Almost like folk improve with experience or something.
Bands with a big reputation that are (musically) shite
- Thread starter Wilf
- Start date
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
The Smashing Pumpkins.
IMO they had - at best - two decent tracks but seemed to be lauded as some sort of generation defining act well beyond their songwriting talent. Compared to similar acts of the time like Nirvana or Rage Against The Machine who IMO absolutely deserved the plaudits I really never understood the hype over them. They don’t even make up for it in charisma.
IMO they had - at best - two decent tracks but seemed to be lauded as some sort of generation defining act well beyond their songwriting talent. Compared to similar acts of the time like Nirvana or Rage Against The Machine who IMO absolutely deserved the plaudits I really never understood the hype over them. They don’t even make up for it in charisma.
Karl Masks
Birds Angel Delight
We're all grateful they're dead
steveo87
22/11/2022 - got a maths joke.
Wagner - seriously.
I was off last week and decided to spend my time listening to the Ring Cycle in full.
It was wank. Overly long, pretentious bullshit that took too long to get to the point it was going to make. A point that, in the end, wasn't really worth it anyway.
I was off last week and decided to spend my time listening to the Ring Cycle in full.
It was wank. Overly long, pretentious bullshit that took too long to get to the point it was going to make. A point that, in the end, wasn't really worth it anyway.
The Green Album's pretty good too, and Matt Sharp's Rentals are a decent listen too.
Are you shitting me? 36 Chambers is one of the best records in any genre ever, plus you've got multiple excellent solo LPs.
Be warned: they ain't nuthing ta fuck wit'.
Ming
I shot a man in Reno...
I know what you mean. I do think Van Halen has amazing feel as well as technique though. You may of heard of him but i'd put Eric Johnson in a similar category (first heard him on one of those pull out flexidiscs you'd get in Guitar Player magazine in the 80's...Steve Vai was on the other side).
Best guitar sound ever though? Raw Power by The Stooges.
I'm being a bit harsh on Van Halen I don't listen to him/them enough to form a proper opinion and that Eric Johnson solo was cool. Not heard of him, so thanks.
Is good feel good though? Is musicality good? Is technique good? Is sophistication good? Is writing an accomplished composition good? These are the wrong questions because we can't judge until after we have heard something and then we can only ask what was working (or not) and why and even then if its not working for you you should ask why it might work for someone else.
The second to last gig I went to was two performances of Éliane Radigue compositions. The first was literally 20 minutes of one note on a double bass played with a bow. The second, a guy applying a bow to a cymbal. It was all about resonances that emerge from the sound like they're emerging from the depths of your soul. It was fantastic. But how do the standards that keep coming up on this thread even begin to apply here? When you de-emphasise the importance of certain things such as harmony or melody then other properties of the sound come to the fore. So there are no standards. Anything you try to base your standards on can be minimised or disappeared completely.
Éliane Radigue is someone whose music creeped up on me without my consideration. Someone on here mentioned her as an important pioneer of electronic music and I was interested and listened to something I found by her and was a little taken back by the extreme minimalism but somehow drawn in. If everything is measured by aesthetic standards you miss the joy of discovering a whole form of music you didn't consider. Someone up thread talking about The Fall making them feel conflicted. That conflicted feeling is an aesthetic standard evapourating and that's a wonderful thing. That's the best thing a musician can do for you.
By the way those two performers - Dominic Lash and Enrico Malatesta* - demonstrated a huge amount of discipline to play consistently over a large stretch of time. It's not something trivial. You can see the latter performing the piece here.
* Obviously not the famous anarchist, although maybe his parents were fans?
The second to last gig I went to was two performances of Éliane Radigue compositions. The first was literally 20 minutes of one note on a double bass played with a bow. The second, a guy applying a bow to a cymbal. It was all about resonances that emerge from the sound like they're emerging from the depths of your soul. It was fantastic. But how do the standards that keep coming up on this thread even begin to apply here? When you de-emphasise the importance of certain things such as harmony or melody then other properties of the sound come to the fore. So there are no standards. Anything you try to base your standards on can be minimised or disappeared completely.
Éliane Radigue is someone whose music creeped up on me without my consideration. Someone on here mentioned her as an important pioneer of electronic music and I was interested and listened to something I found by her and was a little taken back by the extreme minimalism but somehow drawn in. If everything is measured by aesthetic standards you miss the joy of discovering a whole form of music you didn't consider. Someone up thread talking about The Fall making them feel conflicted. That conflicted feeling is an aesthetic standard evapourating and that's a wonderful thing. That's the best thing a musician can do for you.
By the way those two performers - Dominic Lash and Enrico Malatesta* - demonstrated a huge amount of discipline to play consistently over a large stretch of time. It's not something trivial. You can see the latter performing the piece here.
