who is paul mcartney?

so bottom line you have no basis for calling them bad musicians other than your own dislike for the way justin vernon looks. boy, that really is an educated opinion. You basically have no fucking clue how they are as musicians but you wanted to dismiss them on how they dress. gotcha. you fit right in with the morons on twitter.

"fucking Rush, they are terrible musicians cause they can't dress for shit!" :roll:
 
PS I don't like Mozart's music either.

But I like the guy. That mother fucker was maybe the most talented muscian ever but contrary to bullshit Hollywood portrayals he worked exceptionally hard on his music. He traveled all over and fell into severe debt but he kept going because he honestly loved the music, had a respect for the art.

I have alot of sincere respect for that.

Now - you don't have to get all pretty for the King (I think what the sex pistols did was hilarious). But put on a show - stand for something god dammit.

/rant
 
[quote name='confoosious']"fucking Rush, they are terrible musicians cause they can't dress for shit!" :roll:[/QUOTE]

That's honestly not my point.

Also - not a huge fan of Rush but I do like alot of their more popular songs.
 
I think you're conflating being a good performer with being a good musician.

You can be a great musician without being a good performer. Just means your live shows aren't worth attending, but listening to the albums can be fantastic. :D Or vice versa as there are some acts that are good performers, and are entertaining if you catch them live at a festival or whatever, but I'd never buy an album as the music isn't great.
 
Can I ask a question?

What do they consider "NEW" and why can a group that has been around for five years and have more then one album released qualify as "NEW ARTIST"?
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Can I ask a question?

What do they consider "NEW" and why can a group that has been around for five years and have more then one album released qualify as "NEW ARTIST"?[/QUOTE]

I think they subscribe to the theory of "if you've never heard it, it's new to you!"

we're talking about the record industry here, they are 10 years behind the times.

---

Strell - are you mad cause George Michael sold out and stopped wearing short shorts?
 
[quote name='confoosious']I think they subscribe to the theory of "if you've never heard it, it's new to you!"

we're talking about the record industry here, they are 10 years behind the times.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I wasn't trying to be an ass for once; I just assumed if maybe you've never been nominated for anything before then that qualifies you as "new" or if you haven't sold "x" amount or records or whatever.

They are just one example but there are others in the past where I wondered why such and such artist were up for "Best New Artist" when they had been around for quite awhile.

That would be like an athlete getting rooking of the year after he's been in the league for six years but just rode the bench until an opportunity came his way.

But I guess as a musician the definitions of new and when you started as a professional are a lot more gray.

I think it's good for music though when someone comes onto the scene that the masses don't widely know. I remember when I was a kid and to be a musician you wrote and sang your own music... and played instrutments.

Don't get my wrong I think there are some very talented lyricists and writers in the hip hop/pop/R&B/Rap etc. genres but most are just performers and everything but the final product is done for them.

But then again that's just my opinion; other then playing a few instruments through highschool I don't have much of a music background and am not qualified to comment but I do think diversity is good for the music industry.
 
[quote name='confoosious']
Strell - are you mad cause George Michael sold out and stopped wearing short shorts?[/QUOTE]

Are you not?

Pbhhbt, now who's the weirdo here?
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Can I ask a question?

What do they consider "NEW" and why can a group that has been around for five years and have more then one album released qualify as "NEW ARTIST"?[/QUOTE]

Haha this is what my wife said too when I told her Bon Iver won best new artist - she said is he really new?
 
[quote name='Strell']Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Hold up, everyone.

HOLD UP.

..

..

Did I just see someone knocking Wham! in here?[/QUOTE]
They're too mainstream now. Everywhere I go I keep seeing WHAM! this and WHAM! that. ENOUGH!
 
[quote name='confoosious']well, i believe the academy gave the very first heavy metal grammy to Jethrol Tull. That's all you need to know about the grammys.[/QUOTE]

Flutes: Totally fucking Metal.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I think you're conflating being a good performer with being a good musician.

You can be a great musician without being a good performer. Just means your live shows aren't worth attending, but listening to the albums can be fantastic. :D Or vice versa as there are some acts that are good performers, and are entertaining if you catch them live at a festival or whatever, but I'd never buy an album as the music isn't great.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but I'm talking about respect for the audience.

I don't think they have any.

Just look at this shit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dAOE5m0xuQ

Their fans are morons.

PS if people voted for this guy just to goof on Minaj then I take it all back
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah but I'm talking about respect for the audience.

I don't think they have any.

Just look at this shit:


Their fans are morons.

