Time to get flamed again, I suppose.
I'm not sure if it was Kurt Cobain who coined the term Corporate Rock to refer to the mainstream pabulum bands of the 80s that filled stadiums, but he was the most famous opponent of them. And I have to agree with him on this.

I was in my late 20s when that crap was at its height, with Phil Collins-era Genesis, Lionel Richie, Journey, Def Leppard and the rest of that shit crowd being constantly played on radio and MTV. It was better than Flock Of Seagulls and Spandau Ballet et al, but not by much.

When grunge came along with Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Sound Garden and the other major players of the era I was shocked, then delighted. At last! Something that had some actual feeling to it, something that was fed by angst and raw emotion rather than ratings! Wasn't that what fed rock in the 50s, when people rebelled against the crooners in favor of Presley?

It didn't last that long, sadly, but we did get a few good years out of grunge at least.

So, worst bands of all time? I nominate most of the mid to late 1980s.
( The Resident Loon Not a demographic. Do not measure., Fri 31 Dec 2010, 1:55, 3 replies)

I'm not flaming
And although you weren't a teen, aren't you just saying how music has evovled? Something for 'my generation'? Elvis was too cool for the crooners. The Beatles had a new sound, not that rock and roll. The Beatles were so square, the Stones are where it's at. Bay City Rollers, Slade, that is the future. But wait; what's this? Disco! but who could like disco when they discovered Punk, Ska and Northern Soul? Well, the New Romantics are who. But they got old quick; House was were it was really happening. And so on to the present day. New generation, new music. It doesn't matter what it is, it just can't be what your Dad listened to.
( TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Fri 31 Dec 2010, 2:24, closed)

I guess my question
would be: what's my generation?

I'm about to hit 48. I'm not a kid. Nor do I go with current trends as a rule- I don't jump onto bandwagons, but I will get behind something that's a fresh breeze into the stale old crap. But I don't go for the most popular all the time- I'll sometimes fasten onto bands that lose their popularity after their first or second album, because I see something interesting there in their lyrics and their tunes.

I didn't rebel against my parents' generation per se, as I really like Louis Prima and early Sinatra and a few others of that era. What I dislike are the bands that shape their music on what's popular at the moment rather than what the composer and the performer (hopefully the same person) is feeling at the time. For example, I love Melissa Etheridge's first two albums, feel ambivalence toward her third and dismissed the following ones as she went mainstream rather than what she felt. Similarly, Kate Bush was interesting through the 80s when she was doing her own thing, but became really crap about the time of "The Red Shoes". It's the point where the performers lose their edge because they're trying to appeal to the mass market rather than produce what they themselves like, which is what got them famous in the first place.

I'm all about musical styles changing, I really am, but I don't simply seek novelty. I like to hear some real emotion and thought behind the music. Coming out with something that no one's ever done before is easy- no one's ever recorded pigs screwing and autotuned it to a melody, have they?- but coming out with something that holds the interest is difficult at best. That's why I really love bands like Pink Floyd and Nirvana and Mars Volta who go in strange directions.
( The Resident Loon Not a demographic. Do not measure., Fri 31 Dec 2010, 3:25, closed)

"no one's ever recorded pigs screwing and autotuned it to a melody, have they?"
Rule 34 says they have.
(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Fri 31 Dec 2010, 17:44, closed)