Most of the ones I can think of are pretty much anything from 2000 onwards that sounds like a bunch of car alarms going off and, maybe its an age thing; everything rap type utter shite.

This category is actually quite tough as just because you don't like a band doesn't qualify them. I refer again to the Beatles. I would rather suck off a tramp than listen to them but many others have a very different opinion. I'm no musical expert so I have to at least entertain the possibility than I'm wrong.

Supertramp?

To be honest Mr I, suggesting that the Beatles are like a car alarm going off is bordering on the preposterous.
They changed the face of modern music, which needed to be done, whether you like it or not.
I'm suspecting something of an anti-Liverpool bias (which you have never hidden) on your part.

That is even more preposterous than saying the Beatles. Give your head a shake.

That's better!

If anyone says the Spice Girls I am going to report this board for sexism.

In fact very few successful bands were indisputably shite by fucking definition. Stick to football.

I did say I’m hardly an expert. Read again mr monty, I was suggesting that post 2000 ‘music’ is like a car alarm going off.

Define success? One hit wonders and practitioners of novelty songs are often forgotten - or at least, remembered with some embarrassment - but are they successful enough for this topic? If yes - then I don't think there's too many that would argue that The Knack (My Sharona) were very good at all, or that Lieutenant Pigeon (Mouldy Old Dough) set high standards....

To be fair, to you, Mr I, I did take your words out of context. Excuse me.

As for the post-2000 car alarm stufl you are on about, I don't even consider that music so hard to give an opinion.

edit: that's not supposed to mean everything post 2000 is shite; it most certainly isn't.

Archetypal successful band that was indisputably shite: Duran Duran.

Very hard to argue with that!!

Status Quo,the Wet Wet's, Bon Jovi ..



and for the record i never liked Phil Collins ,The Jam or Oasis either. And Bob Marley was time to leave the party..

Loads of commercially successful stuff is generally shite.

All the stuff aimed at teenagers and kids is always going to be lowest common denominator.

What I really dislike is manufactured stuff posing as serious music, like Coldplay.

Radiohead. I hate the fact that they're basically considered to have great artistic merit because they're so fucking miserable. People who like them think they're clever because they understand Thom's whining but they overlook the fact that under the multiple layers of depressing dirge there is nothing but tuneless cack. I'm not against a spot of misery but you have to have some tunes or rhythms or it is just moaning.

problem with all music is that one mans noise is another mans top tune. not all post 2000 stuff is crap and neither is all classical music top notch either. for some a dislike of it shows that you do not understand it and the same if you knock a lot of bands of the present and near past. my own taste is 1930,s and 40,s dance band music and swing but even some of that i,ll swerve when i hear the names of glen miller and jack payne mentioned.

I love Radiohead. I don't think there's anything wrong with making miserable music. I think they've shown a lot of ambition musically to not rest on their laurels and develop as a group. OK Computer was so different for its time and then In Rainbows in the 00s and A Moon Shaped Pool in the 10s, to me, shows a band consistently able to release breathtakingly gorgeous instrumentals for a sustained period - Thom's voice almost doesn't matter to me and isn't what I get out of their music. I can get why Radiohead can divide, but their longevity and evolution says a lot for me.

Even Thom Yorke's ANIMA project last year was superb and Johnny Greenwood has done some spectacular soundtracks.

Now, if we are talking indisputable shite, I propose Catfish and the Bottlemen and Greta Van Fleet. The former, just do grandiose choruses for the sake of it and just wanna be Oasis; the latter takes the piss in how much they rip off Led Zeppelin.

OOPS...............nearly slipped up. Not fussy on their music but other of their assets were extremely acceptable, roughly translated as very shaggible.

If individual artists are allowed, I don't see what Mr Sheeran brings to the table. Our Lass and me daughter are big fans and go to his gigs when they can and then have the cheek to complain when I sing beautifully in the shower.

I'll grant you they're ambitious, and that the unambitious toss that you mention is indisputably shite, but you're meant to be ambitious and get somewhere with it. For me, Radiohead don't, it's all just miserable driveland I wish they'd stop. Their longevity is half the problem in my book.

Agree entirley with this, and a good example of how to be miserable but brilliant, the Smiths.

Radiohead were like a cross between Chapterhouse and post-Syd Pink Floyd at its worst. An absolute recipe for artistic disaster, but then they ended up selling massive amounts of records to old post-Syd Pink Floyd fans and their children. Good for them.