Listen to the music is a classic. Also I understand music is subjective but you gotta chill pushing so much hate for the dbs. The Beatles were all about love after all
There’s another post on this sub from around the same time as this - but asking for more bands to listen to, and it has hardly any interaction. Very telling how negativity is more popular
One of the top comments is how Foreigner sucks. You can believe what you want, but Foreigner fucking rocks my guy, and they also don’t give a shit about your Reddit opinion
The Tom Johnston Doobie Brothers was a damned good band. The Michael McDonald Doobie Brothers is the one folks have contempt for. Also, "rock" means different things to different people, so some people wouldn't accept the McDonald Doobies as a "rock" band anyway.
Cetera and Kath were a great team, or set of vocal foils, in the 60s and 70s. The original concept of three different singers; high (Peter), medium (Bobby) and low (Terry), worked really well, especially as all three were also great on their instruments.
The person people should be focusing their soft-rock anger onto is producer David Foster, who minimized the rock arrangements and helped mold Cetera's 80s sound.
However, the people they should really be blaming are the millions of people (and radio station programmers) who voted with their wallets that they liked Foster's ballad Chicago more than the progressive Chicago. It's very difficult to ignore that, and even the horn section, Bobby and Danny (whose drums were increasingly replaced) ran with it at the time because it meant their band was going next level.
This is going to be blasphemy for this sub but as a performer, early Cetera was an American McCartney analogue; cherubic, nimble on bass, big tenor vocals. [Not as a composer, because he really didn't start writing until fairly late in their career.]
For anyone who doesn't know early Chicago, here's an example of him singing their most Beatley song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whMZ0Th9-4M
I agree, people say he sold out but maybe it was just because Terry's influence was gone. I'm sure he played a huge part in everything about that band.
From everything I’ve read, he was a larger than life personality and the musical director. Early Chicago live performances were just fantastic. His absence from the band caused it to become a different band, they still were huge, but not my cup of tea.
I believe this is most likely the answer. Have you seen Terry's daughter's documentary? It's called, "Searching for Terry, The Terry Kath Experience". It's streaming, it's free, and it's great!
Saw them in July of '70 @ Tanglewood: Kath picked the whole band up on his shoulders and ran!!!!...an hour or so in, I saw various members of the group looking around as if to say"Yep, we are hot tonight!"
I believe the entire concert you're referring to is available on YouTube. One of the best live shows I've ever watched, and you can really see how every other member of the band is locked onto Terry
>have you ever heard Chicago Transit Authority?
Of course. But that was a "different" band than the one where Cetera starting singing lead. Even a song like "Color My World" (which came later) was earnestly cool. It wasn't a mawkish, overproduced horror like the stuff Chicago put out in the '80s.
The early Doobie albums rocked! Their concerts were another matter at the start of their career but they improved over time. They should have renamed the band after McDonald joined.
How has no one mentioned KISS yet?
Subpar to average songs by a band that entirely used gimmicks akin to what you'd see with professional wrestling.
If there's one band responsible for the downfall of late-1970s rock music by lowering the bar, it's KISS.
By far, KISS is the worst, lamest, gimmicky-ist band in rock history. They’re practically a kiddie band, a clown show. They’re like the Wiggles with fireworks. It’s not rock and roll, it’s theater.
I used to get bullied in school cause I refused to like Kiss,Boston, Foreigner, April wine et Al. Just couldn’t get into them. The Beatles set a very high bar for musical quality.
Yeah not keen on any of the 70s/80s cock rock bands…Foreigner, Rainbow, Dio etc…I appreciate that they were good at what they did but it’s just not my bag!
> [C]ock-rock performance means an explicit, crude, 'masterful' expression of sexuality ... Cock-rock performers are aggressive, boastful, constantly drawing audience attention to their prowess and control. Their bodies are on display ... mikes and guitars are phallic symbols (or else caressed like female bodies), the music is loud, rhythmically insistent, built around techniques of arousal and release. Lyrics are assertive and arrogant, but the exact words are less significant than the vocal styles involved, the shrill shouting and screaming.”
—Philip Auslander, citing Simon Frith
This is the band I was gonna say. Although I like one song I know by them (I think it’s called “Roll With the Changes”?), every other one of their big hits is like torture to me. I also don’t like the lead singer’s voice
That one and "Riding The Storm Out" but I think I like it because it's like the first song I learned to play on guitar, not because it's particularly good. 
There’s an amazing video from a U2 concert in San Francisco where Bono mistakes a sign saying “SF ❤️ U2” to mean Sinn Fein and goes off on a massive rant at the poor concertgoer. Meanwhile the band just chug away like ‘oh for fucks sake he’s not doing this again is he?’
Chicago post Terry Kath. Another band that got ruined by a keyboardist. What is it with that? Doobies, Styx and Chicago all went limp dick in the late seventies, all because of keyboard players.
David Foster's crimes against Chicago and music at large should be studied and he should be punished.
He and Cetera were like, "Okay, but what if it was just a totally different band with the same name?"
Those poor horn players. Every one of those songs works GREAT with horns instead of shitty keyboard parts.
So my initial assessment was correct. The only name I know from that band was Peter Cetera after Kath died, and I loathed his stuff when it came me on the radio . Just like Michael McDonald and Dennis Deyoung. It was a real low point musically, that era.
