I Must Be Getting Old

[Dellers]

All I heard was noise...

[Lichtaffen]

You know at the end of the set they were patting each other on the back saying: "Great set, man. We were tight."

[xgator4u]

Originally Posted by Ubersheist

There's now 3 "thumbs down."

Well I made it 20.

CRAP.

Plain and simple.

[4dog]

Originally Posted by pklima

Don't worry. The future belongs to the vastly larger numbers of people who are younger and are into more modern music. You know - Psy, One Direction, Nicki Minaj...

I am now and forever so utterly terrified!

[FromTheBassMent]

Originally Posted by 4dog

I am now and forever so utterly terrified!

Don't be afraid! Here's the Top 10 songs for the year 1967:

1. Lulu - To Sir With Love
2. The Box Tops - The Letter
3. Bobbie Gentry - Ode To Billie Joe
4. The Association - Windy
5. The Monkees - I'm A Believer
6. The Doors - Light My Fire (whew!)
7. Nancy Sinatra & Frank Sinatra - Somethin' Stupid
8. The Turtles - Happy Together
9. The Young Rascals - Groovin'
10. Frankie Valli - Can't Take My Eyes Off You

No Beatles, no Stones, no Dylan... well, you get the picture.

[FromTheBassMent]

And not to beat a dead horse regarding music popularity versus music greatness, here are two interesting facts:

Jimi Hendrix cracked the top 40 exactly once, in 1968 when "All Along The Watchtower" peaked at #20.

The Archies' "Sugar Sugar" was, in fact, the number one selling song of 1969... a year in which the Beatles did not crack the top 20.

[AuntieBeeb]

Originally Posted by FromTheBassMent

And not to beat a dead horse regarding music popularity versus music greatness, here are two interesting facts:

Jimi Hendrix cracked the top 40 exactly once, in 1968 when "All Along The Watchtower" peaked at #20.

The Archies' "Sugar Sugar" was, in fact, the number one selling song of 1969... a year in which the Beatles did not crack the top 20.

There are a few good examples of this - whatever you think of The Who, The Sex Pistols or Nirvana, you'd have to agree they influenced a lot of the musicians who came after them...and none of them ever had a number 1 hit in the UK.

(Not officially, anyway: there is a conspiracy that God Save the Queen actually reached the number 1 spot, but the result was fiddled so the BBC wouldn't have to give them the headline slot on that week's Top of the Pops.)

[Herrick]

Originally Posted by FromTheBassMent

I guess what really bugs me about this thread is this notion of musical egalitarianism, that all music is equally good, and that anyone who suggests otherwise is somehow "out of touch" or "a hater."

It's OKAY to be discriminating! It's okay to say that, whatever your age, whatever your musical perspective, whatever your favorite bands, that the band in this video is AWFUL.

That's OKAY!!! Liberate your minds!!!!!!

Agreed.

I think some of this musical egalitarianism (I like that term!) stems from people seeing an attack on the video in the OP as an attack on all forms of extreme music, whether they like Punch or not. So they need to validate music like that by saying there is no bad music. I'm ok with someone saying the music I love is objectively crap. Maybe it is, but so what? It really means nothing to me *shrugs*. The only person who needs to like what I like is Herrick.

Now I'm about to contradict myself. Although I don't like the music in that video, I won't say it's "bad" because I can't tell what's going due to the crappy recording. Also, I don't listen to that kind of stuff so I don't know what constitutes good or bad in that genre. It may be brilliant music for all I know

[DethByDoom]

Originally Posted by FromTheBassMent

Which leaves me wondering, what are these guys bringing to the table musically, lyrically, socially? Their fans be damned, how are they evolving the music? And frankly, I'm stumped.

They're making the music that they love. Not everyone wants to be Jaco and evolve the music..

The thing that bugs me about this thread is, it feels like a bunch old musicians standing in the back of a high school talent show. Saying how much better their band is.

