|
|
Post by King Boo on Apr 12, 2010 19:35:35 GMT -5
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). I like Weezer and saw them in concert with the Foo Fighters in 05. Both bands were pretty good live and fun to see. |
|
|
|
Post by Metalheadbanger Man on Apr 12, 2010 19:37:19 GMT -5
Damn, that's one hell of a double bill.
I finally get to see Weezer in August, can't wait.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Apr 12, 2010 19:46:19 GMT -5
Damn, that's one hell of a double bill. I finally get to see Weezer in August, can't wait. Oh it was. When I heard they were touring together my friend scored us tickets and I was super amped. The show didn't let me down either, especially when Roger Taylor came out and played drums for "Tie Your Mother Down" with the Foo Fighters. But yea, they were good and you should have a fun time. They shouldn't let you down  |
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Apr 12, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
I've long held the belief that talent alone does not equal good music. Nothing is worse IMO than pretentious musicians who think talent supersedes the importance of being entertaining. *I call it the Malmstein condition. |
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,200 
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Apr 12, 2010 23:51:46 GMT -5
Degree of Difficulty doesn't really do it for me. I like a song if I like it, technical aspects be damned.
|
|
|
|
Post by elmstreetkid on Apr 13, 2010 1:15:12 GMT -5
I've long held the belief that talent alone does not equal good music. Nothing is worse IMO than pretentious musicians who think talent supersedes the importance of being entertaining. *I call it the Malmstein condition. THANK YOU. I would also attribute it to large chunks of prog rock and post-80s metal, not to mention Radiohead and a lot of modern indie. The simple fact is that no matter how elaborate you try to make rock and roll, some Delta bluesman from the 30s or drunk from Memphis or punk kid from D.C. could step up and play three chords with enough soul and energy to disintegrate everyone in the room. That's what makes it such a vital artform. Why ruin it by being a total nerd? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2010 1:16:29 GMT -5
I say no...
For example, Dir en grey is one of my favorite bands, and I've seen them play 3 times. They're not what I'd call "good" live.
A band only sucks if I don't like them.
|
|
Ghostorm
Mephisto
Wheres Appa? What did you do to my Bison?
Posts: 693
|
Post by Ghostorm on Apr 13, 2010 1:23:47 GMT -5
For me personally listening to technical music is a bit of a turnoff. When i listen to music i want it to take me on a journey, i dont want to sit there and think about what chords or scale the band is playing. Atmosphere is what im into regardless of the genre.
Although i do have a soft spot for Opeth!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2010 8:06:58 GMT -5
No. Dream Theater has a great collection of musicians that can play, but they still write crappy unmemorable songs, IMO. On the other hand, Green Day and Kiss have limited talent, but are great because they write good songs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slammywinner on Apr 13, 2010 10:32:56 GMT -5
I've played and recorded tons of different music styles. I remember I was jamming with these hippies one night and one of the singers dragged me out to her car to listen to this "mind blowing" bass part. I don't recall the band, but it was a 15 minute free form jam. She fast-forwarded to the part she wanted me to hear. I listened and kept waiting for something to happen...there was plenty of noodling - lots of notes played with some skill - but nothing other than random runs. After a few minutes she turns to me and says "Wasn't that amazing?" I never even heard what she was on about, or at least I wasn't impressed. I think good music is more about a vibe - a good sound, a good melody and a good arrangement of the band. Sometimes this can be improved by well considered virtuoso playing, but often a lack of thought or conversely overthinking a song can kill it. My favorite musician who wraps it all up is Ben Folds. That guy can shred and he often does, but he doesn't insist on making that the centerpiece of every song. Sometimes it is about playing crazy solos, but sometimes it's about the vocal harmonies, the story in the lyrics or kick-ass bass and drums. And there is nothing wrong with being a studio band. They are different art forms. And I think it's a bit unfair to judge a live show as bad by a bootleg tape - a legit "live" album or DVD sure. I think those loose so much in terms of sight and sound, especially bass. You might completely miss why the crowd is into it. And Nickelback sucks. I shouldn't have to explain that. www.you tube.com/watch?v=gtgSAlclqS8 Edit: He flips the bird. It's a hilarious and awesome clip, but I'm breaking the link. |
|
|
|
Post by "American Cream" Dusty Loads on Apr 13, 2010 10:59:26 GMT -5
I love technical shit to an extent. Sometimes it gets to the point where I get bored so I don't listen to super technical bands really. But I really don't like the view that just cuz someone is a very technical musician automatically makes them a nerd or someone stroking their ego.