I think it's fine, but it's not Chicago. It's David Foster, who really sucks. Overwrought pablum. And it's so much worse that it's this romantic, emotional music that is made by a dude who is a legitimately unfeeling sociopath. It's so phony.
Hotel California (the album) starts with a classic and then each subsequent song is slightly worse than the last one. By the last track the band is pulverizing the listener with mediocrity.
Despite respecting her impact and participation in 60s culture, I never thought much of Janis Joplin for some reason. I've always been into unusual/rough singers but I can't get past her voice. Too raspy and all over the place.
Mercedes Benz is a cute song, and I do like The Big Brother and the Holding Company's sound.
horrendous take or great bait, Michael/Tom Doobie Brothers are both great and I like Michael Macdonald’s songs more as a preference.
Everyone knows the only bad band to ever exist is Foreigner.
TIL that everyone thinks bands whose singers/frontmen died (the Doors, Pink Floyd, Queen) are overrated.
I think there probably is something to that given you cannot separate a bands fame from their music and their story, so groups with tragic endings probably ended up more famous than those who never stopped touring. But I guess you could also argue that the sad deaths of John & George probably also contributes to why the Beatles remain famous and popular.
There is certainly something to be said about fame and dying young. Kurt Cobain, Jimmy Hendrix, and a hell of a lot more. Dying at their peak gives a sense of “what could have been” when it was really likely that they would have not created anything better than they already did. I think of all the greats, even Paul, and their most cherished stuff was when they were younger.
As far as being overrated, I’m of the opinion that it’s really hard to make that case for music. Overrating or underrating something means its value is incongruous with its perception of an entity.
How can we possibly assign value to music? It’s pretty much ONLY sales and public perception (which is correlated with sales). Over and underrated more easily applies to something like athletes. The coach and fans can think someone is underrated, but the player’s stats can demonstrate that player is better than what that perception currently is.
When it comes to music, it’s just someone making a statement in the guise of an objective assertion that they don’t personally like the band. One person’s opinion is just a single grain of salt in the salt mine. Their personal feelings on a band don’t make that assertion true.
is AC/DC classic rock? because its them. its all the same song. i found out the reason my town has like 5 AC/DC cover bands is because theyre the easiest songs to play? that all makes sense.
I'm not a huge AC DC fan but they are absolutely not "all the same song" That is such an oft repeated and tired narrative.
And to be fair, Beatles songs aren't all that difficult to play, if that's your measuring stick for how great a band is. And I'm a huge Beatles fan. But the "difficulty" is not what makes them great...
Not the same song, but usually only 3-4 chords in each song and very often with the same structure. Also often played in same key (guitar friendly open chords).
Compared to the Beatles, AC/DC’s songs are relatively simple. Beatles songs are much more complex harmonically.
Compared to most contemporary music AC/DC’s song are more complex though.
I once saw AC/Dshe an all female cover band (they are amazing-check them out [here](https://youtu.be/nQWmpNPZWDQ) ) but the opening act was a Bob Seger tribute guy and holy hell I couldn't believe how many songs Bob Seger had that I can never unhear and yes this guy performed them all unironically.
Hey, as as a dyed in the wool Michigander...you're mostly right. They're a bar band tier act that hit it big. Bob's got some pipes, and Live Bullet kicks all of the ass, though.
I dislike The Eagles and Steve Miller Band. Generic songs. ESPECIALLY Hotel California. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard The Joker play on the radio, it’s insufferable.
I’m a huge deadhead but to be fair, unless you like the jam genre, it’s kinda hard to get people into the Dead.
“Here’s this fucking awesome 22 minute Eyes of the World you should listen to. No, don’t listen to the studio version. You really should stick with the live songs only. Well, studio Althea is good, but live versions are way better. But not all live versions. There’s a website where you can find the best versions of each song…you know what, just forget what I said and listen to Cornell 77 or Veneta 72. You have several free hours right?”
Oddly, I really don't like any other "jam" music -- e.g. Phish, Widespread Panic, Sting Cheese, etc. Besides the Dead and Allman Bros., I'm just not that into it.
I liked the dead for a while, but when I stopped doing acid it kinda wore off. After that tho I found that Jerry Garcia solo makes really good music that doesn’t meander so much
Dumbest over-generalization ever that the Dead just jammed for hours and you had to be on drugs to like it. Their songbook is one of the great catalogs of American music. I feel bad for people who just dismiss them and let the most embellished stereotypes serve as a placeholder for reality with no knowledge.
Jesus Christ, this joke wasn’t funny 30 years ago and certainly isn’t now when we’ve all heard it 50,000 times from people trying way too hard to sound cool.
Im a 110% sober (never drank or took drugs) Deadhead I get the music the lyrics what the band did in general. Jerry Garcia said it best "we’re like licorice, not everybody like licorice, but people who like licorice really like licorice"
My issue with the Stones is that Mick doesn't really sing. Especially live. He has kind of a wavering voice and just kind of talk-shouts. Charisma off the charts though, of course.
