Fun Stuff > BAND
Overrated Bands
KeepACoolin:
As I said: musical talent is a prerequisite for me to consider a band "good." It is NOT all that is important, but it IS important.
Premise: For, me a band must be instrumentally skilled to be good.
Second Premise: The Ramones were not instrumentally skilled.
Conclusion: I do not consider the Ramones a good band.
Premise: A band does not need to be unbelievably good at their instruments for me to consider them good, just better than decent.
Second Premise: The Black Keys are not unbelievable musicians, but they are above average and write good, bluesy music.
Conclusion: Despite their not being the best musicians, I like the Black Keys.
And, to be honest, I don't listen very much to Fugazi or Husker Du and I don't really have any interest in giving them a long look at the moment.
Thrillho:
--- Quote from: KeepACoolin on 07 Feb 2009, 12:27 ---Premise: For, me a band must be instrumentally skilled to be good.
--- End quote ---
1. Why?
2. How do you define 'skill'?
3. Where is the line at which someone is or isn't skilled? Noel Gallagher is considered by many people to be a terrible musician, but the guy can play five or six instruments, sing vocal harmonies, and has sold millions of records, without any music lessons. Is he not musically skilled? I think he is, if not in the traditional sense, necessarily.
P.S. The Sex Pistols aren't actually that bad musically. Well, I say the Pistols, I mean Steve Jones.
Cernunnos:
Music happens to be largely an aesthetic discipline. Skill far less relevant than sounding good. though, for the record, it can be an enjoyable thing on its own. Also, whether or not the Ramones could play well or not is not relevant at all, since they actively chose to continue to play in the manner that they did.
Now, to be perfectly honest, it is completely acceptable to consider the physical skill of a musician as an important aspect in your own music taste. I personally section the way i judge music into three categories, each of which will vary in importance from person to person: aesthetics(does it sound good, interesting, or cool?), ethos(do they have artistic integrity? do I agree with their ideological stance, if they appear to have one?), and athletics(can they play lots of notes, in tune, in time?). This is also the order of importance with which i hold them. Perhaps you have a different order of importance. That's okay. What is not okay is to confuse not not being interested in a band and thinking they are not good. those are two entirely different things.
KeepACoolin:
--- Quote from: DynamiteKid on 07 Feb 2009, 12:42 ---
--- Quote from: KeepACoolin on 07 Feb 2009, 12:27 ---Premise: For, me a band must be instrumentally skilled to be good.
--- End quote ---
1. Why?
2. How do you define 'skill'?
3. Where is the line at which someone is or isn't skilled? Noel Gallagher is considered by many people to be a terrible musician, but the guy can play five or six instruments, sing vocal harmonies, and has sold millions of records, without any music lessons. Is he not musically skilled? I think he is, if not in the traditional sense, necessarily.
P.S. The Sex Pistols aren't actually that bad musically. Well, I say the Pistols, I mean Steve Jones.
--- End quote ---
1. Because I place value on someone being good at what they do. If you are a guitarist, I am interested in you being a good guitarist. It's like sports: the best players on a team are usually the most popular. I want bands to be good at what they do.
2. I define skill as technical proficiency at an instrument. This is easiest for me to define in terms of drums, because that is what I play. If a drummer is capable of maintaining rhythm in a variety of time signatures and at a variety of speeds while playing complex material, especially syncopation, and has technically difficult fills, I am inclined to like that drummer. However, as I said, this is not the ONLY factor I consider, but it is the first. Of course, I'm not wholly consistent, and sometimes I allow one musician's skill to make up for the failures of the others (a la The Doors: John Densmore is a technically skilled drummer, the other guitar and organ are not at the same level).
3. While I appreciate multi-talentedness, I am more concerned with proficiency at one instrument. For instance, a friend and I argued the merits of Eric Clapton vs. Jimmy Page. My friend argued that Clapton should be considered better for, among other reasons, the fact that he often sang while playing. I disagree. I think skill or talent should be judged primarily within one field or at one instrument/position in the band (i.e., no bonus points for singing guitarists).
Also, I don't know if you can say the Sex Pistols were not bad musically when they featured Sid "I Have No Idea What I'm Doing, So I Will Pluck Some Strings Very Fast" Vicious.
BlahBlah:
The Doors are considered by some to be incredibly overrated.
The Smiths are not overrated, neither are the Ramones, I can't believe that nobody called you out on the Smiths comment.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version