THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: Tybalt on 30 Aug 2008, 23:41

Title: Short
Post by: Tybalt on 30 Aug 2008, 23:41
http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1196
I was reading this comic when I got an Idea:  What about the opposite?  What about the world's shortest band name?

I guess the shortest real band names are REM, AC/DC, KISS, ...which is weird, because KISS definately doesn't sound like what their name implies.  And is REM disqualified for being an acronym?

So what about "No"?  It would probably sound like british punk rock, like the sex pistols.  Or, conversely, "Yes", would sound like they make nothing but show tunes.
"Yo", the most obvious (and offensive) name for a hip-hop or Rap group ever. "sup" would be a band of stoners, and the electric guitar would be awful, and really loud.

All of these names become funnier when you add "the".  What about "FUCK"?  "Dumb"?  "cool"?  Good evening everyone, we're "good"
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Wasteroo on 31 Aug 2008, 00:00
I'm not sure if !!! counts, but I'm pretty sure they win.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Be My Head on 31 Aug 2008, 00:10
Can, Neu!, and Yes all come to mind.

If you search on Last.fm you can find plenty of one letter bands.

http://www.last.fm/music/Z
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Wasteroo on 31 Aug 2008, 00:13
Quote
Z (USA) aka AZDZ or AZ/DZ: a band of Ahmet & Dweezil Zappa both being sons of the late Frank Zappa

What the hell?

I mean, all respect to Frank Zappa and his offspring, but seriously, 'AZ/DZ'?

Really?
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Tybalt on 31 Aug 2008, 00:28
that is a wonderful last name.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Jackie Blue on 31 Aug 2008, 00:35
You are perhaps aware that both Yes and Fuck actually are the names of real bands.

And uh, obviously the winner is X.

GET WITH IT PEOPLE.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Jackie Blue on 31 Aug 2008, 00:36
FUN FACT: in 10th grade I bought a Malcom X t-shirt because I thought it was a t-shirt for the band X.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Be My Head on 31 Aug 2008, 01:29
Yes were fantastic, I highly recommend any of the early albums with Bill Bruford on drums.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Hat on 31 Aug 2008, 02:11
I was going to say Om but I guess you have me beat
Title: Re: Short
Post by: michaelicious on 31 Aug 2008, 07:01
FUN FACT: in 10th grade I bought a Malcom X t-shirt because I thought it was a t-shirt for the band X.


Just another example of whiteys appropriating black culture.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: imapiratearg on 31 Aug 2008, 08:23
Yeah, X win, but Ef would be up there with Om.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: bbqrocks on 31 Aug 2008, 08:26
But X is quite a 'long' letter, compared to, say, 'l', or 'I'. Is there a band called I?
Title: Re: Short
Post by: sean on 31 Aug 2008, 10:40
Apparently there is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_(band))
Title: Re: Short
Post by: bbqrocks on 31 Aug 2008, 11:01
Dammit, I can't believe I didn't remember them.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Thrillho on 31 Aug 2008, 11:11
A.

They're a band. I'd say look them up, but it's a catastrophically stupid name as far as publicity.

They had an album called Hi-Fi Serious and a lot of people liked their song 'Nothing.'
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Jackie Blue on 31 Aug 2008, 11:42
Technically the album Nearly God didn't even have an artist or band name attached to it when it came out.  Nothing is shorter than nothing.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: bbqrocks on 31 Aug 2008, 11:46
Everything?
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Jackie Blue on 31 Aug 2008, 11:52
Oh, oh.  Arise Therefore didn't have any artist/band name on it either originally.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Thrillho on 31 Aug 2008, 13:12
If we're going down this route, Damon Albarne says that The Good, The Bad And The Queen was the name of that record, but not the band that recorded it, as the band has no name. Apparently.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Jackie Blue on 31 Aug 2008, 13:14
By default I ignore everything Damon Albarne says, ever.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: bbqrocks on 31 Aug 2008, 13:16
I may be a tad late here, but OP: AC/DC is an acronym too.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Thrillho on 31 Aug 2008, 13:24
Whether you want to ignore it or not is irrelevant, it applies to the thread as much as the other stuff you listed.

Fuckers.  :-D
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Tybalt on 31 Aug 2008, 14:27
I guess if there are band names with nothing, then we have to award it to the first known band without a name.