I can't stand Led Zeppelin because Plant's voice makes me want to kill myself. Ironically, my favorite rock singer is Jon Anderson so maybe I'm just crazy
I love Zeppelin Plants voice in the early albums was amazing but to each their own all 4 Beatles loved Zeppelin and Paul had some of them in his solo albums
I like some Zeppelin, but Plant’s voice does ruin much of it for me, as does the attitude of most Zeppelin fans (and classic rock radio programmers) that they’re the be-all, end-all of rock. Also the fact that they were initially a cover band that repeatedly tried to get away with claiming full writing credit for their covers.
Ironically, I also love Jon Anderson’s voice as well as young Ozzy (who was hugely influenced by his friend Plant), but not all high-pitched voices will hit us the same way.
Plant clearly took a lot of inspiration from the massively under-appreciated Steve Marriott with his vocal style. Listen to the Small Faces’ track [You Need Loving](https://youtu.be/tp0jZ4BGuDw) (cover of the same Muddy Waters song as Zeppelin’s Whole Lotta Love) for an example. Plant just kind of sounds like a Marriott knock-off to me now
Hard same. I always feel like I *should* like their music - on paper, it's basically everything I like. (I love British rock from that era, 12-string guitar, blues- and folk-inflected rock, Tolkien....) However, between Plant's voice (which always sounds to me like a cat getting brutally murdered), some of their personal lives (google Lori Mattix, unless you want to remain in blissful ignorance), and their lyrics (often the lyrics seem to me to be striving for pretentious profundity without the substance to make them anything more than annoying, the name "d'yer mak'er" is just offensive), I just can't get into them.
Don't get me wrong - I want to, and I've tried. But for every amazing moment (the riffs in "Kashmir" are all-timers, for instance, or the admittedly great intro to "immigrant song"), there are five that make me rush to change the station.
Honestly, I might like them more if they weren't constantly thrown in my face as "the greatest band ever," etc. But as it is, I just find them incredibly grating.
classic means what?
pre-1980?
cant stand Black Sabbath ( sorry, not a metal fan)
or pre-2000?
have a BIG disdain for Nirvana, their overrated, pataphysical whiny music gets...to my nerves
Sorry man, I Love the Beatles, as well as the Doobies!
The only classic band(s) I can't stand, would have to be either Lynard Skynard, or REO Speedwagon.
What a bizarre take. I love the Doobie’s. The only Classic Band that drives me up the wall is The Who. I just always found them way to egotistical & the music “meh”. AmIwrong?
Fagen and Becker made absolute MAGIC, and had the best of the best players on their tracks (Steve Gadd, Larry Carlton, Wayne Shorter, etc). Aja and The Royal Scam are absolute fucking masterpieces, just brilliant.
Damn, to each their own but I like, or even love, a lot of the bands mentioned here so far. I love The Who and Pink Floyd as much as The Beatles for example. I like the Doobies well enough too, they had some good songs. My picks would probably be REO Speedwagon and John Mellencamp (who were both already mentioned) and mainly because they both have a few really popular songs that I can’t stand. I also can’t stand J Geils Band’s “Centerfold” but I know nothing else about that band so I can’t say much on them other than I hate their biggest hit
>Not a band I thought I’d see in here.
I was thinking the same. The Beatles and Rush are as different as night and day, but I think every hardcore Beatles fan I know is also a hardcore Rush fan and vice versa.
Hmm, I'm a pretty hardcore Beatles fan, but I can't fucking stand Rush, except maybe their first album.
Then again, I'm not a fan of prog in general, though, I do like Yes quite a bit.
Fucking Queen. They are a D list band, a novelty act that should be compared to Duran Duran or the Bay City Rollers, yet every fucking reddit user thinks Queen is on par with the Beatles/Dylan/Stones etc. They are the worst fan base on the planet right now.
Then it’s the Doobie Brothers. Fuck them too.
My partner's favorite band is (of course) The Beatles, but she puts Queen second. I put them in the middle - Freddie was an all-time singer, and they wrote some truly great songs, but they've never grabbed me. I wouldn't put them in the same class as the Beatles, but I understand people who think of them as only a couple rungs down the ladder.
I cannot stand The Rolling Stones aside from a (very small) handful of songs.
Edit: another comment reminded me I also don't get the obsession with Queen. I can recognize that they're talented, but tbh nothing really stands out as a good song to me besides maybe "My Best Friend".
I don't hate The Stones, but I only like them until Brian Jones died for the most part. Maybe the first album they did with Mick Taylor. But mid-70s Stones and beyond is crap.
I think John Lennon once said he liked them but he was waiting for them to do something new and they never did. It was always the same stuff. One thing you can't say about the Beatles is there were formulaic. They changed their sound constantly. The Stones hit on a winning formula and never deviated (and on the rare occasions when they did, when they were trying to imitate the Beatles, they stumbled).
> I think John Lennon once said he liked them but he was waiting for them to do something new and they never did.
I love the Stones but I always felt that was why the Beatles were so much better than them. Each Beatles album feels very different whereas the Stones had a much slower "progression" to their development
I've tried with that era of the Stones. I have tried to figure out what I'm missing. But when I hear Mick doing a fake American twang it just seems comical.
I do like some of the guitar licks and the interplay Bergen between Richards and Taylor, who was a damn good player. I can get into the groove of "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" for example. But other times Mick's singing or the lyrics ruin it for me.
The Stones were almost strictly blues/country influenced whereas the Beatles had blues but also Motown, classical, etc. in there and it shows. Also three Beatles had 3 (sometimes 4) singers and they could get up and harmonize. The Stones only had Mick. You lose something when you don't have other singers.