PS if people voted for this guy just to goof on Minaj then I take it all back[/QUOTE]

You know what? you're a goddamn idiot. You clearly want more spectacle than substance. That's fine for you but you think people are morons cause they're enjoying a concert where the band doesn't have backup dancers and exhort them to throw their hands in the air? Are you fucking kidding me?

What do you think Nirvana concerts were like in the 90s? You think Kurt Cobain danced around and did moves? You probably think they're really shitty musicians too, right?

Are you just young? Or are you this idiotic and narrow minded?

----

Survivalism - the beatles are so remarkable because of the way they evolved. that song is fantastic and hard to imagine coming from the same place as "I want to hold your hand."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='jello44']Flutes: Totally fucking Metal.[/QUOTE]

Before you dis on the flute in metal, check out a band called Blood Ceremony from Canada. I just saw them live. They are more metal than what passes for metal these days.
 
[quote name='confoosious']You know what? you're a goddamn idiot. You clearly want more spectacle than substance. That's fine for you but you think people are morons cause they're enjoying a concert where the band doesn't have backup dancers and exhort them to throw their hands in the air? Are you fucking kidding me?

What do you think Nirvana concerts were like in the 90s? You think Kurt Cobain danced around and did moves? You probably think they're really shitty musicians too, right?

Are you just young? Or are you this idiotic and narrow minded?

----

Survivalism - the beatles are so remarkable because of the way they evolved. that song is fantastic and hard to imagine coming from the same place as "I want to hold your hand."[/QUOTE]

Nirvana kicked ass. I remember watching some footage where Kurt started smashing the speaker with his guitar. Say what you will - that is fucking entertainment! I'm also well aware of the irony of what I'm saying (Here we are now, entertain us) but those guys really did something novel and had tons of talent to boot.

But I have to thank you for something. I was at a shitty live concert tonight and they started date auctioning off the band members - it was hell. But then I thought - hey it could be worse, I could be at a Bon Iver concert.

I suggest everyone try this. Stuck in traffic? Could be worse - you could be at a Bon Iver concert. Feeling run down? Could be worse - you could be at a Bon Iver concert.

At a Bon Iver concert? Well - can't help you with that one.
 
What's funny about all of this is that you still haven't answered why Bon Iver are "shitty musicians" as you initially stated. I guess by your silence you admit you were just completely talking out of your ass on that one? Because you still can't explain how they are shitty musicians, just that you don't like their style. And they don't "perform" enough for your tastes. To call someone a shitty musician is to say they lack something in musicianship... but you can't point to anything deficient there, can you?

Maybe you can google an answer to why they're shitty. Then you can pass it along as your own opinion.

I'm glad someone as narrowminded and ignorant as you doesn't listen to Bon Iver. That would just make me feel worse about enjoying them.
 
[quote name='confoosious']What's funny about all of this is that you still haven't answered why Bon Iver are "shitty musicians" as you initially stated. I guess by your silence you admit you were just talking out of your ass on that one? Because you still can't explain how they are shitty musicians, just that you don't like their style.

Maybe you can google an answer to why they're shitty. Then you can pass it along as your own opinion.[/QUOTE]

What gets you all hot and bothered about Bon Iver?

Is it the repetitive songs? The falsetto voices? The gibberish lyrics? The homeless guy asthetic?

What?
 
[quote name='confoosious']I'm glad someone as narrowminded and ignorant as you doesn't listen to Bon Iver. That would just make me feel worse about enjoying them.[/QUOTE]

Why would my opinion affect your emotions?

When I like music it just doesn't matterwhat others think. One of my buddies was trashing the Doors and I couldn't have cared less.

Dont get me wrong - I love a good debate . It's just that good music is good music.

Good music transcends criticism.
 
Don't kid yourself, this isn't a good debate. A good debate would require you actually answer the question on why they are shitty musicians.
 
[quote name='whoknows']Nah, Mozart sucks. So do all the other singers/composers I dislike.

On a serious note, I like how people think liking older stuff makes them better/higher class than other people.[/QUOTE]
Oh, that would be me, actually. Music of the last 15 or so years has sucked, with a few exceptions. And though I liked Nirvana, fuck those grunge kids for basically killing metal.
 
YL5Vd.gif
 
[quote name='confoosious']Don't kid yourself, this isn't a good debate. A good debate would require you actually answer the question on why they are shitty musicians.[/QUOTE]

- Repetitive songs, muted melodies that don't seem to go anywhere
- Gibberish lyrics
- Homeless guy look

But the biggest problem I have with all this:
Their act would be just fine at a hillbilly hodown or while you're sitting around the campfire toasting marshmellows. But there's something to be said for treating a concert like an event. For being a true performer. Don't just placate your audience - challenge them a little, push their buttons. That's what the greats do.

