Five bands I've never liked

I'm a massive music fan. I love almost all walks of it from classical baroque to death metal. On the whole, I'm far more into the alternative and darker side of things for the most part (rock/metal etc); reason being, I can't stand the vacuousness of most modern pop. With that in mind, there are some bands that most people are surprised at me for not liking. A band or artist can be so widely liked that it's taken for granted that the next person will like them- and it's usually a pretty safe bet too. More recently, another has reared it's head, more as an annoyance than anything else. Babymetal seem to be capturing everyone's attention lately and I don't really understand why. The musicianship isn't that bad- but nobody pays attention to that. It's all about the cutesy outfits, the high-pitched "kawaii" squeaking and the choreography. In my view, and in my sincerest hopes, I think it'll be a fad that'll be forgotten in a year or less. Remember Skindred and their "reggae metal" sound? A bit? Vaguely? 

Exactly. 

So, here are 5 bands many people have been consistently surprised that I don't like.

Manowar:- Being a metal fan, liking Manowar is a given for many. Theyre metal personified, so they claim. Frequently. Try a drinking game with a Manowar album where you take a drink every time "metal" or "warriors" are mentioned. In fact- don't- because you'll get alcohol poisoning and I don't want that on my conscience. The band talk about battle and being "sworn to fight and die" etc. but I really do get the impression that the only way they'd defeat an enemy in true combat is through the stench of them collectively soiling themselves. Part of Manowar's appeal I suppose is that they are a parody of themselves; tongue firmly in-cheek. The problem there for me there is it just comes across as so contrived. It's the same recycled lyrics and lyrical form.  The same thing has happened for me with Tenacious D and Steel Panther- you can tell some jokes, and the first time, hell, the first couple of times, it's funny. Tell the same kind of joke over and over and it becomes dull and predictable. The only difference with Manowar is, I've never found them entertaining.

Red Hot Chilli Peppers:- Just how many songs can you write about California? Lots, seems to be the answer if you happen to be a member of RHCP. Many bands are guilty of milking tropes- Dragonforce, Motley Crüe and the aforementioned "comedy acts" to name a few, but the Chillies are  among the worst offenders. When you have musicians like guitarist John Frusciante (has now left the band) and bassist "Flea" on board, it's quite hard to fault the actual performance, and there are some killer basslines and  guitar riffs in there. RHCP however, have all the hallmarks of a band operating wholly and solely within their comfort zone. "Shall we try something new and experimental on this record that pushes us as artists, and the wider envelope of our genre of music? LOLNOPE- let's write another 8 songs that reference sunshine and Cali in some way, along with a couple that question existence with the logic of a stoner. That made us TONNES of money before!" They're a bloated stadium act, but their biggest crime against music to me is that they lack imagination. 

Motörhead:- Again, if you're into heavy music, how could you not like Motörhead? They're loud, brash, unrefined, and have been on the circuit for  decades that way. To be honest, I'm not sure. I don't hate the band, I don't even strongly dislike them, but nothing draws me to them. I would never consciously choose Motörhead. Nothing they do makes me come alive the way other hard rock or metal does, and when you're in a genre that's all about excess; that's a hard thing to reconcile yourself with. Furthermore, for as colourful and vibrant a character Lemmy is- his voice does nothing for me. It's like the man gargles gravel- and it has just about the same hue as it as well. It may sound at home on their own material, but it really stands out in sore thumb fashion whenever the band does a cover. Check out the renditions of Metallica's "Whiplash" or "Enter Sandman" and you'll see exactly what I mean. Okay, fine- I like Ace of Spades. 

