Least personal favorite artists

[landtuna]

Not one of you guys had a problem with the ARTISTS but rather with the rotation in which selected songs were played. That wasn't the OP's subject.

Back on subject - some of my least favorite artists are:

Girl groups from the early 60's. In general they were terrible, yes even the Supremes.
Motown (somewhat redundant to girl groups).
Hair bands (includes Grunge and Metal)
99% of popular & RocknRoll post-1984.
Bobby Darrin.
Mitch Miller.

 

[oldies76]

Back on subject - some of my least favorite artists are:

Girl groups from the early 60's. In general they were terrible, yes even the Supremes.
Motown (somewhat redundant to girl groups).

??? Landtuna, Landtuna........Motown?? Girl Groups from the early 60's?? Oh, how can you??

Some of the best music ever produced in the rock era!

I agree with the grunge metal and hair bands, not my favorite music, although I don't mind hearing some Whitesnake (their two big hits) and "November Rain" by Guns 'N Roses, maybe once in a blue moon!

 

[Biondi4Mayor]

Girl groups from the early 60's. In general they were terrible, yes even the Supremes.
Motown (somewhat redundant to girl groups).

This hurts me deeply! But anyway look at it this way - these would be your tuneouts - and some of our tune ins. So, how in the world can an auditorium of just 100 people be used as an accurate concensus? Look how different we are right here.

I NEVER have heard "What A Wonderful World" on any classic hits station I listen to, so I'm surprised that one came up.

 

[landtuna]

This hurts me deeply!

Dunno why my preferences would "hurt" you but I know a lot of people who are not fond of the girl groups and/or Motown. My 20th high school reunion (1982) had a name girl group appear at the dance and the negative feedback was tremendous. Even I was surprised.

But anyway look at it this way - these would be your tuneouts - and some of our tune ins. So, how in the world can an auditorium of just 100 people be used as an accurate concensus? Look how different we are right here.

I don't necessarily tune-out when one of these songs comes on - it depends on the song. I do agree that an audience, even one supposedly "scientifically selected" could have shortcomings in trying to pick universally-liked music.

I NEVER have heard "What A Wonderful World" on any classic hits station I listen to, so I'm surprised that one came up.

I hear it every once in awhile.

 

[Biondi4Mayor]

I don't necessarily tune-out when one of these songs comes on - it depends on the song. I do agree that an audience, even one supposedly "scientifically selected" could have shortcomings in trying to pick universally-liked music.

Thanks for saying this - just because you might not be particualarly fond of a song, doesn't mean you tune out. You listen to that station still sometimes regardless. I'm the same way, I'm sick of "Crocodile Rock" or whatever, but I keep it on because it's as good as I'll get.

People are unpredictable, and pigeon-holing statistics to them seems to go against all of our own personal experiences.

But according to "research", people slam the button on every song they marginally don't care for, listen to 5-6 stations in 47 minutes, and stayed glued to the radio during commercials.

 

[firepoint525]

What about "What a Wonderful World" by Louis Armstrong? It only hit #116 in 1968, and then still only made #32 after it was used in Good Morning Vietnam. Then later, I found out that the movie was supposedly set in 1965! We have been subjected to near constant airplay of this NON-hit for the past 25 years just because someone didn't properly do their research?

Please explain to me why a piece of movie music must have been released/popular in the movie's time period? Isn't the whole idea of musical accompaniment to give added depth to the scene(s)? And if the music does that what difference does it make if it doesn't dovetail from the specific time period?

The movie was set in (I think) 1965. The song came out in 1968. We have been subjected to near-constant airplay of this one because of someone's shoddy research. Unless they had access to a time machine in 1965, no way could Adrian Cronauer (sp) have played that one. Some of us would still like at least a LITTLE accuracy when trying to portray past time periods. Playing something that wasn't even available (yet) in that time period raises red flags with me!

Take that movie out of the equation, and no way in hell would a #116 song from 1968 (a sappy one at that) still be getting airplay in 2013. Based on what I am hearing on AC radio these days, it should be too sappy even for them!

 

[CTListener]

What about "What a Wonderful World" by Louis Armstrong? It only hit #116 in 1968, and then still only made #32 after it was used in Good Morning Vietnam. Then later, I found out that the movie was supposedly set in 1965! We have been subjected to near constant airplay of this NON-hit for the past 25 years just because someone didn't properly do their research?

Please explain to me why a piece of movie music must have been released/popular in the movie's time period? Isn't the whole idea of musical accompaniment to give added depth to the scene(s)? And if the music does that what difference does it make if it doesn't dovetail from the specific time period?