[Clef_de_fa]

Originally Posted by FromTheBassMent

I guess what really bugs me about this thread is this notion of musical egalitarianism, that all music is equally good, and that anyone who suggests otherwise is somehow "out of touch" or "a hater."

Let's travel back to the 1960's, shall we? A lot of people seem to harken to that era as being the greatest in rock and roll history. Now, in the 1960's, we had Jimi Hendrix. And the Beatles. And Petula Clark. And Sonny & Cher. And The Archies.

By the standard that's being proposed broadly in this thread ("just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not great"), then we must accept that The Archies are as great as Jimi Hendrix. You don't agree?!? What are you, a HATER?!?!?

I had an art history professor who said that "art is whatever the artist says it is." Extrapolating from that, music is whatever the musician says it is. If I record myself farting into a tin can and say it's my "symphony," well, then it is my symphony.

Does that make my musical composition on a par with the work of Philip Glass or John Adams or other contemporaries? Well, from the standpoint of saying that "IT IS MUSIC," yes, it does.

But what we're losing sight of here is that there is GOOD and BAD art, and it's not hateful or nasty or dismissive to be DISCRIMINATING. Because if you are not discriminating, then yes, the Archies are every bit as significant as Jimi Hendrix or the Beatles. To suggest otherwise would make you a hater.

We have to be courageous enough as consumers of art to say, "That sucks." But we also have to have to be INFORMED enough to know why one thing sucks and another doesn't. And we have to be prepared to discuss the value of art in terms other than "I like it." Otherwise, bitching about Justin Beiber is just so much self-absorption. Why is Justin Beiber's music better or worse than anything else that's being produced today? Because you're a Justin hater? Or because the music fails to meet certain criteria for greatness? What are those criteria and why does his music fail compared to, for instance, the music of Wilco?

Why are we so shy or ashamed or timid to say that some things are great and some things suck? Why do we pay money to music critics? Why do some pieces of music withstand the test of time ("Purple Haze") while others are swept into the dustbin of history or regarded as mere novelties ("Sugar Sugar")?

Because there is such a thing as good music and bad music! We need to stop being so AFRAID of that concept! It's not just a matter of taste, people. If that were the case, then the guy who exhibited a suitcase full of rotting bologna in NY would be held in as high regard as DaVinci. He's not! And there's a reason for that! It's OKAY to be discriminating! It's okay to say that, whatever your age, whatever your musical perspective, whatever your favorite bands, that the band in this video is AWFUL.

That's OKAY!!! Liberate your minds!!!!!!

I didn't particulary like that recording but I will defend them just to pi** off the old rocker who seems to only like rock'n'roll that play cover of 60s throught 70s because everything else isn't as good.

here, it is only about rock and cover ... why not a change of pace from time to time.

[JimmyM]

Have to admit to really liking the Archies. They had a fair amount of really good bubblegum songs, one of which is still played today, and their lead singer Ron Dante is a really cool and knowledgeable guy who produced all of Barry Manilow's big hits. OK, so I don't like Barry Manilow, but you try recording stuff like "Copacabana" with a 60 pc orchestra, 30 singers, and Will Lee showing up 20 minutes late

[millsbass5]

Originally Posted by father of fires

They are playing notes. But precision is key. When I was in super technical bands regardless whether it was metal or not I used to always joke that if I got lost all I'd have to do is make sure I stop on time and no one would notice.

Personally, I can't play this style very well. I don't have the dexterity.

Precision is the key........ Hmm. The only Precision I witnessed was the bass dude was playin'(?).

[dorknowitzki]

meanwhile, in a punk and hardcore forum. someone posts a country music video and says: "who the **** listens to this boring crap?" kidding. but yeah, didn't like it too.

[john m]

This is just an open discussion.

I listened again and realized-

It's not for everyone.

Owning an instrument does not make you a musician.

I'm old enough to know that one baseball team wins--
one does not------ You don't get a trophy for showing up.

