• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Which is worse - to be bad or boring?

Which is worse, Bad or Boring?


  • Total voters
    188
To me, bad is boring and boring is bad. Both are subjective anyway.

The Shaggs are arguably to our ears the worse band recorded. But weirdly they are a sensation for every music lover, vinyl collector and general modern music fan of that time and era, maybe it is the story that surrounds them but they are a hit to me.

I’m sure that not every music lover thinks the Shaggs are a sensation The ones that do like them hear the sincerity coming through despite the total incompetence of the performances. Until NRBQ convinced their record label to reissue the lone Shaggs LP, the vast majority of people who lived more than 50 miles away from where the Wiggins sisters lived would never had heard of them. The same is true of the recordings of plenty of local bands.
 
To me, bad is boring and boring is bad. Both are subjective anyway.



I’m sure that not every music lover thinks the Shaggs are a sensation The ones that do like them hear the sincerity coming through despite the total incompetence of the performances. Until NRBQ convinced their record label to reissue the lone Shaggs LP, the vast majority of people who lived more than 50 miles away from where the Wiggins sisters lived would never had heard of them. The same is true of the recordings of plenty of local bands.

Frank Zappa, Kurt Cobain, gave them some light.
The point is, they are not good, but built a following because of that, in fact a Brittany Anjou a composer dedicated a part of her life to transcribing their music, yes transcribing it is quite impressive, finding all of the sisters, re-recording a song if they had actual musical training, and the actual song is a typical song you would hear from that era, so it's safe to say if they weren't so bad and were given actual musical training they would nothing more than a one hit vinyl record you would see uploaded on youtube and in the bottom of a thrift store or some vinyl shop today, but who knows maybe they would of been big. Also they are in a way a sleeper hit, they are outside music that gain some following way after their time, of course no one when they were performing care, they were just a very bad unfortunate band, but with likes of Cobian giving them some sort of following and other musicians who claim they are "good" it created an interesting idea and some experimenting. From my understanding they inspire and were just some part of the idea of raw music and outsider music. So I think for me it's safe to say if you enjoy music, especially outsider music similar to the likes of Daniel Johnston, Wesley Willis you most likely have heard of the Shaggs, and if you someone into diverse music collecting would enjoy them or at least owning something by them.


I don't mean to debate with you, and truthfully not sure what the point is, while I did say "every" it as a hyperbole, and I do not like generalizing but this is the internet, no one should take anyone's post seriously without a citation from credible sources, it's all our opinion.

So even though the Shaggs were "bad" they for sure have made a name for themselves in the world of outsider music, I would argue if you enjoy music deeply and especially are into underground, raw, music you would enjoy the Shaggs.
 
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?
Boring can help you sleep. Bad never will.
 
Boring can be a poor performance of great music, or a great performance of bad music. Bad can be almost anything... a poor performance of great music, a great performance of bad music, a poor performance of bad music, a great performance of great music killed by horrible sound reinforcement.....

So... most of the the time.... "bad" is a much broader spectrum of possibilities than "boring."
 
Interesting how there are only 2-3 posts per page advocating as boring being better than bad vs an avalanche of posts arguing the opposite, but the poll is skewed slightly the other way.

I can only assume that the people who don’t feel the need to defend their opinion are all the boring people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdplaid
I thought this thread was going to be specifically about bass players. Because it’s apparent to me that a boring but otherwise competent bass player is way more valuable than one who is bad for any number of reasons: out of time/tune, overplays, etc..

As for bands, boring is a subjective judgement, whereas obviously bad is less so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MuseChaser
Ask any musician who's done steady work in the recording side of things, and you have seriously good musicians playing boring charts for a living, and sometimes a very good living, playing dreck.

Maybe . . . in a young man's crazy loud-ass band, bad playing played really hard and loud will sometimes carry the day in that particular vibe with lots of sweat and beer, but everywhere else, bad is just useless. . . . . and just bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MuseChaser
I don't mind "boring" if it's tight and a proper tempo. What can you do?

I mind bad - because that implies it's not tight or on time.

However I'm inclined to consider that boring is worse after reading some of these replies.

I can always presume that bad might be intentional... right?
 
I guess it's about what catches one's interest. I can recall some great bands in concert playing perfectly, but it was kind of boring because it wasn't interesting. There's a John Mayall recording where he admonishes the audience because they wanted what was on the record, not the new thing he wanted to play.

I've seen Level 42 several times and they were always stellar because the songs were great, the playing was great, and they made changes to the songs that made them "new".

But then there was this opening act... Everything was perfect. Well rehearsed and solid. And the whole audience lost interest by the third song. Not only was that my opinion, but many in the audience told me so.

My band is considered fun. We don't play everything as recorded, but close. We jam out some sections. The guitar player is a goof and ever since he went wireless, we can't keep him onstage; it his nature, he's a people person and likes to jam with the audience. We even have musical train wrecks sometimes but people love it. In truth, we're all good enough to cover the train wreck, but you know what I mean.

We're far from a bad band, but we're also far from perfect, and we honor having fun more than anything, including a perfect performance.

But this is a luxury that can be enjoyed by guys who don't care about making it, want to play the music we want, and have fun doing it. Making our music perfect would nudge us towards the boring, and personally, I think boring is the cardinal sin in our industry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: edwinhurwitz
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?
What if you’re wrong? What if they’re having a lot of fun and are not concerned that YOU think they’re boring?
 
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.

Who was that? I'm sorry I missed them! I always like interesting.
 
I guess it's about what catches one's interest. I can recall some great bands in concert playing perfectly, but it was kind of boring because it wasn't interesting.

I think that sums up Joe Bonamassa. I guess he can play and has all the gear, but god, is he boring.
 
Bad as long as the boring don’t make a bad customer experience. But seriously, after you heard a song like nine millions of times wouldn’t hearing the same song played the same way by a tribute band be boring?

Playing in a Grateful Dead tribute band is fun because there is no expectation that we will play anything the same way twice. Or even once.