Jump to content

post your nominee for the shittiest "great" band ever

Gil Bang

By Gil Bang
in Music

 Share

Recommended Posts

Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:


Pre or Post sober?

1977 or 78 Jr. high school days.  Pre sober I'm pretty sure. Tyler was a bumbling, fucking joke up on stage, and the music was way off.  We couldn't wait to get the hell out of there waiting for my mom to come pick us up.

Edited by Onboard 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14644

Posted
Posted
On 12/22/2018 at 8:09 PM, NOMAAA said:

Maybe so. But rush is shitty. 

Picking a track at random,

. . . Subdivisions may have some of the most mind numbingly boring, soulless, and stupid lyrics I ever have heard.  And that one note keyboard baseline to start things off.

Got dragged to see them in the 80s.  Definitely up there for the worst, most dull concert I have attended. 

There were plenty there who disagreed.  But, of the ones I knew among them are not those whose  tastes in music I value very highly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted

Anyone mention the Cars ?  The second worst concert I've ever seen was the Cars.  Not so much that they played baldy,  but that it sounded exactly like the albums. No soul, no stretching out of the music,  just played and walked off.  Good music, big presence in the 80's, but there are a lot of bands I'd put above them with less shelf life than they had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 18134

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

1977 or 78 Jr. high school days.  Pre sober I'm pretty sure. Tyler was a bumbling, fucking joke up on stage, and the music was way off.  We coupon;t wait to get the hel out of there waiting for my mom to come pick us up.

Sounds like peak 70s excess = musical nadir.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 18134

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Anyone mention the Cars ?  The second worst concert I've ever seen was the Cars.  Not so much that they played baldy,  but that it sounded exactly like the albums. No soul, no stretching out of the music,  just played and walked off.  Good music, big presence in the 80's, but there are a lot of bands I'd put above them with less shelf life than they had.

I love the Cars recorded output.  They always struck me more of a studio band than a live band though.  Really well crafted 3 minute pop rock tunes.  

I was too young to ever see them when they were together, so I'll have to take your word for it, old timer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

I love the Cars recorded output.  They always struck me more of a studio band than a live band though.  Really well crafted 3 minute pop rock tunes.  

I was too young to ever see them when they were together, so I'll have to take your word for it, old timer.

You could close your eyes, and you'd hear the album.  Boring in concert, you sniveling little pup................ : )

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HenryJames

HenryJames 67322

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, dcbc said:

Picking a track at random,

. . . Subdivisions may have some of the most mind numbingly boring, soulless, and stupid lyrics I ever have heard.  And that one note keyboard baseline to start things off.

Got dragged to see them in the 80s.  Definitely up there for the worst, most dull concert I have attended. 

There were plenty there who disagreed.  But, of the ones I knew among them are not those whose  tastes in music I value very highly.

I’d probably like Rush if I had autism.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 53451

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

You could close your eyes, and you'd hear the album.  Boring in concert, you sniveling little pup................ : )

There is something to be said for making recorded music that you can replicate live, as opposed to using the production studio as another instrument, and even using session players. 

I like when bands play with their music when playing live, but Cars music seems very structured and not very prone to flexibility. 

Still better to me than having 5 guitar tracks in studio only to pare down to 2 or 3 live, or have to play to a backing track. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

There is something to be said for making recorded music that you can replicate live, as opposed to using the production studio as another instrument, and even using session players. 

I like when bands play with their music when playing live, but Cars music seems very structured and not very prone to flexibility. 

Still better to me than having 5 guitar tracks in studio only to pare down to 2 or 3 live, or have to play to a backing track. 

Yeah. like I said they sounded good, just a boring damn show.  Back in the day I don't recall Steely Dan touring, their music was so structured in the studio. 

I'm used to Dead shows for my benchmark of musical flexibility, and exploration so there's that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 18134

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Less personal, because I never saw them, but was listening to a podcast  about McCartney and Lennon, the the p-casters were pissed off about what shitty, unmusical band "Wings" was, and what a waste that period was.

Personal - Mark Knopfler and Dire Straits had no pizzazz.

There are musicians and then there are performers.  Mark Knopfler and Dire Straits fall into the former category.  