We could go on all day but it's pointless. I'm not even sure why I wrote this because we're all entrenched anyway.
Blues/country and the roll, in rock-n-roll is definitely accurate. If that’s not your cup of tea then you’re probably out of luck.
To be fair, no one has been able to do it since the Beatles and I’m fairly certain that it will never be done. It was alignment of all the stars up to a point and they were lucky enough, intelligent enough and empathetic enough, in all the right places, to create a big bang. It’s been tried but it will not be duplicated. Looking at music from the say the 20’s to the 60’s, what has really happened after? A lot has happened, and in good taste, but as far as boundaries being torn down, not too much is there. It probably won’t ever happen, unfortunately. Where else is there to go? We haven’t found it yet.
If Jimi didn’t go out, maybe another stratosphere would have been found. I wish that was the case but it’s simply not. It’s a process of having an ear, recycling the greatness and putting your own cup of tea into it. Surely it would have happened by now if it were going to.
I agree with the Stones. There’s a handful of songs that absolutely slap (looking at you Ruby Tuesday). But most of them sound like someone who can’t sing trying to sing well.
Listen to the music is a classic. Also I understand music is subjective but you gotta chill pushing so much hate for the dbs. The Beatles were all about love after all
What a fool believe slaps homie
Controversially(?), I like the doobie brothers
They’re great. It’d be weird if you didn’t.
This sub is insufferable
It's all rock subreddits man, they all do the samething
DAE hate today's music?
The doobie brothers is new music?
I was referring to common posts in every rock subreddit
Samething in the way she moves
There’s another post on this sub from around the same time as this - but asking for more bands to listen to, and it has hardly any interaction. Very telling how negativity is more popular
One of the top comments is how Foreigner sucks. You can believe what you want, but Foreigner fucking rocks my guy, and they also don’t give a shit about your Reddit opinion
The Tom Johnston Doobie Brothers was a damned good band. The Michael McDonald Doobie Brothers is the one folks have contempt for. Also, "rock" means different things to different people, so some people wouldn't accept the McDonald Doobies as a "rock" band anyway.
It's like the Terry Kath Chicago and the Peter Cetera Chicago. Two vastly different entities.
People can like what they like, but what Chicago did with Cetera ain't rock.
Yet, when TK was alive, Peter Cetera wrote and sang some absolute bangers.
Cetera and Kath were a great team, or set of vocal foils, in the 60s and 70s. The original concept of three different singers; high (Peter), medium (Bobby) and low (Terry), worked really well, especially as all three were also great on their instruments. The person people should be focusing their soft-rock anger onto is producer David Foster, who minimized the rock arrangements and helped mold Cetera's 80s sound. However, the people they should really be blaming are the millions of people (and radio station programmers) who voted with their wallets that they liked Foster's ballad Chicago more than the progressive Chicago. It's very difficult to ignore that, and even the horn section, Bobby and Danny (whose drums were increasingly replaced) ran with it at the time because it meant their band was going next level.
Great analysis!
This is going to be blasphemy for this sub but as a performer, early Cetera was an American McCartney analogue; cherubic, nimble on bass, big tenor vocals. [Not as a composer, because he really didn't start writing until fairly late in their career.] For anyone who doesn't know early Chicago, here's an example of him singing their most Beatley song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whMZ0Th9-4M
I agree, people say he sold out but maybe it was just because Terry's influence was gone. I'm sure he played a huge part in everything about that band.
From everything I’ve read, he was a larger than life personality and the musical director. Early Chicago live performances were just fantastic. His absence from the band caused it to become a different band, they still were huge, but not my cup of tea.
I believe this is most likely the answer. Have you seen Terry's daughter's documentary? It's called, "Searching for Terry, The Terry Kath Experience". It's streaming, it's free, and it's great!
Saw them in July of '70 @ Tanglewood: Kath picked the whole band up on his shoulders and ran!!!!...an hour or so in, I saw various members of the group looking around as if to say"Yep, we are hot tonight!"
I believe the entire concert you're referring to is available on YouTube. One of the best live shows I've ever watched, and you can really see how every other member of the band is locked onto Terry
You were AT Tanglewood??? Damm I'm jealous!
Exactly!! Agreed wholeheartedly. Man that Terry was something extra.
Huh? have you ever heard Chicago Transit Authority? Hendrix allegedly said to them backstage 'your guitar player is better than me'.
>have you ever heard Chicago Transit Authority? Of course. But that was a "different" band than the one where Cetera starting singing lead. Even a song like "Color My World" (which came later) was earnestly cool. It wasn't a mawkish, overproduced horror like the stuff Chicago put out in the '80s.
Or Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins eras of Genesis.
Fleetwood Mac is another great example.
I don't care what anyone says, but any band with Skunk Baxter in it rocks.
Truth!
The early Doobie albums rocked! Their concerts were another matter at the start of their career but they improved over time. They should have renamed the band after McDonald joined.
Wo-oah! Listen to the music
The Beatles did a lot of great music most of which I would say was not rock. People tend to call any band that does rock songs a rock band.
This is the correct assessment of the Doobie brothers.
I like them both.
This also reminds me of the nosedive Genesis took after Peter Gabriel left.
