I wouldn't call it an anti-popularity list, although I would certainly say that a band that is very popular but very average (forgettable) deserves to go on it moreso than a band that is less popular but equally average. That is, one expects something but is left highly disappointed.
I would also say that a band that nobody has ever heard of but is just as average is less "crappy," provided ones expectations are lower. If one's expectations are not in line with popularity, then that band is equally "crappy" -- I consider that some room to maneuver in the discussion.
A band that is popular but fantastic is certainly not crappy.
Creed did suck pretty bad,
So was Limp Bizkit,
Any group comprised of 3+ 16-20 year old guys that don't play instruments.
Ace of Base = horrible
Chumbawumba
Crash Test Dummies
OMC
Harvey Danger
I didn't like Orgy or Tonic.
The Offspring. Talk about annoying.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Sugar Ray
Puff Daddy.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Just a question...
Do you go to bars and pick up fat chicks that no one else is hitting on hoping that you'll find one that is great in the sack?
I mean a fat chick that can work it, by your logic, is better than a hot chick who can work it equally as well because your expectations are lower...
98 degrees