But no - today you get an award for being mediocre. For being safe. For phoning it in.

That's BS.
 
Paul McCartney gets a lifetime pass for his genius work in the Beatles. Other than a few of his solo releases in the 70s and maybe one or 2 Wings albums I haven't cared that much for his music since the Beatles broke up. However, the Beatles were truly an amazing band - if you like music at all you owe it to yourself to give them a serious listen (especially the back 1/2 of their catalog). When I was a kid I used to think they were lame because my dad liked them but that was just stupid. They are so awesome - and the best example of the sum of the whole being way more than its parts.
 
[quote name='Javery']Paul McCartney gets a lifetime pass for his genius work in the Beatles. Other than a few of his solo releases in the 70s and maybe one or 2 Wings albums I haven't cared that much for his music since the Beatles broke up. However, the Beatles were truly an amazing band - if you like music at all you owe it to yourself to give them a serious listen (especially the back 1/2 of their catalog). When I was a kid I used to think they were lame because my dad liked them but that was just stupid. They are so awesome - and the best example of the sum of the whole being way more than its parts.[/QUOTE]

Well said.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah but I'm talking about respect for the audience.

I don't think they have any.
[/QUOTE]

[quote name='camoor']
But the biggest problem I have with all this:
Their act would be just fine at a hillbilly hodown or while you're sitting around the campfire toasting marshmellows. But there's something to be said for treating a concert like an event. For being a true performer. Don't just placate your audience - challenge them a little, push their buttons. That's what the greats do.
[/QUOTE]

Still has nothing to do with whether one is a good musician. A person can make great music and not care about their audience or putting on good live shows etc.

Again, you're conflating musical ability with other dimensions like being a good performer, respecting your audience etc.

That's where people took exception to your comment. Just playing devil's advocate here as I don't care for Bon Iver personally. But I wouldn't say they're bad musicians. Just not my cup of tea.

And I don't care that much about whether a band is good live. I'm lucky to go to a couple concerts a year, so I mainly care about whether bands put out music that I'm interested in sitting around and listening to. Whether they're good performers, care about their audience etc. has nothing to do with whether their music is good and I want to lounge around the house listening to it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Still has nothing to do with whether one is a good musician. A person can make great music and not care about their audience or putting on good live shows etc.

Again, you're conflating musical ability with other dimensions like being a good performer, respecting your audience etc.

That's where people took exception to your comment. Just playing devil's advocate here as I don't care for Bon Iver personally. But I wouldn't say they're bad musicians. Just not my cup of tea.

And I don't care that much about whether a band is good live. I'm lucky to go to a couple concerts a year, so I mainly care about whether bands put out music that I'm interested in sitting around and listening to. Whether they're good performers, care about their audience etc. has nothing to do with whether their music is good and I want to lounge around the house listening to it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I am stressing the performer angle too much.

Crappy might be harsh. I just thought his musicianship was mediocre.
 
[quote name='camoor']- Repetitive songs, muted melodies that don't seem to go anywhere
- Gibberish lyrics
- Homeless guy look

But the biggest problem I have with all this:
Their act would be just fine at a hillbilly hodown or while you're sitting around the campfire toasting marshmellows. But there's something to be said for treating a concert like an event. For being a true performer. Don't just placate your audience - challenge them a little, push their buttons. That's what the greats do.

But no - today you get an award for being mediocre. For being safe. For phoning it in.

That's BS.[/QUOTE]

:roll: again, what does this have to do with musicianship? You can't answer the question cause you don't know dick about it. You can't say a single thing about his musicianship because you're talking out of your ass.

As for gibberish lyrics, I suppose early REM sucks to you too?

I'm done with you.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']

And I don't care that much about whether a band is good live. I'm lucky to go to a couple concerts a year, so I mainly care about whether bands put out music that I'm interested in sitting around and listening to. Whether they're good performers, care about their audience etc. has nothing to do with whether their music is good and I want to lounge around the house listening to it.[/QUOTE]

There is an argument to be made about musicianship and live performance. In this current climate producers and engineers can make anyone sound good. If a band can sound as good in concert as they do in studio its a sign of good musicianship.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']There is an argument to be made about musicianship and live performance. In this current climate producers and engeners can make anyone sound good. If a band can sound as good in concert as they do in studio its a sign of good musicianship.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't disputing that. It does add to the appeal if a band is good both on album and live.

But I'm more of an album listener, than a concert goer, so the former is more important for me as most groups I'll never see live anyway as I pretty much just go and see my old favorites once or twice a year.

