Fun Stuff > BAND
Overrated Bands
KeepACoolin:
--- Quote from: Cernunnos on 07 Feb 2009, 12:45 ---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.
--- End quote ---
Yes, music is aesthetic. I personally believe that technically complex music, in general, sounds better than simplistic music. There is little layering and subtlety possible if the musicians struggle to play basic material in tune and on beat. And, even if The Ramones actually were better musicians than they performed, that doesn't change my point. Their music is simplistic and based almost entirely on speed. As to your criteria, it's fairly similar to mine, except that I would place "athletics" (technical skill) first, not because it's all encompassing, but because I do not want to listen to a band with lesser talent. Also, I sould replace your category of "ethos" with a different concept. Almost no bands share my ideologies, therefore I usually disregard this. Instead, I consider whether there is some sort of connection and internal consistency in the band's body of work. Is there a similar mood? Sound? Feeling? This is one of the reasons that Led Zeppelin is my favorite group: everything they do has a particular sense of mysticism about it. The music seems almost mythic, and not in the sense of "OMG, Zeppelin are gods!!1!!!," but in the sense of their being something very mysterious about it. Even their most disparate songs- say "When the Levee Breaks" and "Communication Breakdown" - have a slight connection in some metaphysical way. I will end now, since it appears that I am becoming too philosophical for my own tastes.
BlahBlah:
Oh, fuck you.
KeepACoolin:
--- Quote from: BlahBlah on 07 Feb 2009, 13:27 ---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.
--- End quote ---
I also think that The Doors are somewhat overrated. I still like them. I think that people tend to overrate Jim Morrison while underrating John Densmore, who is my focal point when I listen (as I mentioned, I am a drummer).
I already mentioned why I think The Ramones are overrated, but, you're right, nobody has mentioned The Smiths so far. I just don't like their music, for one thing, and, for another, I have a huge, undying hatred for Morrissey (I hope I spelled that right). Admittedly, I also like The Police while hating Sting, but I like the music of The Police much more than The Smiths. Obviously, you disagree.
ImRonBurgundy?:
--- Quote from: KeepACoolin on 07 Feb 2009, 11:16 ---Guitar: random downstrokes (playing in a coherent time signature not necessary).
--- End quote ---
I defy you to name even one Ramones song where Johnny Ramone was playing out of time.
Dazed:
--- Quote from: KeepACoolin on 07 Feb 2009, 12:27 ---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.
--- End quote ---
All the musical skill in the world doesn't make up for being shitty musicians. Music, in the end, is about sounding good. Example: none of the Rolling Stones can play their instruments for shit, with the possible exception of Keith Richards and Mick Taylor; but they are (were) a great band. Despite their near complete lack of technical ability, they still wrote good music and sounded good together. If all it took to make a good band/good music were talented musicians, then 90% of prog rock/metal bands wouldn't be the absolute shitpiles that they actually are. See, for example, Dream Theater; fantastically talented musicians, but for the most part a terrible, terrible band. Van Halen, Eddie is one of the most technically amazing guitarists ever, but his music sucks (this can be applied to most guitar wankers, actually).
Basically, the first priority for good music cannot simply be pure chops. There are way too many technically proficient people who just make shitty shitty music for this to be reasonable.
Anyway, back on topic, U2, The Beatles, Radiohead, Bruce Springsteen, Explosions in the Sky, Pink Floyd, Kanye West, Muse, and yes, the Sex Pistols, are overrated.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version