But I do enjoy "less complex" and catchy shit too. For the most part if a band sets a good atmosphere I enjoy it. Whether that means they set it with crazy complex solos or just a couple chords I'll still enjoy it.
And for the record I don't like Yngwie Malmsteen
|
|
|
|
Post by Milkman Norm on Apr 13, 2010 11:11:44 GMT -5
Nothing is worse IMO than pretentious musicians who think talent supersedes the importance of being entertaining. *I call it the Malmstein condition. THANK YOU. I would also attribute it to large chunks of prog rock and post-80s metal, not to mention Radiohead and a lot of modern indie. The simple fact is that no matter how elaborate you try to make rock and roll, some Delta bluesman from the 30s or drunk from Memphis or punk kid from D.C. could step up and play three chords with enough soul and energy to disintegrate everyone in the room. That's what makes it such a vital artform. Why ruin it by being a total nerd? I don't see how techincally proficant prog-rock "ruins" rock by advancing the formula from its Robert Johnson routes. I like some prog stuff, not others, just like I like some three cord rock and not others. But I can't understand this idea that using talent to create and compose difficult pieces of music it somehow "ruins" rock. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2010 11:18:37 GMT -5
Some people are just music snobs. I can be to a point as well, but I think we all can. Let's say Buckethead who is an excellent guitarist, but I can't really get into his albums since they really don't have any emotion to them. Unlike say Nickelback who actually has songs you might be able to relate to. Most of their songs sound alike, I'll agree with that. However they make music that you can actually relate to unlike maybe the more technical artists.
|
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Apr 13, 2010 11:19:32 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. I was waiting for someone to post this. Oh, and one more thing... 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. A more apt comparison would be Marilyn Manson and Alice Cooper, because the idea behind Kiss has never been what you just described. It's more like a group of larger than life comic book heroes, each one with a distinct gimmick. Yeah, you have Gene Simmons as the "Demon" from hell, and a lot of his credited songs play to that gimmick (Unholy, God of Thunder, so on and so forth), but then you also have Paul Stanley as the Star Child, which is supposed to be represent a star-crossed lover of sorts, which is why most of the band's love songs come from him. Then you have the Space Ace and the Cat Man (regardless of who may be playing them at the moment), and you have 4 distinct gimmicks that make up one unique supergroup. Once again, leave the Manson comparisons to Alice Cooper. The idea behind Kiss is completely different. |
|
"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 13, 2010 14:59:29 GMT -5
They've done both. Ath the same time. Check out the Revenge and Carnival of Souls albums. I was waiting for someone to post this. Oh, and one more thing... 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. A more apt comparison would be Marilyn Manson and Alice Cooper, because the idea behind Kiss has never been what you just described. It's more like a group of larger than life comic book heroes, each one with a distinct gimmick. Yeah, you have Gene Simmons as the "Demon" from hell, and a lot of his credited songs play to that gimmick (Unholy, God of Thunder, so on and so forth), but then you also have Paul Stanley as the Star Child, which is supposed to be represent a star-crossed lover of sorts, which is why most of the band's love songs come from him. Then you have the Space Ace and the Cat Man (regardless of who may be playing them at the moment), and you have 4 distinct gimmicks that make up one unique supergroup. Once again, leave the Manson comparisons to Alice Cooper. The idea behind Kiss is completely different. Fair enough. I was actually going to include Alice Cooper in my original comparison, but left him out for whatever reason. And I can see your points - both of you - and I can definitely see why people like KISS, but I respectfully disagree. I don't like their music, but I'm glad that you do. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Apr 13, 2010 15:20:30 GMT -5
Not really. Reggie and the Full Effect is fairly simple...and I love it.
|
|
MrBRulzOK
Wade Wilson
Mr No-Pants Heathen
Something Witty Here.