IMO--- It sucked.

[FromTheBassMent]

Originally Posted by Clef_de_fa

I didn't particulary like that recording but I will defend them just to pi** off the old rocker who seems to only like rock'n'roll that play cover of 60s throught 70s because everything else isn't as good.

here, it is only about rock and cover ... why not a change of pace from time to time.

Well, the reason I keep harping on Hendrix, the Beatles, et al, is that it is true that these performers are dearly beloved on this site. So it's a shared point of reference that I think crosses generations (my 19-year-old son loves Hendrix's music far, far more than I ever did).

Personally, my band only covers one song that's more than 15 years old (Ian & Sylvia's "Someday Soon," and how can you NOT cover that song if you're in an Americana band?). Everything else we cover is more contemporary. We draw from Wilco, Richard Schindell, The Knitters, Dave Alvin, Steve Earle, Lucinda Williams, et al. About half of our set is our own originals. Absolutely none of it sounds like music from the 60's or 70's. And our youngest member is 46... I'm kinda in the middle at 53, and our drummer is 60-something. None of us listen to "classic rock," unless you include in that category folks like Townes Van Zandt or Emmylou Harris. My favorite band of the last couple of years is Y La Bamba.

Oh, okay, we all love Neil Young, but that's different!

I guess my point is that I think there is flat-out brilliant music being made right now, and I think that that can be agreed upon without even bringing up matters of "taste." If you understand what goes into good songwriting and performing, and listen to anything by the Monsters Of Folk/M Ward/Bright Eyes/My Morning Jacket nexus, you're gonna go, "well, yeah, that really very, very good."

I'm leery of this notion that artistic greatness is genre-based. Let's say I invent a genre of painting called meat painting, and the criteria for greatness in this genre is that the canvass be covered in spoiled meat in a haphazard fashion, and that the work smell very badly. So I create a meat painting that absolutely NAIL this genre... it PERFECTS it, with gooey blobs of rancid animal flesh arranged with no discernable design on the canvas that really stink up the joint.

Then you hang my piece next to an equally brilliant masterpiece in the genre of, oh... let's say Rembrandt. He too perfected all of the criteria of his genre, absolutely nailed it.

So are we suggesting that these two works of art, because they come from different genres, can be seen as having achieved equivalent levels of greatness?

Really?

[Unrepresented]

"I am not a racist. I have black friends."

[Bloodhammer]

Originally Posted by FromTheBassMent

Well, the reason I keep harping on Hendrix, the Beatles, et al, is that it is true that these performers are dearly beloved on this site. So it's a shared point of reference that I think crosses generations (my 19-year-old son loves Hendrix's music far, far more than I ever did).

Personally, my band only covers one song that's more than 15 years old (Ian & Sylvia's "Someday Soon," and how can you NOT cover that song if you're in an Americana band?). Everything else we cover is more contemporary. We draw from Wilco, Richard Schindell, The Knitters, Dave Alvin, Steve Earle, Lucinda Williams, et al. About half of our set is our own originals. Absolutely none of it sounds like music from the 60's or 70's. And our youngest member is 46... I'm kinda in the middle at 53, and our drummer is 60-something. None of us listen to "classic rock," unless you include in that category folks like Townes Van Zandt or Emmylou Harris. My favorite band of the last couple of years is Y La Bamba.

Oh, okay, we all love Neil Young, but that's different!

I guess my point is that I think there is flat-out brilliant music being made right now, and I think that that can be agreed upon without even bringing up matters of "taste." If you understand what goes into good songwriting and performing, and listen to anything by the Monsters Of Folk/M Ward/Bright Eyes/My Morning Jacket nexus, you're gonna go, "well, yeah, that really very, very good."

