, people are either Beatles or Stones. It’s like Coke vs. Pepsi; most people love one and hate the other. Myself, I am a Beatles guy. That’s not to say I submit in holy reverence to the Beatles, but I never got into the Stones.
• “Druggie” music. These are bands I have so dubbed in that, in my opinion, people can really only enjoy (or understand, in some cases) whacked out of their minds on assorted hallucinogenics, since a grand majority of it likely was written in the same condition. These include bands such as Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, the Doors, the Dead, and the solo and combined works of Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young (sounds like a stoner law firm), among others. This also includes the Beatles once they ceased being a pop band and discovered drugs. Full-time, anyway…
• Led Zeppelin. They had a huge impact on rock music at the time, but I don’t like Led Zeppelin. (Is it one L or two? I can never remember.) “Stairway to Heaven” is considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, songs in music history, depending on who you ask, but other than the middle where it rocks out a bit, it’s little more than background music for bubbling bong water.
• Nirvana. It cannot be argued what a profound impact Nirvana had on music in the early 1990s, as documented here, among countless other places. But with the exception of “Smells Like Teen Spirit”, I just never bought in to Nirvana. My brother purt’near worships Kurt Cobain and crew, but I just never got into them THAT much. Other than a smattering of songs here and there, I never really got into the entire genre (grunge, alternative, flannel rock, “the Seattle Scene”, angst rock, whatever you choose to call it): Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden… and though they were a few years later (I think) and not really the same genre per se, I’m also putting Smashing Pumpkins in this category. Basically, “rock” in the 90’s sucked, for the most part. As with the previous two categories, I guess I just don’t do enough drugs.
• Dave Matthews and John Mayer. Both sound like they’re singing with a clothespin on their nose; John Mayer sounds like a more acoustic clone of Dave Matthews. I’ve always been far more into the actual music than lyrics, but here’s a tip: when you sing lyrics, sing them in such a way they can be understood.
• Bruce Springsteen and Bob Seger. Both may well be fine singers. You’d never know, because both sound like they perform all their music while very seriously constipated. Good Lord, guys, take a laxative, pinch it off, and THEN sing.
• U2. War is a terrific album. All their other work is pretty much crap. I think what really gets me about U2 is more that Bono takes it upon himself to preach social lessons non-stop about everything that is wrong with America. There are enough Americans doing that as it is; I don’t need him cramming it down my throat as well.
• “College” music. Bands that people tend to get “into” when they go to college, but can’t quite come to their senses about once they graduate. The poster child here is R.E.M., although I feel Dave Matthews and John Mayer fall in this category as well. R.E.M. front man Michael Stipe can be a societal preacher as well. If other people want to be lectured through music, or by musicians, that’s their binniss. I don’t. Music, for me, is a means of escape from how shitty the country and the world has become, not a melodious reminder.
• Lynyrd Skynyrd. Maybe I’m just too uptight (no comments from you, little brother, thank you very much!) or whatever, but I just don’t get the mass appeal of Skynyrd. Maybe it’s just because I’m not from the South (or at least the sticks), or maybe I’m just not into 100 different versions of the same song.

Anyway, that’s a sampling of my musical annoyances. Others will be added as they come to mind; I gotta go rescue the house from the destructive force that is the L’il-est Johann. Your thoughts are welcome, as always.