Musicians/bands you think are $hite whilst others think they are the dogs bollocks!
Jul 12th 2012, 3:39 am
#31
not sure...
Joined: May 2007
Location: out in the boonies
Posts: 1,537
Re: Musicians/bands you think are $hite whilst others think they are the dogs bollock
Hmmmm.... people I dont rate who are generally highly rated?:
J.S. Bach? Genious - Perhaps, certainly *interesting* music (given his historical context) and very very cerebral.... but I find it emotionless. I'll play Bach from time to time - but in the same way as I'll play scales, arpegios and Kreutzeror Hannon studies and excercises - if it doesnt grab the soul its not Music.... Too much of Bachs music is like complex algebra - intriguing, unquestionably well thoguht out but exhausting to 'think through; without any real emotional pay-off. (I've heard stuffy 'died-in-the-wool' baroque freak musicians claim that I must be a completely uneducated philistine to not realise that Bach *is* god when it comes to music... pfffft)
W.A. Mozart - Far far lesser extent than JSB above - but still I dont get the 'genius' of Mozart beyond that fact that his output was prolific even from a silly young age. Some of his stuff is quite nice... some even moderately powerful - but Mozarts music will never have the emotional pull for me that he clearly manages to evoke in other people.... For me musicians really woke up in the 19th century and started to make *real* MUSIC!
Charlie Parker - Ok so I'm no Sax player... and really no Jazz freak either, but when Miles Davis was being the coolest guy in town and making timelessly awesome cool jazz, Parker (who is revered as a god in the jazz world) - seems to me to be just bubbling away with stuff that spoils the mood.... I guess that "Be-bop" jazz thing just isnt my scene?
.... and then of course plenty of other mentioned above in the thread
Clapton - a LOT of very dull output - but a couple of OK songs over the years. Totaly agree he needed the drugs to do anything even vaguely interesting.
Oasis - Massively overrated in my opinion, far less creative and compelling than their peers Blur, who managed to be quite entertaining.
....could probably think of plenty of others who I regard as a disappointment across a wide variety of styles if I put my mind to it.
Obviously aussie bogan rock is trash - but nobody other than aussie bogans tries to pretend otherwise.....
J.S. Bach? Genious - Perhaps, certainly *interesting* music (given his historical context) and very very cerebral.... but I find it emotionless. I'll play Bach from time to time - but in the same way as I'll play scales, arpegios and Kreutzeror Hannon studies and excercises - if it doesnt grab the soul its not Music.... Too much of Bachs music is like complex algebra - intriguing, unquestionably well thoguht out but exhausting to 'think through; without any real emotional pay-off. (I've heard stuffy 'died-in-the-wool' baroque freak musicians claim that I must be a completely uneducated philistine to not realise that Bach *is* god when it comes to music... pfffft)
W.A. Mozart - Far far lesser extent than JSB above - but still I dont get the 'genius' of Mozart beyond that fact that his output was prolific even from a silly young age. Some of his stuff is quite nice... some even moderately powerful - but Mozarts music will never have the emotional pull for me that he clearly manages to evoke in other people.... For me musicians really woke up in the 19th century and started to make *real* MUSIC!
Charlie Parker - Ok so I'm no Sax player... and really no Jazz freak either, but when Miles Davis was being the coolest guy in town and making timelessly awesome cool jazz, Parker (who is revered as a god in the jazz world) - seems to me to be just bubbling away with stuff that spoils the mood.... I guess that "Be-bop" jazz thing just isnt my scene?
.... and then of course plenty of other mentioned above in the thread
Clapton - a LOT of very dull output - but a couple of OK songs over the years. Totaly agree he needed the drugs to do anything even vaguely interesting.
Oasis - Massively overrated in my opinion, far less creative and compelling than their peers Blur, who managed to be quite entertaining.
....could probably think of plenty of others who I regard as a disappointment across a wide variety of styles if I put my mind to it.
Obviously aussie bogan rock is trash - but nobody other than aussie bogans tries to pretend otherwise.....
Bach maybe..although maybe you're playing it wrong...
But Mozart?! Really? *thud*
Jul 12th 2012, 3:41 am
#32
I'm Old Gregg!
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: A Former Bogan Colony in QLD
Posts: 8,460
Jul 12th 2012, 3:50 am
#34
Chan eil aon chà nan gu le
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: On the ning nang nong
Posts: 22,437
Jul 12th 2012, 3:52 am
#35
I'm Old Gregg!
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: A Former Bogan Colony in QLD
Posts: 8,460
Jul 12th 2012, 3:53 am
#36
Chan eil aon chà nan gu le
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: On the ning nang nong
Posts: 22,437
Jul 12th 2012, 3:57 am
#37
...giving optimism a go?!
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: Brisbane (leafy, hilly western suburbs)
Posts: 2,202
Re: Musicians/bands you think are $hite whilst others think they are the dogs bollock
I dont doubt I'm playing it wrong - I cant find a way to make it sound musical and have always always struggled more with Bach than any other composers work.... but then to my ears nobody else manages to inject adequate musicality into Bach either! (Possible exception of a few jazz musicians who manage to inject some feeling into otherwise 'dry' material - but then is that still Bach?)
and I did say Mozart to a far far lesse extent. I dont have a problem particularly with Mozart - I just think the adoration is a little OTT.. He produced some OK stuff and there is a kind of purity and simplicity to a lot of his composition that others in the same era didnt quite manage to achieve.... but he did produce some really dull background music too... and music didnt really get expressive and emotional until the Classical ("C" not "c") period was well and truly over.
and I did say Mozart to a far far lesse extent. I dont have a problem particularly with Mozart - I just think the adoration is a little OTT.. He produced some OK stuff and there is a kind of purity and simplicity to a lot of his composition that others in the same era didnt quite manage to achieve.... but he did produce some really dull background music too... and music didnt really get expressive and emotional until the Classical ("C" not "c") period was well and truly over.
Last edited by DadAgain; Jul 12th 2012 at 4:27 am.
Jul 12th 2012, 4:12 am
#39
Chan eil aon chà nan gu le
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: On the ning nang nong
Posts: 22,437
Jul 12th 2012, 4:26 am
#40
Still alive
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,994
Re: Musicians/bands you think are $hite whilst others think they are the dogs bollock
Jul 12th 2012, 4:31 am
#41
Living in the mountains
Joined: Apr 2006
Location: Armidale NSW
Posts: 222
Jul 12th 2012, 4:35 am
#42
My hovercraft is full of
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Innaloo
Posts: 507
Re: Musicians/bands you think are $hite whilst others think they are the dogs bollock
Ok I will cover your Who jibe
and raise you Simple Minds
All Sweaty Socks love em
p.s I just googled images sweaty sock....I think I will change my safe search to ON in future
and raise you Simple Minds
All Sweaty Socks love em
p.s I just googled images sweaty sock....I think I will change my safe search to ON in future
Last edited by Ballys; Jul 12th 2012 at 4:42 am. Reason: Graphic pics on google images
Jul 12th 2012, 4:37 am
#43
I'm Old Gregg!
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: A Former Bogan Colony in QLD
Posts: 8,460
Re: Musicians/bands you think are $hite whilst others think they are the dogs bollock
Jul 12th 2012, 4:38 am
#44
I'm Old Gregg!
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: A Former Bogan Colony in QLD
Posts: 8,460
Jul 12th 2012, 4:39 am
#45
Still alive
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,994
Re: Musicians/bands you think are $hite whilst others think they are the dogs bollock
Actually I'm at work so don't have any idea what that video is of. YouTube is blocked here.