Which is worse - to be bad or boring?

[darwin-bass]

Bad is offensive. Gives negative vibes to the crowd. Boring is neutral. Doesn't offend, doesn't impress. The latter is the lesser of the two evils.

 

[five7]

Bad is boring

 

[Jeff Scott]

Yeah, I was really stunned by that. One of the band leaders of that group is rather self-centered, so it makes sense.

Couldn't you pull the plug on them, so to speak?

 

[lermgalieu]

Depends who it was a tribute to. If that band was super boring and played too long, they did a great job!

 

[sunbeast]

Some of my favorite live bands over the years have been technically not very good at their instruments but put on a great show, so IMO boring is WAAAAY worse than bad *as long as they aren’t both bad AND boring*

 

[RhinoBass]

I saw the Minutemen open up for REM in the mid-80's (just before Life's Rich Pageant came out). The Minutemen were bad but were definitely NOT boring. Bad beats boring every time in my book.

 

[Altitude]

There’s a band out of Colorado that had a nice moment nationally about fifteen years ago.

They were pretty awful, but they were interesting. There was a tuba instead of a bass and someone playing a theramin. The singer sounded like the guy in Polar Express who gets his beard tugged to talk to the caribou.

Interesting beats awful.

 

[Carl Hillman]

I have a friend who's been working on a tribute band for close to 2 years. ... they weren't bad, but they were SO boring. I'm wondering which you think is worse?

Was it a Pat Boone tribute band? If so, sounds like they nailed it.

 

[ImTheOnlyOne]

Zzzzzzz* Huh? Wha? What was the question again?

What @darwin-bass said above.

Also, bad's booed before boring.

 

[getBAK]

I'd take boring over bad as an opener. Bad makes people leave.

You can also bet I would have kicked their asses off stage at the 40 min mark

 

[bdplaid]

Poll added for your viewing pleasure.

 

[LowendG]

I have a friend who's been working on a tribute band for close to 2 years. They can't get work, so we let them open for us. It was their first public gig. They are all VERY seasoned pros. They know what it takes. They played impeccably, but were God-awful boring. Furthermore, They wouldn't leave the stage. They were supposed to play for about 30 minutes but played for over an hour.

I came away asking myself, they weren't bad, but they were SO boring. I'm wondering which you think is worse?

Hmmmm......"They are all VERY seasoned pros" and "They wouldn't leave the stage. They were supposed to play for about 30 minutes but played for over an hour." One of these statements doesn't quite hold up then IMO....

 

[bdplaid]

Hmmmm......"They are all VERY seasoned pros" and "They wouldn't leave the stage. They were supposed to play for about 30 minutes but played for over an hour." One of these statements doesn't quite hold up then IMO....

As i said, I was shocked.

 

[Swerve]

Nothing is more boring than a solo acoustic singer songwriter. Maybe 1 in 100 can pull it off. At least if there is a band I can listen in on different instruments.

 

[2112]

There are all kinds of signed acts out there that are just awful... but they manage to entertain their fans regardless. So, I voted it's worse to be boring.

 

[Kansas]

I've been to these multi-band events, and playing longer than your slot is frowned on by all participants. Really bad manners that associates will remember.

 

[Swerve]

 

[KenSmithFan]

One of you should have grown a pair and told them to get the hell off the stage.

Here's a pro tip - your "friend" isn't your friend. That's not how friends treat each other.

 

[ImTheOnlyOne]

Picture this: Waiting through the other kids' beginner recitals while waiting for your kid's turn.

That's already bad before it becomes boring, but your own kid's bad feels less boring only to you.

"Either stay up and practice, or go to bad early."

 

[Sparkl]

I have a friend who's been working on a tribute band for close to 2 years. They can't get work, so we let them open for us. It was their first public gig. They are all VERY seasoned pros. They know what it takes. They played impeccably, but were God-awful boring. Furthermore, They wouldn't leave the stage. They were supposed to play for about 30 minutes but played for over an hour.

I came away asking myself, they weren't bad, but they were SO boring. I'm wondering which you think is worse?

Bad is objective. Boring is subjective. It follows then that being bad is much worse than being boring.