|
Post by Orange on Apr 12, 2010 16:27:24 GMT -5
does that make them a bad band in your opinion? I have seen on the internet people bashing bands that don't play as well and complex as say, Dream Theater and because of that they "suck". KISS is a classic example of a band that plays 3 chord rock n' roll, but because the music isn't as complex as Led Zeppelin it's "not as good". Nickelback is a more recent band that gets this a lot, and keep in mind I'm not a huge fan of Nickelback outside of a few songs, but they "suck" because they play chord bashers.
So does a band have to be absolutely amazing for you to think they're good, or are bands that play simple music okay too? Just for the record I enjoy both, I like the complex work of Rush, Dream Theater & Tool, but I also enjoy simple music like KISS and Shinedown.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,975
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Apr 12, 2010 16:47:20 GMT -5
No, they suck because I don't care for them.
It's personal opinion. I happen to believe the correct one, but that's the thing about opinions.
I think Dream Theater, KISS and Nickelback all suck.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Todd Grisham on Apr 12, 2010 16:50:04 GMT -5
Do we have to choose between prog and Nickelback?
I hate all bands that can't at least equal Porcupine Tree when it comes to complexity!
|
|
|
Post by Metalheadbanger Man on Apr 12, 2010 16:56:12 GMT -5
Nah. AC/DC have essentially done the same song for over 30 years, and its hardly technical stuff, but they're still awesome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2010 16:59:35 GMT -5
To me I can put up with a band being more of a studio band, but I wish they wouldn't make such a big deal about touring. Some bands need to be in a studio so they can play parts of songs in layers and make it that much more epic. I can understand and appreciate that. I can also understand a band that can do live what they can do in a studio (if not better live than in a studio). I think there's room for both camps.
Someone told me The White Stripes are incredible live, but I heard some of their live stuff and they suck live IMO. They then told me that I was "too stupid to understand they were getting into the emotion of the song". To which I replied "so they don't on the album? That's bull." They said that was "bad business", to which I replied "What? To put the best effort forward when you get infinite redos and can rework a song after it's recorded?" Seriously, if you can't play it live I'd prefer you stick to the studio. And for the record, I mildly enjoy The White Stripes. I like more of their songs than I hate.
I just assume all musicians are at least faking a little of it, at the same time I don't accuse anyone of lip syncing or fake-playing the instruments unless they have a voice in interviews that sounds nothing like their singing voice or if they shoot themselves in the foot ala Ashley Simpson. I take an "innocent until proven guilty" stance on it.
I can understand having to do it in a studio and needing to play a track over and over on top of one another to make an epic song, thats fine. And I don't expect that complexity to be done live either, but if you cannot sing clearly or cannot play without screwing up notes in front of an audience, don't bust your ass night after night trying to. Word gets around WAY easier now when you suck live.
Long story short, if you can't do it live I understand, but don't try to do it live if you can't. It doesn't take away or add anything in my opinion.
And I personally thought the hate on Nickleback was because their lead singer is a douche...not that I think that myself, i'm neutral on the matter. I just hear that's the big reason.
|
|
|
Post by Bullhead on Apr 12, 2010 17:07:04 GMT -5
Nickelback would be a decent rock band if their singer didn't sound like he was the verge of a hernia and if they actually put some effort into their lyrics.
I've heard some stories from back in the day about how people didn't like KISS until they saw them live and how their early studio albums didn't really catch on. I, on the other hand, think those early albums are quite good.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzywarble, squat cobbler on Apr 12, 2010 17:15:20 GMT -5
For me, it's about catchiness and bringing something to the table that isn't dull, and that can come about from simplicity. I love bands like Franz Ferdinand, Nada Surf, The Raconteurs, Shiny Toy Guns, and The Hives, among others, and no one will ever mistake them for being technical. However, there's something about each of these bands that I find catchy and un-boring, and that's enough for me to say, 'they don't suck'. Most radio bands, like Nickelback, Seether, Daughtry, Saving Abel, Mudvayne, et. al. bring nothing new to the table so I find them bland and it's easy for me to say, 'they suck' when they're played on the radio.
|
|
"Hollywood" Cactus Matt
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
You couldn't ask for a better custom title!
How do you spell "Goddess"? C-H-R-I-S-T-Y!
Posts: 15,300
|
Post by "Hollywood" Cactus Matt on Apr 12, 2010 17:59:58 GMT -5
Kiss sucks not because their music is "simple." Kiss sucks because I, personally, think their image and their music don't match. Allow me to explain. Kiss and Marilyn Manson have been compared to each other in terms of showmanship and gimmickry and all of that. To some extent, I can understand. But the main difference is that Marilyn Manson doesn't harmonize and sing about love and all that happiness. If you're going to try to look like you're from Hell, you should probably try to sound like it, too. And Nickelback sucks because I can write a better song in my sleep, and I think "fart" is a perfectly good word to rhyme with "heart," so that should tell you something. The preceding was merely one man's opinion; your mileage may vary. EDIT: What I mean when I talk about Kiss is, if they either (a) played heavier, darker music, or (b) took off the make-up and were just a straight-up rock band with no gimmickry, I would probably like them a lot more.
|
|
|
Post by Ultimo Chocula on Apr 12, 2010 18:10:55 GMT -5
"Hi."
|
|
|
Post by Bullhead on Apr 12, 2010 18:13:50 GMT -5
Matching your image with your sound makes sense. But remember this, one of the most evil and satanic bands of all time that had all the parents up in arms were lead by a gay man in biker clothing.