Posts: 26,719
|
Post by MrBRulzOK on Apr 13, 2010 15:25:07 GMT -5
I personally don't believe that any band "sucks" Most of them have some form of audience after all, so they must be doing something right. That said, if I don't enjoy the sounds they produce, then chances are I won't listen to them of my accord. Music is a form of expression though and honestly these groups are all perfectly entitled to express themselves in whatever manner they choose. At the same time, I should be free to express my opinion about not liking their music without being crucified for it.
Of course there is a difference between opinion and fact. A musician's skill, for example, is not based on opinion. There is such a thing as a wrong opinion. That can sometimes be chalked up to the person with said opinion having no idea what they are talking about. For example, it's perfectly fine for someone to say... Twinkle Twinkle Little Star is their favorite song ever. That's fine. A little weird, but fine. What's not fine is them declaring that Twinkle Twinkle Little Star is indisputably the greatest song ever composed.
It basically boils down to this. People should be free to enjoy whatever band they want. That said, they should not try to convince anyone that this band is the greatest one of all time. Maybe it is in their mind as well as many other's. They are wasting their time though if they think they can try and convince everyone else to believe the same thing. Opinions simply do not work that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Apr 13, 2010 15:33:53 GMT -5
I don't think I've ever been a stickler for the technical aspect of music. I'm a fan of bands like Earth Wind & Fire (as technical as one could imagine, both in R&B or Rock) as well as the Ramones (ultra-minimal).
As long as the end result hits me emotionally, I'm happy- be it through the melody/beat or the lyrics.
|
|
Blindkarevik
Grimlock
Rock... Paper... Straight-edge!
I Like To <blank>
Posts: 14,343
|
Post by Blindkarevik on Apr 13, 2010 17:32:16 GMT -5
I definitely don't try to "over-analyze" bands I listen to. If what I hear sounds good, I listen to... regardless of if it's two chords being hammered on while the singer repeats the same word over and over... or if it's a 25 minute symphonic and technical masterpiece that takes nothing less than prodigies to create and play.
However, I do find it a benefit, if I'm a huge fan of the vocals of one song, whereas someone else isn't big on them but is a big fan of the guitar/drum/etc,.... in that song.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slammywinner on Apr 13, 2010 20:28:10 GMT -5
I personally don't believe that any band "sucks" Most of them have some form of audience after all, so they must be doing something right. That said, if I don't enjoy the sounds they produce, then chances are I won't listen to them of my accord. Music is a form of expression though and honestly these groups are all perfectly entitled to express themselves in whatever manner they choose. At the same time, I should be free to express my opinion about not liking their music without being crucified for it. Of course there is a difference between opinion and fact. A musician's skill, for example, is not based on opinion. There is such a thing as a wrong opinion. That can sometimes be chalked up to the person with said opinion having no idea what they are talking about. For example, it's perfectly fine for someone to say... Twinkle Twinkle Little Star is their favorite song ever. That's fine. A little weird, but fine. What's not fine is them declaring that Twinkle Twinkle Little Star is indisputably the greatest song ever composed. It basically boils down to this. People should be free to enjoy whatever band they want. That said, they should not try to convince anyone that this band is the greatest one of all time. Maybe it is in their mind as well as many other's. They are wasting their time though if they think they can try and convince everyone else to believe the same thing. Opinions simply do not work that way. Interesting viewpoint...but I heard bands that suck and plenty of them. Maybe their moms like them and yes, that counts for something I suppose. I also think that skill is objective depending on how you define it. It you can play Prestissimo, 64th note, mixolydian runs, then you're doing something very few people could do, so that's skilled. But there are plenty of classically trained guys with incredible chops that aren't really ready to rock. These guys have skill but not talent. |
|