The movie was set in (I think) 1965. The song came out in 1968. We have been subjected to near-constant airplay of this one because of someone's shoddy research. Unless they had access to a time machine in 1965, no way could Adrian Cronauer (sp) have played that one. Some of us would still like at least a LITTLE accuracy when trying to portray past time periods. Playing something that wasn't even available (yet) in that time period raises red flags with me!

Take that movie out of the equation, and no way in hell would a #116 song from 1968 (a sappy one at that) still be getting airplay in 2013. Based on what I am hearing on AC radio these days, it should be too sappy even for them!

You do realize that Hollywood takes these kinds of liberties all the time and it's never cost their movies any appreciable business. Jack, in "Titanic," reminisced about fishing on a manmade lake that didn't even exist in 1912. "Lincoln" has two congressmen from Connecticut, with fictitious names, no less, voting against the 13th Amendment when the state's entire delegation voted for it. "Seabiscuit" passes off Keenland Race Course, in Kentucky, as Pimlico, in Maryland, for one race, then completely rewrites the way the climactic race of the whole movie was run, having the horse come from way behind, which he never was. In "Cinderella Man," set in the 1930s, Jim Braddock gets paid in a bunch of coins from that time period -- except most of them look worn, because they were brought into the movie 70 years later!

 

[landtuna]

Some of us would still like at least a LITTLE accuracy when trying to portray past time periods. Playing something that wasn't even available (yet) in that time period raises red flags with me!

I doubt that one person in a thousand would have picked up that the song was three years out of date. More likely the moviegoer would have noticed the sarcasm of that song being played in 1965 Vietnam.

Take that movie out of the equation, and no way in hell would a #116 song from 1968 (a sappy one at that) still be getting airplay in 2013. Based on what I am hearing on AC radio these days, it should be too sappy even for them!

You think the song is "sappy". I think it is beautiful. That's why we have so many musical choices.
[/quote]

 

[michael hagerty]

Girl groups from the early 60's. In general they were terrible, yes even the Supremes.
Motown (somewhat redundant to girl groups).

This hurts me deeply! But anyway look at it this way - these would be your tuneouts - and some of our tune ins. So, how in the world can an auditorium of just 100 people be used as an accurate concensus? Look how different we are right here.

Maybe not the best analogy.

Landtuna has said he's 67 years old. He graduated high school 6 years before today's 45 year old was born, and thinks 90% of music recorded in the past three decades sounds like someone tipping over the china cabinet.

David's outlined the screening process (people in the core demo, either listeners to or willing to listen to classic hits, listening habits not wildly inconsistent with the majority). A room with 100 of those folks allows for remarkably strong consensus on what 40 year old records 45 year olds have in common.

 

[firepoint525]

What about "What a Wonderful World" by Louis Armstrong? It only hit #116 in 1968, and then still only made #32 after it was used in Good Morning Vietnam. Then later, I found out that the movie was supposedly set in 1965! We have been subjected to near constant airplay of this NON-hit for the past 25 years just because someone didn't properly do their research?

Please explain to me why a piece of movie music must have been released/popular in the movie's time period? Isn't the whole idea of musical accompaniment to give added depth to the scene(s)? And if the music does that what difference does it make if it doesn't dovetail from the specific time period?

The movie was set in (I think) 1965. The song came out in 1968. We have been subjected to near-constant airplay of this one because of someone's shoddy research. Unless they had access to a time machine in 1965, no way could Adrian Cronauer (sp) have played that one. Some of us would still like at least a LITTLE accuracy when trying to portray past time periods. Playing something that wasn't even available (yet) in that time period raises red flags with me!
Take that movie out of the equation, and no way in hell would a #116 song from 1968 (a sappy one at that) still be getting airplay in 2013. Based on what I am hearing on AC radio these days, it should be too sappy even for them!

You do realize that Hollywood takes these kinds of liberties all the time and it's never cost their movies any appreciable business. Jack, in "Titanic," reminisced about fishing on a manmade lake that didn't even exist in 1912. "Lincoln" has two congressmen from Connecticut, with fictitious names, no less, voting against the 13th Amendment when the state's entire delegation voted for it. "Seabiscuit" passes off Keenland Race Course, in Kentucky, as Pimlico, in Maryland, for one race, then completely rewrites the way the climactic race of the whole movie was run, having the horse come from way behind, which he never was. In "Cinderella Man," set in the 1930s, Jim Braddock gets paid in a bunch of coins from that time period -- except most of them look worn, because they were brought into the movie 70 years later!