I'm leery of this notion that artistic greatness is genre-based. Let's say I invent a genre of painting called meat painting, and the criteria for greatness in this genre is that the canvass be covered in spoiled meat in a haphazard fashion, and that the work smell very badly. So I create a meat painting that absolutely NAIL this genre... it PERFECTS it, with gooey blobs of rancid animal flesh arranged with no discernable design on the canvas that really stink up the joint.

Then you hang my piece next to an equally brilliant masterpiece in the genre of, oh... let's say Rembrandt. He too perfected all of the criteria of his genre, absolutely nailed it.

So are we suggesting that these two works of art, because they come from different genres, can be seen as having achieved equivalent levels of greatness?

Really?

You sound like you live in your own world with your own rules. Like the old man at one of the local music stores who loudly (so everyone could hear) asked me what a "stomp box" was while sneering at me, thinking he had just exposed me as a fraud or something because I needed a compressor pedal to calm down my Autowah. "Jeez dude. Sorry I'm not here to buy a Martin for my singer-songwriter folk project."...

Also, I don't think anyone here described Punch (the band in the OP) as the next Rembrandt, Hendrix, Beatles, or whatever. They aren't great, but I don't think they should be stopped. There's plenty of room in the world for both them and all the [artists I've not heard of] that you mentioned.

[Sartori]

Originally Posted by FromTheBassMent

Well, the reason I keep harping on Hendrix, the Beatles, et al, is that it is true that these performers are dearly beloved on this site. So it's a shared point of reference that I think crosses generations (my 19-year-old son loves Hendrix's music far, far more than I ever did).

My grandfather can't stand Hendrix, or pretty much anything that sounds like him. Isn't fond of the Beatles, either.

I know people who dislike the Beatles besides my grandfather, who are younger.

Myself, I can't stand Elvis Presley, though I do love both Hendrix and the Beatles.

I also really dislike most Baroque music, including Bach's Brandenburg Concertos (though I like his Chorales) and most of Handel's Messiah.

Am I going to say that Elvis was a bad singer? Or that Bach was a bad composer? No, only that their music doesn't do anything for me.

Is a food you don't like universally bad just because you don't like it, even if you know people who do, and it's well prepared? I don't like brussels sprouts, never have. Are they bad food that nobody should eat? My girlfriend prefers cheese pizza to pepperoni pizza. Should everyone only eat cheese pizza, then?

I took a listen to Bright Eyes. I don't like it. Can't stand the vocals. Same with M Ward and Monsters of Folk. The only music I like with that vocal style is Joe Purdy. Additionally sounded like something hipsters listen to. Maybe I'm being unfair, but that was just my reaction. My Morning Jacket I found decent, but still didn't really have a sound that I got into. Just not really interesting to me.

[Bassmanbob]

[FromTheBassMent]

Originally Posted by Bloodhammer

You sound like you live in your own world with your own rules. Like the old man at one of the local music stores who loudly (so everyone could hear) asked me what a "stomp box" was while sneering at me, thinking he had just exposed me as a fraud or something because I needed a compressor pedal to calm down my Autowah. "Jeez dude. Sorry I'm not here to buy a Martin for my singer-songwriter folk project."...

Also, I don't think anyone here described Punch (the band in the OP) as the next Rembrandt, Hendrix, Beatles, or whatever. They aren't great, but I don't think they should be stopped. There's plenty of room in the world for both them and all the [artists I've not heard of] that you mentioned.

This is an incoherent response to my post. I'm discussing artistic values, asking questions about how people make decisions about what is great and lasting art, and you suggest I'm trying to stop artists from expressing themselves? Huh?!?!?

Everybody makes their own rules for the world that is their life. Without some sort of values that you intrinsically embrace as guidelines for your experience of life, there is no way to make sense of the world. I'm simply interested in knowing what other people's rules are. That's a valid and meaningful way to learn about humanity. And it's a way to elevate the intellectual exchange above the level of "I like this but I don't like that."

Sorry if that's too heady a discussion for this forum. Maybe we should just go back to trying to figure out the best overdrive pedal for metal.

Sheesh.