Frank Black was once asked why he didn't do more stage banter (i.e., Why aren't your a performer?), to which he responded, "I am not a dancing bear.  I am not a dancing bear.  I am not a dancing bear."  

Which is kind of funny, because to me, he looks like a dancing bear.  But I take his point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 27002

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 12/27/2018 at 11:19 AM, Pato del Muerto said:

There is something to be said for making recorded music that you can replicate live, as opposed to using the production studio as another instrument, and even using session players. 

I like when bands play with their music when playing live, but Cars music seems very structured and not very prone to flexibility. 

Still better to me than having 5 guitar tracks in studio only to pare down to 2 or 3 live, or have to play to a backing track. 

 

On 12/28/2018 at 1:09 PM, Chad Fuck said:

There are musicians and then there are performers.  Mark Knopfler and Dire Straits fall into the former category.  

Frank Black was once asked why he didn't do more stage banter (i.e., Why aren't your a performer?), to which he responded, "I am not a dancing bear.  I am not a dancing bear.  I am not a dancing bear."  

Which is kind of funny, because to me, he looks like a dancing bear.  But I take his point.

Music is a goddamned performance art. You can compose as brilliantly as you like, you can record as amazing as you please, but if you can't do that shit live and give it soul, it's shitty. Period. And that's at every level of the form, from classical symphonies to metal concerts to operas to stage musicals to some homeless guy with a $7 plastic ukelele on the corner of 4th and B entertaining the guys about to hear some DJ mix some vinyl. And including the DJ.

Would anyone have cared about George Gershwin if there hadn't been Oscar Levant to show us how it was supposed to fucking sound? Would we consider Bob Dylan as great if Jimi Hendrix hadn't done "All Along the Watchtower?" I'd say if you can't do it right live, find someone else who can, but until then, whether you're good or not is an academic exercise at best.

On 12/26/2018 at 4:24 PM, Grippe said:

This thread might be retitled "bands you had hopes for but ended up drunk and sucking their own dicks".

If that's the goal, I'd throw Dream Theater into this mix. They went from decent songwriting to 100% wankery once Kevin Moore left.

Edited by Rimbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 18134

Posted
Posted (edited)

While I'm inclined to agree with you about music being an art of performance, even then there are degrees of what performance entertains you and what entertains me.  I've seen the Pixies and Frank Black solo, and enjoyed the hell out of the show because he's going all in on it.  I don't need to hear him chat up the crowd.  I get that connection from the music.  Some people don't feel like they've been to a show until they've heard the words "Good evening Springfield!!!!"  I don't need that.

 

Edited by Chad Fuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 27002

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

While I'm inclined to agree with you about music being an art of performance, even then there are degrees of what performance entertains you and what entertains me.  I've seen the Pixies and Frank Black solo, and enjoyed the hell out of the show because he's going all in on it.  I don't need to hear him chat up the crowd.  I get that connection from the music.  Some people don't feel like they've been to a show until they've heard the words "Good evening Springfield!!!!"  I don't need that.

 

Well, yeah. "Chat up the crowd" doesn't have to be part of the performance. Even the criticism of The Cars above -- that they could play it and make it sound exactly like the record -- can be very impressive, provided what you hear on the record is what you want to hear live. I mean, that can be impressive. But it can also be disappointing, if you were hoping for something more.

Edited by Rimbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47127

Posted
Posted

 

6 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Music is a goddamned performance art. You can compose as brilliantly as you like, you can record as amazing as you please, but if you can't do that shit live and give it soul, it's shitty. Period.

I keep trying to figure out a response to this but I can't.  A composition can certainly be "brilliant" on its own.  Hopefully, anything that's in that discussion gets a chance to be heard, but I can't wrap my head around the idea that the performance is all that matters.

I think I may be reading too much into your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 27002

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

 

I keep trying to figure out a response to this but I can't.  A composition can certainly be "brilliant" on its own.  Hopefully, anything that's in that discussion gets a chance to be heard, but I can't wrap my head around the idea that the performance is all that matters.

I think I may be reading too much into your post.

Not saying it's all that matters. But composition is like ... football scheme. There are good gameplans and bad ones, good execution and bad execution, but no gameplan wins a championship without players executing it in a game.