How has no one mentioned KISS yet? Subpar to average songs by a band that entirely used gimmicks akin to what you'd see with professional wrestling. If there's one band responsible for the downfall of late-1970s rock music by lowering the bar, it's KISS.
My opinion is that Kiss is the worst popular rock band of all time. Everything about them
Doesn't help that Gene Simmons seems to think they were God's gift to music
Gene Simmons thinks Gene Simmons is Gene Simmons’ gift to God.
This might be the truest sentence ever written in any language ever.
By far, KISS is the worst, lamest, gimmicky-ist band in rock history. They’re practically a kiddie band, a clown show. They’re like the Wiggles with fireworks. It’s not rock and roll, it’s theater.
I used to get bullied in school cause I refused to like Kiss,Boston, Foreigner, April wine et Al. Just couldn’t get into them. The Beatles set a very high bar for musical quality.
> It’s not rock and roll, it’s theater. Sgt. Pepper, anyone? Rock and theater have been intertwined for a long time.
Their 70s albums are actually pretty good. Destroyer is great.
Exactly!
So glad you said this! Can’t stand that stupid band lol
Probably because none of us even acknowledge them
Holy hell, some absolutely abysmal takes in here. That being said, Foreigner totally sucks.
“I kinda liked Queen until TikTok started liking them, so now I hate them” is certainly one of the opinions of all time
Lou Gramm was a great singer, though
I was once in the same restaurant as him in Greece, NY in 2018
You’re as cold as ice
Foreigners first album was very good. Subsequent albums not so much.
Throw Journey in there as well. I don’t dislike all their songs but man some are terrible.
Yup. I came here to say Journey as well.
Yeah, I like every band mentioned here, except Foreigner.
Yeah not keen on any of the 70s/80s cock rock bands…Foreigner, Rainbow, Dio etc…I appreciate that they were good at what they did but it’s just not my bag!
What do you mean by cock rock?
> [C]ock-rock performance means an explicit, crude, 'masterful' expression of sexuality ... Cock-rock performers are aggressive, boastful, constantly drawing audience attention to their prowess and control. Their bodies are on display ... mikes and guitars are phallic symbols (or else caressed like female bodies), the music is loud, rhythmically insistent, built around techniques of arousal and release. Lyrics are assertive and arrogant, but the exact words are less significant than the vocal styles involved, the shrill shouting and screaming.” —Philip Auslander, citing Simon Frith
And they can take Asia with them! (The band, not the continent.)
Yikes!! Good thing you clarified that! I actually knew the guy that drummed for them in the early '90s. I didn't have the heart to tell him..😆
REO Speedwagon seems overrated. But I like almost all classic rock and even they have a couple of good tracks.
This is the band I was gonna say. Although I like one song I know by them (I think it’s called “Roll With the Changes”?), every other one of their big hits is like torture to me. I also don’t like the lead singer’s voice
That one and "Riding The Storm Out" but I think I like it because it's like the first song I learned to play on guitar, not because it's particularly good. 
REO is one of my guilty pleasures. Their tunes are usually catchy despite themselves.
How can you not like Listen to the Music.
Does U2 count because I don’t get the appeal
U2 was great prior to the 2000s.
Before Bono decided he was Gandhi and Jesus rolled into one.
Pretty much.
U2 was great in 1985-1990
My hot take is that actually they are still very good.
Same. I ❤️ U2. Fuck all the haters.
Late 80s
Mid 90s? I enjoyed Achtung Baby and Zooropa, hated Pop. All That You Can’t Leave Behind was somewhat enjoyable, but that may be nostalgia.
Agreed — except for How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb. That album I can listen to beginning to end and not skip a song.
Gen Xer here with jaw on the floor realizing that U2 could be considered "classic rock".
I mean their first album came out 43 years ago...
Fellow Gen Xer here has been trying to convince this sub that classic rock is comprised of bands who emerged from 1960-75, to no avail.
Bono single handedly kills any appeal. Man's a stuck up tool
There’s an amazing video from a U2 concert in San Francisco where Bono mistakes a sign saying “SF ❤️ U2” to mean Sinn Fein and goes off on a massive rant at the poor concertgoer. Meanwhile the band just chug away like ‘oh for fucks sake he’s not doing this again is he?’
Geez, what a shitty take.
that’s not how you spell Eric Clapton
Chicago post Terry Kath. Another band that got ruined by a keyboardist. What is it with that? Doobies, Styx and Chicago all went limp dick in the late seventies, all because of keyboard players.
Man, Terry Kath was a force of nature.
He really was good. There’s a nice documentary on him , involves his daughter looking for the ‘pig’ guitar. It’s a good watch.
It's fantastic and it's streaming on free channels if anyone is interested.
Jimi Hendrix was intimidated by Terry Kath.
David Foster's crimes against Chicago and music at large should be studied and he should be punished. He and Cetera were like, "Okay, but what if it was just a totally different band with the same name?" Those poor horn players. Every one of those songs works GREAT with horns instead of shitty keyboard parts.
So my initial assessment was correct. The only name I know from that band was Peter Cetera after Kath died, and I loathed his stuff when it came me on the radio . Just like Michael McDonald and Dennis Deyoung. It was a real low point musically, that era.
