None of these arguments apply to "he can't sing." He's literally one of the most famous singers in the entire world with tens of millions of records sold. Who is a 'better singer' to you? He sings just fine. All of his songs are Auto-Tuned to shit just like every other 'singer'. The recordings are perfectly in tune. It sounds like singing.

Why don't you just be honest with yourself and say, "I don't like it" instead of trying to make it an objective metric like, "he can't sing" which doesn't even make any sense.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766392&forum_id=2:#49213912)

Let me improve your argument. By The Way (2002) has 3 singles and the rest of the songs are crap. This was the only album where you can clearly tell they were just going for big radio singles. The album tracks are entirely garbage. Apparently Frusc was temperamental during this time and they didn't want to deal with him. He was trying to control everything. But Zephyr Song, By the Way, and Can't Stop are classics. Most bands don't have 1 song as big as any of those songs were.

Now here's where you're acting crazy is you're shitting on Stadium Arcadium which should not be done, by law. It's got big hits, deep cuts, listenable album tracks. The only real criticism of it is that it's too long and some of the tracks were unnecessary. It didn't need to be a double album. But it sold 4 million copies so jokes on us, I guess.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766392&forum_id=2:#49214053)

But theyre not that great. and i think its mostly bc they spent the entire years of their public introduction staking a claim to a very narrow vibe - funky jivey white boys *slap bass* *punches in direction of camera*.

Thats a fun vibe. Shirtless, tatted, arms flailing, wiggering, rapping, bouncing, hey little girl I wanna suck your juice!

But maybe because it was pretty novel (tho beastie boys and later faith no more shared the vibe), it came to be their entire identity.

And how often do you want that vibe? Esp 35 years later? Not too often

so yeah, they own that one niche, and they do it well. but theyre locked in there and its not a niche most people gaf about

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766392&forum_id=2:#49214038)

But here's where I think you're selling them short. Yes they have this weird niche, iconic though it may be. But the music is actually quite good. Not sure there are 5 other bands since 1990 that you could compare discography too. If you 'like' Nirvana more, that's fine, but are you going to say Nirvana had 10 songs that are as good as the Chili Peppers 10 best songs? They probably don't. No one does. You're entitled to like other things but the reason they are so popular is their songs are generally better than anyone else's songs pound for pound. They're better than Green Day, they're WAY better than Fall Out Boy. They're much more listenable than Linkin Park which you have to be way further in the White Boy Rage subgenre to listen to. They absolutely dunk on Korn.

You see, in order to make a 'my band is better than' argument, you have to pick a band that is deeper into some indefensible niche. Like, sure, Coldplay is poppier. Metallica is heavier. Radiohead is gloomier. But RCHP's niche is actually more encompassing than most of the other spheres of mainstream relevance. Almost all of them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766392&forum_id=2:#49214066)

Forcing someone to argue Nirvana is better (and they are) just deflects the conversation about RHCPs' merits.

Are you also a Primus fan? You might acknowledge that Primus is really good at what they do, but what they do is very limited. And you could have a scholarly thread about the quality of Primus without having to argue that, say, Rage Against the Machine are better or worse.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766392&forum_id=2:#49214075)

I don't know how you can form an argument about RHCP's quality without comparing them to another band, otherwise it's all personal taste. If we just judge bands against themselves are we not arguing that a band can only be judged on whether they fulfilled their own musical potential?

I can't think of one area in which they could have been better or otherwise done more. We must compare them to other acts to form a consensus of the true meaning of their legacy.

Nirvana is some ways you could argue legitimately that they were more creative and original, that nothing else sounds like that, that they completely revolutionized the genre. But, for instance, more specifically, Kurt wasn't a great guitar soloist and the Chili Peppers have better guitar solos. That's not the whole enchilada but it's an inarguable statement of fact.

But I digress, we fundamentally need to compare bands to one another. There intrinsically must be a hierarchy, else we have nothing to go on but whether or not somebody likes something. I like Deerhoof, but admittedly no one else does. Can't all them 'great' in that sense.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766392&forum_id=2:#49214080)