1. Gene Simmons
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZnVnF87zT0
Bass solo is technically correct, and it is a bass, and it is solo. But oh dear. Oh dear.
1. Gene Simmons
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZnVnF87zT0
Bass solo is technically correct, and it is a bass, and it is solo. But oh dear. Oh dear.
that is awful
worst bass solo ever!
total
shite
he didn't even play
on most Kiss records
2. Mark Ibold
what the hell
mark ibolds not a bad bassist. what about the bass solo in fight this generation? it rules.
Not succesful on the same level but
Vampire Weekend. I actually can't listen to that record because the drumming and guitar playing is so bad and I love loads of sloppy hardcore and punk records. I just think for what they're trying to emulate (see rip off) they really need to work on getting better.
I can't believe that I just watched the whole of that.
He sickens me.
I tried watching a
"good" Kiss song too. It was still rubbish
It must suck so bad to be the one dressed as a cat.
Strutter is the only song I can listen to
Weird too
Cos Ace Frehley is/was totally sick.
You've made the number 1 fundamental error of criticising Kiss
It's not about the music. They're just not. Granted they have some spectacular songs but really Kiss are showmen, entertainers.
It's a rock'n'roll themed fantasy dreamland where concerts aren't just performances - they're *events*; big huge events with fireworks shooting out at all angles, exploding guitars, flying band members, more fireworks, showers of blood, and barrel loads of confetti.
Criticising Kiss for their musicianship is like saying you hated the original Star Wars trilogy because "that could never happen in real life".
I've never read such bullshit.
If I wanna see a stageshow, guess what I'm gonna see?
A play.
No.
Because that's wrong.
That argument is even less backed-up than mine!
he has a point, though.
you're telling me that this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlW_pCr1tjU
isn't about trying to put on the most spectacular OTT rock'n'roll show the world has ever seen?
Filling the stage like some kind of futuristic larger than life rock gods (and making limitless amounts of money while they're at it)
I'm not saying that's not what it's about
I'm saying that they shouldn't be as famous as they are, and as highly-regarded as they are, for being such mediocre musicians who make such (for the most part) mediocre music.
the thing about kiss is
they arent really a band, more a touring musical, which is basically soapys part. they do that how extravaganza very very well, so in a way they are doing what they set out to do very competently indeed.
however, if you want to assess them on sheer musicality or technical profiency, then yes theyre shit. but thats not the point of them. they are entertainers not musicians.
Ok, maybe you're right
But you must admit, A significant amount of Kiss fans think the band are good musically.
THEY are the ones I disagree with.
they only have about 7 or 8
genuinely really good songs, tops.
yeah and its still an awful solo
solos are gay anyway
.
They might not have had the best players (although Ace could be excellent) or the best songs and they have been their own tribute band for over a decade now they did help raise a whole generation of future american rock heroes, from motley crue to nirvana and weezer.
Their impact and influence on the shape of modern rock music is up there with the best.
Spectacular
Even the orchestra is in full fucking make-up.
\m/
...and the conductor!
Amazing!
or a panto
with Su Pollard. That'd be more entertaining that brillo haired Simmons tottering round in his Rimmel and Spandex waggling his offensive tongue about.
3. Chris Martin
No.
Because that's wrong.
blah blah blah
Nah
I wouldn't suggest that his musicianship is particularly inadequate for what he likes to do which is make boring music.
Likewise with Kiss. Gene Simmons is just fannying about making noise spitting blood. It's not really a solo. It's just noises for the stage show. He can play along reasonably enough.
I geniunelly think Vampire Weekend are woefully inadequate musicians for the kind of music they're trying to tackle. Would sound so much better if it was played better or more interestingly. The drummer is one of the most boring drummers I've heard.
Meg White
She's still lovely though
The Libertines/Babyshambles
...
Dunno...
That's wrong really. Gary, the drummer is sick. Totally sick. I think both bands are dogshit... but the drummer is amazing... and the other musicians are hardly woefully inadequate. They play pub rock... and are more than proficient enough. You can't just pick bands you don't like musically!
^ this
the music they play didnt require them to be brilliant techinically. i like them anyway.
but itd be like saying early punk bands were inadequate... they werent great musicians, but the type of music they played didnt require great technical ability.
predictable not true response
...
It's very hard to be inadequate at playing pub rock.
By the way, that isn't even a bass solo.
That's just invoking the Demon.
Paul Weller (now)
Noel Gallagher.