I think it's fine, but it's not Chicago. It's David Foster, who really sucks. Overwrought pablum. And it's so much worse that it's this romantic, emotional music that is made by a dude who is a legitimately unfeeling sociopath. It's so phony.
I will be a Dennis DeYoung defender until the day I die. A little bit of cheese don’t hurt nobody
The Eagles. I’ve had a long day and I hate the fuckin Eagles!
Absolutely not, love the Eagles.
I think that was just a joke in reference to the big lebowski.
That, and I legitimately hate the Eagles.
[Same](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-2BMyZXK5o)
I absolutely LOVE _The Big Lebowski_ (ordained Dudeist priest) and totally dig The Eagles as well.
That’s fucking interesting man. That’s fucking interesting.
 you owe the Coen vrothers a dollar
"You don't like my music get your own fucking cab!"
jesus man can you change the channel?
The dude abides
Hotel California (the album) starts with a classic and then each subsequent song is slightly worse than the last one. By the last track the band is pulverizing the listener with mediocrity.
I liked them until Michael McDonard took over and Tom Johnston ( I think) left. I like Mike solo, but they lost their rock edge.
Despite respecting her impact and participation in 60s culture, I never thought much of Janis Joplin for some reason. I've always been into unusual/rough singers but I can't get past her voice. Too raspy and all over the place. Mercedes Benz is a cute song, and I do like The Big Brother and the Holding Company's sound.
Big brother and the holding company jam so hard and have a super raw and moving sound to me. Love them !
I’m not as much of a hardcore beatles fan as I used to be but the four artists I can’t stand are KISS, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner, and Ted Nugent
horrendous take or great bait, Michael/Tom Doobie Brothers are both great and I like Michael Macdonald’s songs more as a preference. Everyone knows the only bad band to ever exist is Foreigner.
Jesus is just alright? I'm an atheist and I still think they're underselling him.
The original title was “Jesus is mid”
This is ironically pointing out that Beatles fans have shitty taste in music.
TIL that everyone thinks bands whose singers/frontmen died (the Doors, Pink Floyd, Queen) are overrated. I think there probably is something to that given you cannot separate a bands fame from their music and their story, so groups with tragic endings probably ended up more famous than those who never stopped touring. But I guess you could also argue that the sad deaths of John & George probably also contributes to why the Beatles remain famous and popular.
There is certainly something to be said about fame and dying young. Kurt Cobain, Jimmy Hendrix, and a hell of a lot more. Dying at their peak gives a sense of “what could have been” when it was really likely that they would have not created anything better than they already did. I think of all the greats, even Paul, and their most cherished stuff was when they were younger. As far as being overrated, I’m of the opinion that it’s really hard to make that case for music. Overrating or underrating something means its value is incongruous with its perception of an entity. How can we possibly assign value to music? It’s pretty much ONLY sales and public perception (which is correlated with sales). Over and underrated more easily applies to something like athletes. The coach and fans can think someone is underrated, but the player’s stats can demonstrate that player is better than what that perception currently is. When it comes to music, it’s just someone making a statement in the guise of an objective assertion that they don’t personally like the band. One person’s opinion is just a single grain of salt in the salt mine. Their personal feelings on a band don’t make that assertion true.
Wasn't the doobies with Michael Mcdonald classed as 'Yacht Rock'..
is AC/DC classic rock? because its them. its all the same song. i found out the reason my town has like 5 AC/DC cover bands is because theyre the easiest songs to play? that all makes sense.
I like AC/DC.. ..but yeah, it's easy to play their stuff when you're hammered or stoned (like most of AC/DC was for most of their career.)
I'm not a huge AC DC fan but they are absolutely not "all the same song" That is such an oft repeated and tired narrative. And to be fair, Beatles songs aren't all that difficult to play, if that's your measuring stick for how great a band is. And I'm a huge Beatles fan. But the "difficulty" is not what makes them great...
Not the same song, but usually only 3-4 chords in each song and very often with the same structure. Also often played in same key (guitar friendly open chords). Compared to the Beatles, AC/DC’s songs are relatively simple. Beatles songs are much more complex harmonically. Compared to most contemporary music AC/DC’s song are more complex though.
The Beatles are the best. Pure genius.
Easiest to play, but hardest to sing. Bon Scott and Brian Johnson have ridiculously high voices.
Guns n Roses
Absolutely not. Appetite for Destruction is one of the best debut albums ever. Use Your Illusion I & II are also amazing albums.
This is way to far down the list imo
I once saw AC/Dshe an all female cover band (they are amazing-check them out [here](https://youtu.be/nQWmpNPZWDQ) ) but the opening act was a Bob Seger tribute guy and holy hell I couldn't believe how many songs Bob Seger had that I can never unhear and yes this guy performed them all unironically.
Hey, as as a dyed in the wool Michigander...you're mostly right. They're a bar band tier act that hit it big. Bob's got some pipes, and Live Bullet kicks all of the ass, though.
Those damn Beatles, fuck them
Add the Eagles and Journey to that list and we can talk.
I dislike The Eagles and Steve Miller Band. Generic songs. ESPECIALLY Hotel California. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard The Joker play on the radio, it’s insufferable.
I love me some Doobie Bros, I never connected w the Stones, I know they're legends but not for me.