Of course, there are traditional songs like "happy birthday" with unknown origin(?), but we can't award it to nobody.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Thrillho on 31 Aug 2008, 14:41
The origin of that's very well known. Or rather, not unknown. Not that I remember it myself.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: michaelicious on 31 Aug 2008, 14:44
I wrote it.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: pwhodges on 31 Aug 2008, 14:44
Happy Birthday is still in copyright by most accounts, possibly until 2030 in some jurisdictions; but some aspects of this are disputed.  See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You).
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Zingoleb on 31 Aug 2008, 20:44
Slightly miffed that the first poster didn't know there was a band called Yes and HOLY SHIT THEY JUST CAME ON RANDOM!!!

See, for a long time, I wanted to know more indie rock, for the purpose of (besides good music) A) Knowing what the hell indie people are talking about, and B) Confusing people with bands they've never heard of. Apparently, if you listen to classic rock, the indie people will have no idea what you're talking about, so I can relate to the baby boomers and confuse the hell out of YOU people! Mwahahahaha!
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Wasteroo on 31 Aug 2008, 20:52
Dude, I practically grew up on classic rock, so even though my tastes have blossomed since then, I retain a pretty good knowledge of it.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Be My Head on 31 Aug 2008, 21:21
Same here, I used to listen to stuff like that exclusively. Then I discovered The Flaming Lips and decided to "broaden my horizons". I like to try out as many genres as I can though. So yeah, nothing wrong with listening to "Classic Rock" (stupid stupid name for a genre) and tons of other stuff as well.

On topic, what about bands who are represented by some sort of symbol?

http://www.last.fm/music/%5C
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Wasteroo on 31 Aug 2008, 21:32
Whoa, can we be best friends now? The Flaming Lips were my gateway drug into good modern music too! Well, the Flaming Lips and the White Stripes.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Be My Head on 31 Aug 2008, 22:28
LOL, sure. As long as you like Metal and Post-Rock as well ;)
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Jackie Blue on 31 Aug 2008, 22:41
Apparently, if you listen to classic rock, the indie people will have no idea what you're talking about

Apparently, you've missed the fact that everyone on this forum is totally fucking gay for Dire Straits.  Including myself.

In fact I don't know any "indie" fans who dislike classic rock.  Most people I know fucking love the Stones, the Boss, the Who, etc.  You just cannot deny the awesomeness music like that represents.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Wasteroo on 01 Sep 2008, 10:16
You forgot the Beatles, somehow. Unless people on this forum hate them?
Title: Re: Short
Post by: David_Dovey on 01 Sep 2008, 10:32
Some people like them, some people don't, some are apathetic.

Generally we understand that everything that can be said about The Beatles already has, so we don't discuss them very much.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Jackie Blue on 01 Sep 2008, 10:49
The Beatles are okay, and as stated, aren't really exciting to talk about.  There isn't a Beatles song that makes me go "FUCK YEAH" like "Surrender" or "Sympathy For the Devil" etc.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: RedLion on 01 Sep 2008, 23:08
I disagree with every single word of that post. You can talk about The Beatles for hours on end. I have.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Nodaisho on 01 Sep 2008, 23:49
Not even "While my guitar gently weeps"? That one is awesome.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Zingoleb on 02 Sep 2008, 00:09
Yeah, well, I'm new. Not a good excuse, but I'll use it. Apparently, I fit in...if I was straight I'd go gay for Knopfler.

And "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" wasn't a Beatles song. That was a Harrison song. ;)
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Durin on 02 Sep 2008, 04:32
This will not turn into a Beatles thread. I refuse.

So for bands that have names attached, "." would probably win. You can't get much smaller than that. As for bands that released stuff without a name. Well we'll just have to do research for that.

Title: Re: Short
Post by: Thrillho on 02 Sep 2008, 08:26
And "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" wasn't a Beatles song. That was a Harrison song. ;)

...It was Harrison written, if that's what you meant. But it was on The White Album.


 :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:patronizing winx  :wink: :wink: :wink:
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Zingoleb on 02 Sep 2008, 20:01
Yeah, but I consider the Beatles stuff and George Harrison's songs released while he was with the Beatles as separate entities.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: Thrillho on 03 Sep 2008, 07:28
...why? Those songs would all be at least slightly different without the rest of the band. The Beatles were at their best together. Aside from a couple of Lennon's solo records and the first four sides of Harrison's first one, as solo artists they didn't even equal their previous work.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: jimbunny on 03 Sep 2008, 07:41
I don't say this often about people, but George Harrison had quite a brow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7qpfGVUd8c). I mean, I've seen some brows in my time, but that is something special.
Title: Re: Short
Post by: BlahBlah on 03 Sep 2008, 07:50
Clapton was pretty messed up back then...