Yes. They were pretty good, but in the late '90s had a minor hit called "Pepper" which got them radio airplay and killed them off as soon as people found out that the rest of the stuff on the CD was DIFFERENT from the single.Rorschach wrote:Speaking of scatalogical stuff, wasn't there also a band called Butthole Surfers?
As a consequence of their success, they were briefly banned from Wal-Mart for using the word "butthole" in their name. They then lost a ton of scene cred by doing another pressing of their CD with a squirrel on the cover under the name of "The B.H. Surfers" expressly for Wal-Mart sale. Few lamer actions have made it into the historical record.
The problem with 'icky' modern-rock bandnames is that they are abusing a flag that exists for real practical reasons. If I leave my Intestinal Bleeding or Jungle Rot or Dying Fetus CDs around, people know with ONE GLANCE at the cover that the material inside is strictly for sick freaks who own several hundred black T-shirts featuring illegible logos. The use of grotesque names for bands that, by contrast, are perfectly acceptable for normal listening, does nothing but dilute the protections that time and tradition have placed on our infernal art.
Answering the original question:
Bands that instantiate the grotesque in more than just their name appeal to people like me who have a pessimistic view of the human condition and human society. Morbid Angel's "Where The Slime Live" is a stellar example of this: the lyrics have a thick payload of disgusting imagery, and the music is appropriately liquid and on the edge of visceral disturbance, but the message that is conveyed is not pure shock, but rather an expression of distaste at the corruption and decay that this existence, in this society, mandates.
I have no idea why anyone would want to listen to Puddle of Mudd. And Rainbow Butt Monkeys, as a bandname, has nothing on the Ass Baboons of Venus.
--K
Pwolf