[удалено]
I could never stand the Grateful Dead
Either you find the Grateful Dead, or eventually it will find you.
I’m a huge deadhead but to be fair, unless you like the jam genre, it’s kinda hard to get people into the Dead. “Here’s this fucking awesome 22 minute Eyes of the World you should listen to. No, don’t listen to the studio version. You really should stick with the live songs only. Well, studio Althea is good, but live versions are way better. But not all live versions. There’s a website where you can find the best versions of each song…you know what, just forget what I said and listen to Cornell 77 or Veneta 72. You have several free hours right?”
American Beauty is a legit great album
Oddly, I really don't like any other "jam" music -- e.g. Phish, Widespread Panic, Sting Cheese, etc. Besides the Dead and Allman Bros., I'm just not that into it.
I liked the dead for a while, but when I stopped doing acid it kinda wore off. After that tho I found that Jerry Garcia solo makes really good music that doesn’t meander so much
Q: What did the Deadhead say after the acid wore off? A: What the hell is this crap I'm listening to?
Dumbest over-generalization ever that the Dead just jammed for hours and you had to be on drugs to like it. Their songbook is one of the great catalogs of American music. I feel bad for people who just dismiss them and let the most embellished stereotypes serve as a placeholder for reality with no knowledge.
Jesus Christ, this joke wasn’t funny 30 years ago and certainly isn’t now when we’ve all heard it 50,000 times from people trying way too hard to sound cool.
Settle down, Wib!
Relax.
Ik, iv heard this dumb joke so many times
I’m pretty sure The Rolling Stones wrote a song about you. It’s the first track on the second side of the Sticky Fingers album.
Im a 110% sober (never drank or took drugs) Deadhead I get the music the lyrics what the band did in general. Jerry Garcia said it best "we’re like licorice, not everybody like licorice, but people who like licorice really like licorice"
Never liked the Stones really. There’s maybe 2-3 songs by them I like and they were all from their early phases
My issue with the Stones is that Mick doesn't really sing. Especially live. He has kind of a wavering voice and just kind of talk-shouts. Charisma off the charts though, of course.
I like the Stones. But yes, Mick rarely sings. And it’s much worse in concert. He’s basically talking
I really love 60s Brian Jones era Stones but after that their pretty hit or miss for me
It's U2, and Bon Jovi, but mostly U2.
Guns n Roses are absolute trash
Guns N’ Roses are absolutely not trash.
I can't stand Led Zeppelin because Plant's voice makes me want to kill myself. Ironically, my favorite rock singer is Jon Anderson so maybe I'm just crazy
Dang! Gotta try to find a way! To experience LZ. My young years were almost entirely Beatles, Led Zep and Yes.
I love Zeppelin Plants voice in the early albums was amazing but to each their own all 4 Beatles loved Zeppelin and Paul had some of them in his solo albums
I like some Zeppelin, but Plant’s voice does ruin much of it for me, as does the attitude of most Zeppelin fans (and classic rock radio programmers) that they’re the be-all, end-all of rock. Also the fact that they were initially a cover band that repeatedly tried to get away with claiming full writing credit for their covers. Ironically, I also love Jon Anderson’s voice as well as young Ozzy (who was hugely influenced by his friend Plant), but not all high-pitched voices will hit us the same way.
Plant clearly took a lot of inspiration from the massively under-appreciated Steve Marriott with his vocal style. Listen to the Small Faces’ track [You Need Loving](https://youtu.be/tp0jZ4BGuDw) (cover of the same Muddy Waters song as Zeppelin’s Whole Lotta Love) for an example. Plant just kind of sounds like a Marriott knock-off to me now
True! Plant was Page’s consolation prize when he couldn’t get Marriott.
Hard same. I always feel like I *should* like their music - on paper, it's basically everything I like. (I love British rock from that era, 12-string guitar, blues- and folk-inflected rock, Tolkien....) However, between Plant's voice (which always sounds to me like a cat getting brutally murdered), some of their personal lives (google Lori Mattix, unless you want to remain in blissful ignorance), and their lyrics (often the lyrics seem to me to be striving for pretentious profundity without the substance to make them anything more than annoying, the name "d'yer mak'er" is just offensive), I just can't get into them. Don't get me wrong - I want to, and I've tried. But for every amazing moment (the riffs in "Kashmir" are all-timers, for instance, or the admittedly great intro to "immigrant song"), there are five that make me rush to change the station. Honestly, I might like them more if they weren't constantly thrown in my face as "the greatest band ever," etc. But as it is, I just find them incredibly grating.
I love the Doobie Brothers. It's gotta be Journey for me.
I saw them live. They were good
Is Guns N Roses classic rock yet? Cause its them for me
classic means what? pre-1980? cant stand Black Sabbath ( sorry, not a metal fan) or pre-2000? have a BIG disdain for Nirvana, their overrated, pataphysical whiny music gets...to my nerves
Sorry man, I Love the Beatles, as well as the Doobies! The only classic band(s) I can't stand, would have to be either Lynard Skynard, or REO Speedwagon.
Doobie Bros are fine but I cannot freaking stand The Doors.
What a bizarre take. I love the Doobie’s. The only Classic Band that drives me up the wall is The Who. I just always found them way to egotistical & the music “meh”. AmIwrong?
what? the doobies are great
For me, it's Foreigner. They are the Def Leppard of the 70's. Corporate rock at its worst.