But I don't have a musical bone in my body, nor know the first thing about music. So I don't get hung up on musicianship. It either appeals to me, or it doesn't and I generally can't elaborate on why I like or dislike stuff (so I don't much bother discussing music). :D
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']There is an argument to be made about musicianship and live performance. In this current climate producers and engineers can make anyone sound good. If a band can sound as good in concert as they do in studio its a sign of good musicianship.[/QUOTE]

The problem is that camoor doesn't really care about "musicianship" - he only wants to be entertained. Apparently people like madonna and chris brown who lip sync through their performances are really great musicians because they make the audience feel really good and are really engaging. :drool:

Rush is a great example. They are stellar musicians and can produce their albums note for note live. If we went by Camoors standards, they are fucking terrible musicians because they don't jump around and get the audience all hyped up. They also don't do any dance routines. If you don't get the audience to wave their arms in unison, you are shite.

Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate an arena rock show because there's something electric about a great band and a sea of people. But that doesn't mean bands who play small venues and just play their music are bad at what they do. Sometimes, that's all we want them to do. I'd rather see a one man acoustic show than someone who lip syncs and has pyrotechnics and clowns every 2 mins.
 
[quote name='confoosious']The problem is that camoor doesn't really care about "musicianship" - he only wants to be entertained. Apparently people like madonna and chris brown who lip sync through their performances are really great musicians because they make the audience feel really good and are really engaging. :drool:

Rush is a great example. They are stellar musicians and can produce their albums note for note live. If we went by Camoors standards, they are fucking terrible musicians because they don't jump around and get the audience all hyped up. They also don't do any dance routines. If you don't get the audience to wave their arms in unison, you are shite.

Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate an arena rock show because there's something electric about a great band and a sea of people. But that doesn't mean bands who play small venues and just play their music are bad at what they do. Sometimes, that's all we want them to do. I'd rather see a one man acoustic show than someone who lip syncs and has pyrotechnics and clowns every 2 mins.[/QUOTE]

I already said that I like the popular Rush songs - those guys are such great musicians it's just fun to watch them play.

At least it seems we agree that bon Iver is not entertaining.
 
but guys, Rush isn't in the Rock and Roll hall of fame so they must obviously suck.

[quote name='Strell']Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Hold up, everyone.

HOLD UP.

..

..

Did I just see someone knocking Wham! in here?[/QUOTE]

I kind of agree... or at least on the George Michael side of Wham! - he is awesome.
 
[quote name='Javery']but guys, Rush isn't in the Rock and Roll hall of fame so they must obviously suck.

[/QUOTE]

guess they don't have enough "popular" songs. I mean YYZ? There aren't even any lyrics to shout along to. And the beat? WTF? Nobody can dance to that.

Just look at this shit! Geddy Lee just standing there insulting the audience. Look at that shitty musician on guitar. Is he even alive?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0OQimTIujE

You gotta be a moron to go to a Rush concert.
 
[quote name='confoosious']guess they don't have enough "popular" songs. I mean YYZ? There aren't even any lyrics to shout along to. And the beat? WTF? Nobody can dance to that.

Just look at this shit! Geddy Lee just standing there insulting the audience. Look at that shitty musician on guitar. Is he even alive?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0OQimTIujE

You gotta be a moron to go to a Rush concert.[/QUOTE]

Uhhhh ok
 
[quote name='Javery']but guys, Rush isn't in the Rock and Roll hall of fame so they must obviously suck.



[/QUOTE]
They aren't? Wtf Rock Hall, wtf.
 
If it hasn't already been said, the real problem with Bon Iver winning "Best New Artist" is that they've been around for about five years and have already put out two LPs :wall:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='johnnypark']If it hasn't already been said, the real problem with Bon Iver winning "Best New Artist" is that they've been around for about five years and have already put out to LPs :wall:[/QUOTE]

lol, is there anyone who didn't have a problem with bon Iver winning best new artist?
 
[quote name='Clak']They aren't? Wtf Rock Hall, wtf.[/QUOTE]

It is such a joke. How many bands can put out a DOUBLE ALBUM of godly songs spanning 30 years? Never mind the fact that they have multiple awesome individual albums (2112, Permanent Waves, Moving Pictures, Hemispheres, etc.) but Chronicles is the tits from start to finish. I do not understand why they haven't been voted in yet.
 
[quote name='Javery']It is such a joke. How many bands can put out a DOUBLE ALBUM of godly songs spanning 30 years? Never mind the fact that they have multiple awesome individual albums (2112, Permanent Waves, Moving Pictures, Hemispheres, etc.) but Chronicles is the tits from start to finish. I do not understand why they haven't been voted in yet.[/QUOTE]

because neil pert is a pretentious douche
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top