SATAN!
|
|
|
Post by Ultimo Chocula on Apr 12, 2010 18:17:01 GMT -5
Matching your image with your sound makes sense. But remember this, one of the most evil and satanic bands of all time that had all the parents up in arms were lead by a gay man in biker clothing. SATAN! If Heavy Metal Parking Lot is any indication, they didn't know he was gay so that part doesn't count.
|
|
|
Post by Bullhead on Apr 12, 2010 18:22:55 GMT -5
Matching your image with your sound makes sense. But remember this, one of the most evil and satanic bands of all time that had all the parents up in arms were lead by a gay man in biker clothing. SATAN! If Heavy Metal Parking Lot is any indication, they didn't know he was gay so that part doesn't count. Very true. But I meant that in a sense of looking back at how silly it all really was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2010 18:44:10 GMT -5
Matching your image with your sound makes sense. But remember this, one of the most evil and satanic bands of all time that had all the parents up in arms were lead by a gay man in biker clothing. SATAN! ??
|
|
|
Post by Metalheadbanger Man on Apr 12, 2010 18:47:46 GMT -5
Matching your image with your sound makes sense. But remember this, one of the most evil and satanic bands of all time that had all the parents up in arms were lead by a gay man in biker clothing. SATAN! ?? He's referring to Judas Priest.
|
|
|
Post by "Playboy" Don Douglas on Apr 12, 2010 18:51:19 GMT -5
I've long held the belief that talent alone does not equal good music.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2010 18:51:32 GMT -5
He's referring to Judas Priest. I know, that was the 2nd thing that popped into my head That video was the 1st lol.....Plus any excuse to post a Queen vid lol
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Apr 12, 2010 19:00:01 GMT -5
EDIT: What I mean when I talk about Kiss is, if they either (a) played heavier, darker music, or (b) took off the make-up and were just a straight-up rock band with no gimmickry, I would probably like them a lot more. They've done both. Ath the same time. Check out the Revenge and Carnival of Souls albums.
|
|
|
Post by Bullhead on Apr 12, 2010 19:01:18 GMT -5
Matching your image with your sound makes sense. But remember this, one of the most evil and satanic bands of all time that had all the parents up in arms were lead by a gay man in biker clothing. SATAN! ?? ;D
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Apr 12, 2010 19:08:33 GMT -5
does that make them a bad band in your opinion? I have seen on the internet people bashing bands that don't play as well and complex as say, Dream Theater and because of that they "suck". KISS is a classic example of a band that plays 3 chord rock n' roll, but because the music isn't as complex as Led Zeppelin it's "not as good". Nickelback is a more recent band that gets this a lot, and keep in mind I'm not a huge fan of Nickelback outside of a few songs, but they "suck" because they play chord bashers. So does a band have to be absolutely amazing for you to think they're good, or are bands that play simple music okay too? Just for the record I enjoy both, I like the complex work of Rush, Dream Theater & Tool, but I also enjoy simple music like KISS and Shinedown. They're good to me. Look, it's simple. If I like a song for whatever reason, I like it. It could be the most complex song on the planet with the most touching lyrics I have ever heard or it could be a 3 chord ditty that sounds fun and cheers me up. To me, if I like it, it's good and has merit.
|
|
|
Post by Metalheadbanger Man on Apr 12, 2010 19:33:14 GMT -5
does that make them a bad band in your opinion? I have seen on the internet people bashing bands that don't play as well and complex as say, Dream Theater and because of that they "suck". KISS is a classic example of a band that plays 3 chord rock n' roll, but because the music isn't as complex as Led Zeppelin it's "not as good". Nickelback is a more recent band that gets this a lot, and keep in mind I'm not a huge fan of Nickelback outside of a few songs, but they "suck" because they play chord bashers. So does a band have to be absolutely amazing for you to think they're good, or are bands that play simple music okay too? Just for the record I enjoy both, I like the complex work of Rush, Dream Theater & Tool, but I also enjoy simple music like KISS and Shinedown. They're good to me. Look, it's simple. If I like a song for whatever reason, I like it. It could be the most complex song on the planet with the most touching lyrics I have ever heard or it could be a 3 chord ditty that sounds fun and cheers me up. To me, if I like it, it's good and has merit. Weezer do this ridiculously well, still one of my favourites. Some of the first songs I learned on the drums were by Weezer, because Pat's beats aren't insanely complex (though some are deceptively difficult).
|
|