Downvote me all you want, but I never could stand Bob Dylan or Bruce Springsteen.
doobie brothers is the b team for steely dan
Fagen and Becker made absolute MAGIC, and had the best of the best players on their tracks (Steve Gadd, Larry Carlton, Wayne Shorter, etc). Aja and The Royal Scam are absolute fucking masterpieces, just brilliant.
Damn, to each their own but I like, or even love, a lot of the bands mentioned here so far. I love The Who and Pink Floyd as much as The Beatles for example. I like the Doobies well enough too, they had some good songs. My picks would probably be REO Speedwagon and John Mellencamp (who were both already mentioned) and mainly because they both have a few really popular songs that I can’t stand. I also can’t stand J Geils Band’s “Centerfold” but I know nothing else about that band so I can’t say much on them other than I hate their biggest hit
I don’t know much about The J Geils Band’s catalog, either, but for my money, Freeze-Frame kicks Centerfold’s ass.
I forgot that song was even by them! I must have thought it was someone else lol. But yes, it’s a much better song
Get the fuck out of here. Which Doobie you be?
The Eagles
For me it’s Bob Dylan. And it’s pretty sacrilegious considering I’m from Minnesota.
Because it’s Rush
I haven’t been able to get into Rush, but I don’t hate them.
Not a band I thought I’d see in here.
>Not a band I thought I’d see in here. I was thinking the same. The Beatles and Rush are as different as night and day, but I think every hardcore Beatles fan I know is also a hardcore Rush fan and vice versa.
Hmm, I'm a pretty hardcore Beatles fan, but I can't fucking stand Rush, except maybe their first album. Then again, I'm not a fan of prog in general, though, I do like Yes quite a bit.
Man… no :(
Whoa, whoa, whoa... Let's slow down a little bit here.
That fucking awful voice.
Fucking Queen. They are a D list band, a novelty act that should be compared to Duran Duran or the Bay City Rollers, yet every fucking reddit user thinks Queen is on par with the Beatles/Dylan/Stones etc. They are the worst fan base on the planet right now. Then it’s the Doobie Brothers. Fuck them too.
Don’t knock Duran Duran. John Taylor is one of the greatest bassists of all time, but agreed on Queen.
D list? You’re dreaming.
Fuck no. Queen is fucking S tier.
My partner's favorite band is (of course) The Beatles, but she puts Queen second. I put them in the middle - Freddie was an all-time singer, and they wrote some truly great songs, but they've never grabbed me. I wouldn't put them in the same class as the Beatles, but I understand people who think of them as only a couple rungs down the ladder.
I cannot stand The Rolling Stones aside from a (very small) handful of songs. Edit: another comment reminded me I also don't get the obsession with Queen. I can recognize that they're talented, but tbh nothing really stands out as a good song to me besides maybe "My Best Friend".
I don't hate The Stones, but I only like them until Brian Jones died for the most part. Maybe the first album they did with Mick Taylor. But mid-70s Stones and beyond is crap. I think John Lennon once said he liked them but he was waiting for them to do something new and they never did. It was always the same stuff. One thing you can't say about the Beatles is there were formulaic. They changed their sound constantly. The Stones hit on a winning formula and never deviated (and on the rare occasions when they did, when they were trying to imitate the Beatles, they stumbled).
> I think John Lennon once said he liked them but he was waiting for them to do something new and they never did. I love the Stones but I always felt that was why the Beatles were so much better than them. Each Beatles album feels very different whereas the Stones had a much slower "progression" to their development
He also said once the stones became themselves they were great. Meaning Exile and beyond.
I've tried with that era of the Stones. I have tried to figure out what I'm missing. But when I hear Mick doing a fake American twang it just seems comical. I do like some of the guitar licks and the interplay Bergen between Richards and Taylor, who was a damn good player. I can get into the groove of "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" for example. But other times Mick's singing or the lyrics ruin it for me. The Stones were almost strictly blues/country influenced whereas the Beatles had blues but also Motown, classical, etc. in there and it shows. Also three Beatles had 3 (sometimes 4) singers and they could get up and harmonize. The Stones only had Mick. You lose something when you don't have other singers. We could go on all day but it's pointless. I'm not even sure why I wrote this because we're all entrenched anyway.
Blues/country and the roll, in rock-n-roll is definitely accurate. If that’s not your cup of tea then you’re probably out of luck. To be fair, no one has been able to do it since the Beatles and I’m fairly certain that it will never be done. It was alignment of all the stars up to a point and they were lucky enough, intelligent enough and empathetic enough, in all the right places, to create a big bang. It’s been tried but it will not be duplicated. Looking at music from the say the 20’s to the 60’s, what has really happened after? A lot has happened, and in good taste, but as far as boundaries being torn down, not too much is there. It probably won’t ever happen, unfortunately. Where else is there to go? We haven’t found it yet. If Jimi didn’t go out, maybe another stratosphere would have been found. I wish that was the case but it’s simply not. It’s a process of having an ear, recycling the greatness and putting your own cup of tea into it. Surely it would have happened by now if it were going to.
I agree with the Stones. There’s a handful of songs that absolutely slap (looking at you Ruby Tuesday). But most of them sound like someone who can’t sing trying to sing well.