Slate a band
 

basically, completely rip into the band you despise the most. give all your reasons and back them up.

Sigh
 

Hmm, i dunno how to choose...ill go with the easiest one...
THE BEATLES I hate the way everyone (particularily old people) use them to suggest they're the greatest band ever. It's a simple case of being there at the right place, at the right time. They were unique at that time. However now, in my opinion, they're ****. God bless em they deserve everything they got it's not their fault they were consumerists delight but, i really do ****ing hate them.

Who's your worst band (inserts name of next person later)?

im going with Guns n Roses. although i dont mind live and let die (which wasnt even theirs) i generally look upon GNR with such abhorrency. firstly, Axl Rose- sounds like a cat being kicked up the backside. he is an absolute arse who fleeced the rest of the band out of all of their undeserved earnings, he stil thinks he can create a masterpiece damn him. neext, slash. despite his obvious talent, he is NOT the best the world has ever seen in my opinion like soo many of my generation seem to think. sure he can do a mean solo but solo aint everything. anyway, he goes way over the top (note november rain outside the chapel hair blowing in the wind meaningful facial expression etc). thirdly, the rest of the band- who the ****? duff and matt- i only know of them because of velvet revolver. GNR's songs are nothing spectacular in my opinion. sweet child of mine, its ok. the riff makes it into a so called "classic" while the guitar solo is again over-indulgent. november rain- lets not go there. paradise city- catvhy while again, not amazing. welcome to the jungle- my heart sinks when i hear the intro to it. this hatred partly stems from my sister being obsessed with them. and i know you dont all agree but its just my personal opinion. btw, how a band can become legends on basically one good album and a mediocre double disk album baffles me. if thats the case, why arent the stone roses seen in a higher esteem? i know GNR made more records, but only two are of any real importance.

because stone roses released about 3 good songs, not albums. furthermore, you say that white stripes have 4 fantastic albums, they don't hold a candle to the Guns'n'Roses collection. So i think "one good album" is a bit of a shocking declaration.

what other guns and roses albums were a huge success? and 3 good songs? what the ****? try a greatest hits packed full of classics. the white stripes have 4 great albums yet they have released nowhere near as many singles as GNR did. and they are a generally more low key than GNR.

I really don't like Queen now that you mention it because at one time..I did. BUT, every older lady that I meet says,"Queen's The Absolute Best, Yeah!" And I kind of DISAGREE with that because Queen just appealed to many with their catchy-ass songs "We Will Rock You", "We Are the Champions", and "Under Pressure" feat David Bowie. So in conclusion, I believe that if Queen had not released three of the catchiest, easiest, get stuck way the hell up in your head type of songs, then they would not be where they were today. (But I never said Freddy Murcury is a bad vocalist, because I can't fathom how he can stay in tune on some high notes.)

thats like saying "oh if black sabbath didnt release paranoid they'd be nothing". it just isnt true. yeah, they made 3 catcvhy songs- testament to them for doing so. yet they have so many more classics than just those 3.

this sounds like a comment i'd expect for guns'n'roses. Appetite for destruction im assuming you are implying by the best known...
What about **** like use your illusion?? and the spaghetti incident?? im near tears

Such as?

as i said "mediocre double disc" - use your illusion. spaghetti incident ive never heard of in my life.