* Obviously not the famous anarchist, although maybe his parents were fans?
cuppa tee
Well-Known Member
afaik cavorting at the i.c.a to a select group of alternative a-listers got the attention of the industry who saw the energy/spirt/marketability even tho' performance was somewhat lacking in technical ability ( i.e shambolic)....Dennis Bovell was responsible for the listenability of the recorded output which pushed them into the mainstream
"...there was a line I objected to: I said to them, ‘I’m not gonna sit here while you lot sing, “Mr Paki won’t miss much and we’ll have dinner tonight…” I propose to change that word to “Babylonian”.’ They changed it, and I went, ‘OK, I’m gonna produce the album then.’"
Dennis Bovell on his finest albums: "I have no problem calling the shots"
Originally published in Uncut’s July 2022 issue Pioneering producer, songwriter, dubmaster and now MBE, Dennis Bovell has been busy as ever as he heads towards his eighth decade. In the last year alone, there have been ongoing dub reimaginings for the likes of Animal Collective and The Smile...
www.uncut.co.uk
Last edited:
hitmouse
music obfuscation technology
I think the ODB was one of the better things about the Wu-Tang Clan, but while 36 Chambers definitely has its moments it doesn't need to be 10 hours long or however long it is. Anyway, I reckon Nas isn't all that, Illmatic is basically jazz and therefore bad.
Slits version of Grapevine is definitely a proper bop though.
Steel Icarus
ersatz maven
Jennaonthebeach
What would Picard do?
is that true though? I mean the Beatles had Paul McCartney who clearly is a talented musician (but kitsch and annoying), but what about the others? They were limited at best. The Stones had Brian Jones who was at least as able a musician as McCartney so not sure about that. Also the Beatles never really grew past their stadium period as live musicians, where they couldn't even hear themselves play - even by their own admission.
Steel Icarus
ersatz maven
Laughable nonsense.
Jones played cover versions. He wasn’t able to write something like Penny Lane.
mojo pixy
○-<{[°_°]}>-○
Yeah there's no way (IMNVHO) in which the Rolling Stones were 'as good as' the Beatles. As successful, as loud, as popular, sure - but musically the Rolling Stones were way less interesting, eclectic, original and musically challenging than the Beatles. I'd be tempted to add them in here as an on-topic example of a band whose fame and success is way out of proportion to the quality of their music - but I can't be bothered with the inevitable blowback from Stones fans
Edited to add a sudden memory...
Someone I used to know had a whole conspiracy rant about the Rolling Stones that culminated with the classic The Rolling Stones' music was meant to make kids stupid. It always made me chuckle.
Edited to add a sudden memory...
Someone I used to know had a whole conspiracy rant about the Rolling Stones that culminated with the classic The Rolling Stones' music was meant to make kids stupid. It always made me chuckle.
Last edited:
The Stones at their best really rocked in a way the Beatles never managed. That's musicianship as well. Two very different bands really and not particularly comparable, they just happen to be the two biggest British bands of the 60's.
Where are we going with this high musicality thing? Is everybody going to start listening to Pierre Boulez?
Where are we going with this high musicality thing? Is everybody going to start listening to Pierre Boulez?
mojo pixy
○-<{[°_°]}>-○
In fairness the Beatles didn't play live after what, 1966? So their whole vibe changed at that point and 'rockin' wasn't relevant to them. Then they split in 1969 and it was all over anyway. Whereas the RS were playing gigs till as recently as a few years ago. Still milking their three-note hits and pretending not to be bored of playing them.
But that was the very point I was making. The Stones had a particular vibe so it didn’t matter that they weren’t as accomplished musically as the Beatles.
I submit that it takes a tremendous amount of musicianship to make a three-note song a hit.
Steel Icarus
ersatz maven
Charlie Watts was an accomplished jazz drummer before and all through The Stones, he was hardly Mo Tucker
Steel Icarus
ersatz maven
I'm not a big Stones fan either before anyone assumes anything, but Richards wrote some of the most memorable guitar riffs ever, was a pioneer of using effects (Satisfaction one of the first hits to use a fuzz pedal iirc) and Jones was a multi instrumentalist. As for the other lot Harrison had a brilliant ear for melody and how to elevate a song, and Ringo...nobody sounds like Ringo
mojo pixy
○-<{[°_°]}>-○
I submit that in the early 60s it didn’t, because back then everyone and their mate wasn't in a band the way they are now. You could play three chords and a bunch of motown covers and grab attention the way you couldn't now.
But how did they get the vibe without being musically accomplished? We're looking at music in these very western 19th century standards. Harmonic, melodic sophistication etc. As I keep saying, there are no preset standards. Even the attitude, charisma and moves of Mick Jagger as a front man are part of the musicality. It's not something separate.