It's very similar to that relationship. A composition may be brilliant (and tons of them are) but, in the end, the music has to be played, live, with an audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47127

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Rimbo said:

A composition may be brilliant (and tons of them are) but, in the end, the music has to be played, live, with an audience.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I would say great music deserves to be heard, but beyond that, the parameters don't matter much to me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 27002

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

You lost me with that last sentence.

Sgt. Pepper
The White Album
Abbey Road

The Beatles never toured behind any of those. You telling me they aren’t brilliant because of that?

You are defining a very narrow parameter behind something I'm not being narrow about. You don't have to be on a tour to perform something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47127

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Rimbo said:

You are defining a very narrow parameter behind something I'm not being narrow about. You don't have to be on a tour to perform something.

But his point stands . . . those songs were not performed live, with few exceptions.  Does that diminish the songs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 27002

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

But his point stands . . . those songs were not performed live, with few exceptions.  Does that diminish the songs?

That's absolute nonsense! Again with the narrow definitions. The music doesn't exist until it's performed. There's nothing to diminish or aggrandize.

"Not performed live?" There is, for one example, a bar in Colorado Springs, the Golden Bee, where a guy plays the piano while everyone in it sings "When I'm Sixty-Four" (and many other tunes). If there's a song on any of those albums that was never performed live by SOME body, I'm a monkey's uncle, and I'm sure most of them have been done thousands of times.

But the Beatles robbed themselves of the ability to experience it if they never performed it live themselves. But maybe they were more interested in songwriting than performance, anyway.

I mean, a recording is a performance, you know? Which is why a performance that sounds exactly like the recording can be something amazing. But it can also be sterile. And a recording is disconnected from the audience's experience of it; there's no back and forth between the artist and audience, no response to gauge, no feedback given, no adjustment to the mood.

For me, I crave that interaction, on both sides of the stage.. but I always envy the folks on stage when it's not me up there with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47127

Posted
Posted

You seem to be all over the map here.  Earlier statements seemed to contrast recording and live performance, and in doing so diminished the recording:

Quote

You can compose as brilliantly as you like, you can record as amazing as you please, but if you can't do that shit live and give it soul, it's shitty. Period.

 

Quote

A composition may be brilliant (and tons of them are) but, in the end, the music has to be played, live, with an audience.

I honestly don't know what the argument is about, but I'll say this:  the music exists the moment it is conceived.  Beethoven imagined his compositions and never heard the later ones, including what many consider his greatest work, the Ninth (Choral) Symphony.  Was that not music until it was performed?  The transcription itself is a codified version of the music.  The existence in Beethoven's mind is an even earlier version.

I'm not being pedantic here.  I just completely disagree with your main assertions that music "has to" be played live, and certainly not with an audience.  I would never argue that such an event can't lift music to highs greater than a recording, because it often does (warts and all), but it's not a requirement.  It's far from a requirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 27002

Posted
Posted
On 1/6/2019 at 4:14 AM, jimmyjazz said:

You seem to be all over the map here.  Earlier statements seemed to contrast recording and live performance, and in doing so diminished the recording:

 

I honestly don't know what the argument is about, but I'll say this:  the music exists the moment it is conceived.  Beethoven imagined his compositions and never heard the later ones, including what many consider his greatest work, the Ninth (Choral) Symphony.  Was that not music until it was performed?  The transcription itself is a codified version of the music.  The existence in Beethoven's mind is an even earlier version.

I'm not being pedantic here.  I just completely disagree with your main assertions that music "has to" be played live, and certainly not with an audience.  I would never argue that such an event can't lift music to highs greater than a recording, because it often does (warts and all), but it's not a requirement.  It's far from a requirement.

There are degrees. It's not black and white.

My point is that it's a performance art. What's written by Beethoven in paper is instructions for how to make the music, like a recipe for food. You can't eat the recipe, and the same recipe in different hands with different ingredients produces different results. Same with composition. You can't hear the paper, and execution of what you can hear matters. The concept might be on paper, but it is just the concept of music, not the music itself, any more than a recipe for cookie is a cookie.

To me the standard studio recording is a lesser, degenerate form of the art, but it at least can be heard, even if it's not a live performance, and it has an audience, even if they're disconnected from the creation. It's like the difference between a prepackaged cookie and one made at home, fresh from the oven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...