But "taking liberties" (actually poor research, let's be honest here) usually doesn't result in us (still!) hearing some sappy song 25 years later. Sorry, guys, but it's past time that we retired that one.

 

[firepoint525]

Some of us would still like at least a LITTLE accuracy when trying to portray past time periods. Playing something that wasn't even available (yet) in that time period raises red flags with me!

I doubt that one person in a thousand would have picked up that the song was three years out of date. More likely the moviegoer would have noticed the sarcasm of that song being played in 1965 Vietnam.

I doubt that one person in a million would have ever even heard of the song, had it not been used in that movie. (I wouldn't have.) Still, it has been 25 years. Time to retire that one. Even Kenny G has a remake of it that I have heard. :

Take that movie out of the equation, and no way in hell would a #116 song from 1968 (a sappy one at that) still be getting airplay in 2013. Based on what I am hearing on AC radio these days, it should be too sappy even for them!

You think the song is "sappy". I think it is beautiful. That's why we have so many musical choices.

Glad you like it. Download it if you want to hear it anymore. I can't believe that that one still "tests" well. I'd much rather hear his version of "Hello Dolly." At least that one was a bona fide hit.

 

[ixnay]

Some of us would still like at least a LITTLE accuracy when trying to portray past time periods. Playing something that wasn't even available (yet) in that time period raises red flags with me!

I doubt that one person in a thousand would have picked up that the song was three years out of date. More likely the moviegoer would have noticed the sarcasm of that song being played in 1965 Vietnam.

I doubt that one person in a million would have ever even heard of the song, had it not been used in that movie. (I wouldn't have.) Still, it has been 25 years. Time to retire that one. Even Kenny G has a remake of it that I have heard. :
As have I. My mother has the cd including it. I assume firepoint is talking about the version where Kenny G overdubs Armstrong's version (like Natalie Cole dueting with her father's ghost).

Oh, and not only do I have vague memories of hearing WaWW on WIP-610 Philadelphia when it was new (and my parents' marriage was tumbling towards divorce [not really noticed or understood by this then 6-1/2 yo]) but also of Satchmo's commercial for Schafer beer where he sings the now socially incorrect (lyrically) Schafer jingle.

Hearing WaWW on the radio in 1988* for the first time in 20 years brought back positive memories of my first home, in which I watched Batman in first run as well as The Beatles in animation on ABC on Saturday mornings.

*Never being a movie buff, I'd heard of GMV and that it starred Robin Williams but had no idea WaWW was in the soundtrack.

ixnay

 

[jonbruce]

Rick Astley and Michael Bolton. As for songs, Do Wa Diddy and Na Na Na Kiss Him Goodbye.

 

[71dude]

Nickelback
Led Zeppelin
Rush
ZZ Top
Madonna
Cyndi Lauper
Alanis Morrisette
Maroon 5
Judy Garland
Celine Dion

 

[dtuba]

The Eagles (except for mayyyyybe Life In The Fast Lane....)
Bruce springsteen
The Police/Sting
Pearl Jam
Rush
just about anything from the late 90's grunge influenced rock

 

[landtuna]

Cyndi Lauper

I agree with Cyndi Lauper although she did do one of my all time favs "Time After Time".

 

[firepoint525]

Bob Dylan--never understood why he was so popular
Nirvana--same thing (well, really any '90s "grunge" group)
"hair" bands--they were just never very "deep," now were they?
Toto (beginning with Toto IV)
Michael McDonald-era Doobie Brothers, well really almost anything that Michael McDonald is on
Grateful Dead
CSN & (sometimes) Y
Springsteen, whenever he is especially sanctimonious
Dixie Chicks, well really any country "crossovers"
many "novelty" songs (those wear thin after a while)

 

[Oldiesaholic]

Not big on Bob Dylan as a singer, but felt he was an
excellent song writer.

 

[Thomps2525]

"Least personal favorite artists"---because, goshdarnit, that just sounds so much nicer than "artists we hate."

Beastie Boys
Pearl Jam
Nirvana
Bone thugs-n-harmony
Lynyrd Skynyrd
Slayer
Queensrÿche
Metallica
Rage Against The Machine
Red Hot Chili Peppers

...and I'll probably think of a hundred more as soon as I post this!

Most overrated: Bruce Springsteen, Oasis, U2...and TLC, who I swear have released 50 different versions of the same song!

 

[LibertyNT]

Hell I'll say it,
I am not a big fan of Led Zeppelin.
Specifically I hate:
The noisy part of Whole Lotta Love
All My Love
Stairway To Heaven
And 90% of whats played on Get The Led Out.