Originally posted by Lord_Andres
I did sy that, they are bad, many of the times they dont even sing they like talk, bad melodies, and average playing
Average playing? Man, just because you suck off Yngwie Malmsteen (who for the record, can just play really fast, he isn't good at making music) it doesn't mean everyone who isn't Scandanavian or Bon Jovi, is average.
Learn this.
Bardock: So he's a great kareoke artist, so what? Can find them in any decent club.
-AC
A band that is still relevant today as they were throughout
the 60's, 70's 80's & early 90's, then The KinKs and the song writer Ray Davies are something that if you read quite a lot of the lyrics and look at the date they were first published, then you will come to the conclusion that they were quite ahead of their time and predicted the future, not intentionally though.
KinKs lyrics at... http://kinks.it.rit.edu/
Also... If you want to talk about an up to date studio, that was always that ever since it was established in the mid to late 70's KonK Studio is the one.
Someone who likes Bon Jovi (who is shit, whether you want to admit it or not), saying that Slipknot is shit.
This is almost as ridiculous as whoever it was that said that Slipknot was skater grunge.
As to older bands like the Beatles...well, they have their merits, but I don't care for them. Just simply not my thing, and I don't really like how people seem to worship them. Vastly overrated.
And for the record, I love Radiohead (and would count them among one of my favorite bands), and I think that Mike Patton is a genius.
Originally posted by Lord_Andres
I dont just like Scandanavian's and Bon Jovi, I love good music where ever its from, I love Vivaldi, Bach and lots of others of same kind, I like lots of different music, but not crap music like Slipknot, Morbit angel, Antrax, and all that crap, that I dont like, get it?
The thing is, you just don't like that music. It doesn't mean they're crap.
Bon Jovi isn't shit because I don't like his music, it's actually shit.
-AC
I always wondered how "good" music is defined...especially people that listen to Rock think their Music is "good" music. I mean I like it too...I just can't define "good" music.....nor "bad" music for that matter....by personal taste yes...that's possibly...but lots of you probably would say that the music I listen to is crap...
Well I recognise that I can't hear music for someone and make them agree that what a band produces is good to great to excellent music. I know that. As stupid as it sounds, I can't factually and scientifically prove that Metallica are better than Simple Plan, but common sense just makes that sort of thing a borderline fact.
However, when it comes down to things like integrity, technical ability, these things are provable. Because they are measureable and when held up against what makes an artist, they are factual.
But that's another thread.
-AC
However, when it comes down to things like integrity, technical ability, these things are provable. Because they are measureable and when held up against what makes an artist, they are factual.
mmmm....technical ability i think can be something that is actually really difficult to prove from albums and even from live performances
many bands write songs that are very simple to play even for relatively unpracticed musicians...an example being a band that for some reason i have the feeling AC doesn't like....the strokes....many of their songs are almost as simple as 1 or 2 chords repeated over and over again....something in my view that the beatles also done
but i dont think it can be assumed from hearing those tunes that the guitarists are technically inferior to guitarists who wank out every guitar solo as fast as their stubby little fingers will allow and use every ridiculous harmonic/pig squeal/ finger tapping technique known to the guitaring world.
but what does grate me more than anything is the fact that in the pop world...the majority of "hits" are written by musically inept fat men in suits who are paid to churn out catchy trash made only to generate as much cash s possible
onto the subject
older bands and artists...i think that people such as don mclean, bob dylan etc are the golden era of their genres and probably wont be bettered but as newer genres emerge then there will obviously be bands from the modern era that will be seen as the defining moments of those types of music...radiohead will undoubtadly be one of them although i dont particularly like their music...i can appreciate their massive influence of bands and artists that i do like
another thing that really bothered me was when oasis emerged with their pro beatles shouting...then all of a sudden ever person my age who hadn't given the beatles a look at were suddenly saying they are the greatest band going....
Originally posted by jaden101
mmmm....technical ability i think can be something that is actually really difficult to prove from albums and even from live performances
I don't, really.
Originally posted by jaden101
many bands write songs that are very simple to play even for relatively unpracticed musicians...an example being a band that for some reason i have the feeling AC doesn't like....the strokes....many of their songs are almost as simple as 1 or 2 chords repeated over and over again....something in my view that the beatles also done
I think The Strokes are great.
Originally posted by jaden101
but i dont think it can be assumed from hearing those tunes that the guitarists are technically inferior to guitarists who wank out every guitar solo as fast as their stubby little fingers will allow and use every ridiculous harmonic/pig squeal/ finger tapping technique known to the guitaring world.
As said. Satch, Vai etc, they're all greats in terms of technical ability. They'll never be as good as making music on a guitar as Hendrix was. So he's the better guitarist overall.
You don't have to be a technical guitar god to make great guitar music.
Originally posted by jaden101
another thing that really bothered me was when oasis emerged with their pro beatles shouting...then all of a sudden ever person my age who hadn't given the beatles a look at were suddenly saying they are the greatest band going....
If Mr. Bungle got back together and became the biggest band on Earth, everyone would claim they were a fan.
Just how things go.
-AC
As said. Satch, Vai etc, they're all greats in terms of technical ability. They'll never be as good as making music on a guitar as Hendrix was. So he's the better guitarist overall.
indeed...i totally agree and in fact said the same thing almost word for word in another thread
I think The Strokes are great.
i'm thouroughly shocked...given your distaste for the "NMEish" bands...i thought you wouldn't be a fan...
perhaps i didn't come across correctly...what i mean is that a guitarist can play in a relatively crap band...but still be a brilliant guitarist...
i know a few great guitar players who are stuck in shit bands because they dont have anyone in the band who can write a good tune...
.many of their songs are almost as simple as 1 or 2 chords repeated over and over again....something in my view that the beatles also done
you see, what many people don't seem to realize is that the beatles made music after Help! that didn't sound anything like the simple music of their pop days. Though even in their "Beatles For Sale" days, their music was never 1 or 2 chords oever and over, they actually had complex chord progressions for pop music,and the arrangements were years ahead of their time.
Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
you see, what many people don't seem to realize is that the beatles made music after Help! that didn't sound anything like the simple music of their pop days. Though even in their "Beatles For Sale" days, their music was never 1 or 2 chords oever and over, they actually had complex chord progressions for pop music,and the arrangements were years ahead of their time.
can someone pick out the words that made my post factual
"many of their songs"
along with
"something the beatles also done"
did i say all their songs?...no...was what i said correct?...yes
I guess i forgot the part of Westlife's career where they bridged the gap from boy band to innovaters. Or as Charles Aaron once put it, "Imagine if, over course of about five years, 'N Sync (circa "Bye Bye Bye" evolved into Radiohead (circa The Bends), into the Chemical Brothers (circa Exit Planet Dust), and into Nirvana (circa In Utero). That was the BEatles from, say, 1964 to 1969."
That was the BEatles from, say, 1964 to 1969."
no...it wasn't...it just wasn't
i guess a better evolution for the beatles would be more akin to
"beer to marjuana to acid to heroin to everything combined to getting shot by a nutter"...
and there you have a far bigger influence on the beatles sound than any degree of musical ability