U2:- Where do I start with U2? Let's get the obvious out of the way first. Bono is a twat. Self righteous and preachy about charitable causes, despite not paying tax in his native Ireland. Wearing those huge wraparound shades ("you're Irish, you shouldn't even OWN sunglasses"-- Ross Noble) and that air of smarminess. There's an urban tale of U2 once playing Glasgow that captures both this- and the stereotypical blunt directness of the Scottish people beautifully. In between songs, a light shines only on Bono as he paces back and forth across the darkened stage. The crowd has subsided and a murmuring quiet now lingers. *Clap*. Bono brings his hands together and shatters the silence. He waits for the echoes to fade and *clap* does it again. He begins to speak, "Everytime I clap my hands," *clap* "a child in Africa dies." The legend goes that a sole voice shouted up from the crowd saying "Well, stop fucking doing it then, you cunt!" Lots of rockstars have an ego, it's part of who they are, part of their persona. David Lee Roth, Randy Blythe, James Hetfield, Ozzy, Steven Tyler- all of these frontmen and many more have a commanding stage presence that is, or has been steeped in ego- but with Bono, he just comes across as a prick, like the kid in your class in school who was that little bit more well-off than everyone else, and knew it. For me, however, the worst part of U2, and the part I am most vitriolic over, is their "guitarist" David Evans. First of all, who the fuck calls themselves "The Edge"? Somebody who has picked their own nickname, that's who, (like LL Cool J- which stands for "Ladies Love Cool James, apparently)- the air of the prick runs strong in this group- but that's not why I can't stand him. No. To truly understand this, we need to examine what makes up his sound as a guitar player. In the documentary "It Might Get Loud" - David Evans discusses the origins and evolutions of the electric guitar alongside Jimmy Page and Jack White. For me, the third player should have been Joe Satriani, John Petrucci or Steve Vai- because then we would have had three genuine walks of guitarist. The "veteran" Page, the "minimalist" White, and the "virtuoso" would have all complimented one another. However, I digress; the documentary contains a scene where they examine 's live gig setup. What we find is a rack of effects and processing the size of a small caravan. That is the sound of "The Edge". Take that away, and it's gone. Everything he plays would sound simplistic and utter shit- in fact- he freely admits this in the documentary. The comedian Bill Bailey illustrates this beautifully in his live show "Part Troll" which I shall link here (http://youtu.be/H8dZwXnMrRU). How can you even call that guitar playing? Indeed, I would be loath to recognise the man as a guitarist. At times he plays one chord once and the effects do the rest! You could replace him with a keyboard- and lead electric guitar simply should not be that way. Effects add colour and depth to guitar parts; the delay and echo at the start of "Welcome to the Jungle"; the deep "jet engine" flange sound on the intro to Machine Head's "Davidian" for instance. However, that's all they are- embellishment. If you rely completely on them, is it even worth strumming strings at all?

And the number one band that everyone seems astonished at me for disliking?

Nirvana:- The big one. I cannot count the open mouthed surprise at my dislike for Nirvana. They're just not a good band. Sorry, but they're not, they are overrated and the diehard fans have delusions of grandeur. They're not even a good grunge band- bands like Soundgarden and Alice in Chains are far superior in this genre- and yet they get only a fraction of the attention. They are the archetypical example of "right place, right time" in terms of success. After the 80's, the market was saturated with glam rock and electronica- then grunge came along and swept people up in it's dour, yet fresh approach to rock music. And who was riding the crest of that wave? Nirvana. Returning again to a guitarist standpoint- if I hear one more person say that Kurt was a great underrated guitar genius I will explode. Solos that follow the vocal line are not imaginative and visionary- I've personally written and played better solos drunk. Playing powerchords in a circle is not a triumph in songwriting- listen to "Them Bones" by Alice in Chains; with it's changing time signature, offbeat groove and deep nebulous lyrics and tell me honestly you think "Heart-shaped Box" is better. Indeed, the best thing to come out of Nirvana was Dave Grohl going on to form Foo Fighters. The lyrics are bad enough- the delivery is worse still. Listening to Nirvana, for me, gives a sensation of being dragged; in fact, that's  a prevailing feel in the sound, the vocals drag, the guitar drags as the lead lines wallow around trying to find key. It's the sound of apathy; and it gives the impression of general half-arsed-ness. I like my music with a little more passion and a little less whine. Over all, what ever I smell off this band, it doesn't smell "like teen spirit"

So that's that, and I hope I've made my position clear on all of these. There are a few more than this, but none I felt strongly enough about to including in this list. If you like any of these bands, feel free to leave a reasoned counterargument in the comment section... Or an acerbic distribe about why I'm fundamentally wrong and should be killed for dissing your favourite band. Either works for me!