Again
I don't understand why this is even being suggested. Yes I don't like their music but I wouldn't suggest that either of them is underskilled to play the genre they work in. Yes neither is a shred/jazz fusion guitar player but they can form chords...
The thread
said "mediocre". They both are pretty plodding and pedestrian which suggests to me mediocrity. Or,if you'd rather - bland. Weller had a spark some years ago but has taken the inevitable plod to the middle of the road.
I don't think either are mediocre
Their music is middle of the road (you say mediocre... whatever) but as musicians... they are more than good enough at what they do. Surely we're criticizing technique rather than what they write? If the latter is true then everybody who I don't like is a bad musician.
People are criticizing music rather than proficiancy. I don't imagine Oasis or Weller are sloppy in any way. Therefore... proficient.
in your opinion,
in mine, they are mediocre. Not sloppy, and I am not questioning a prefunctory proficiency just stating that I believe them to be now mediocre. Since when did technical proficiency become something to shout about? You surely must factor in musicianship in a broader sense - passion,soul,fire,spark,depth,whatever you want to call it. And no,I don't think they are "more than good enough at what they do. They're mediocre.
What
Would you suggest they do to make their guitar parts better? They're MOR songwriters... that's what they do. They're not bad musicians. Bad musicians are people who play innapropriate parts, sloppy parts, shit parts... They're incredibly good at writing MOR music... sales would back that up.
Mediocre,not bad.
and I don't suggest they do anything. I'm just passing comment like oh so much wind. Don't get so het up, Noel'll keep plodding on. . .
Yeh but
The subject of the thread is something I think you've misinterpreted... It says...
"Terrible Mediocre musiciand who have somehow become succesful"
"1. Gene Simmons
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZnVnF87zT0
Bass solo is technically correct, and it is a bass, and it is solo. But oh dear. Oh dear.
"
The emphasis is very much on Gene Simmons being "terrible" and that he is inadequate.
It's not talking about them being mediocre at songwriting.
Nobody would listen to an Oasis record or listen to them live and think... FUCK ME... that guitar player CAN'T play... That's surely the point of this thread? People who can't actually play... So far I'd say very few of the suggested bands are actually noticably bad musicians and in the case of Gary Powell... having had the misfortune of seeing Dirty Pretty Things... he's actually noticably good... the only noticably good thing about that band.
I'll say it one last time
for the hard of reading. I,me personally,find them mediocre - the twaddling guitar playing,the plodding rhythm-by-numbers from the A to Beatles songbook,the sheer mediocrity of the Bowl of Porridge (TM) sound they produce. It's just my opinion,I'm not having a pop at your Nan,just saying I find Noely and Pauly mediocre musicians.
The idea
That Oasis sound anything at all like the Beatles is another mystery that people who don't really know anything about music seem to think.
Have you ever listened to any Beatles records? They don't sound like Oasis.
no,
I've never heard any The Beatles. PS I wasn't suggesting this The Beatles band sound like Oasis but the other way round.
So
You are yourself suggesting that "rythym by numbers" "sheer plodding mediocrity" "bowl of porridge" music sounds like the most influential and one of the most experimental pop bands in the history of music? Good one. They did one song that sounded a bit like Let it Be and another that sounded a bit like something else. On the whole, they sound nothing like eachother.
To suggest that oasis sound like the beatles is to suggest that the beatles sound like oasis.
I have now
lost any understanding of your point(s). I still think Weller & Gallagher are mediocre musicians mind. . .
They write
Middle of the Road music. Mediocre is another term for it but MOR describes it far better...
They are not however mediocre musicians. They're both technically good guitar players. Which is all this thread is discussing.
...
They're not really. They're alright. Well... a little bit alright.
Noel gallagher is a good songwriter
bit moon/spoon/balloon
and recent records are just flabby, mediocre attempts to recreate the vitality they perhaps once hinted at.
yeah but you dont shout wonderfully crafted songs to your mate when it comes on in a club
you shout dont look back in anger. and if you dont you are a boring sod.
the thought of
being in a club whilst people shout the lyrics to Oasis? Jesus. H.
GOD YOU ARE SO INDIE!
Now, now
don't get your knickers in a twist.
if you do
you're a tool. shut up.
Ringo...
...Star, bloody awful.
Ah, received wisdom
octopus's garden
Are you on drugs?
Please stop spouting recieved opinion. Ringo Starr is not awful. Have you ever listened to a Beatles record and heard sloppy or bad drumming?
"Are you on drugs?"
hahahaha
Totally agree^
Why do people keep repeating this muso wankers legend that Ringo was a bad drummer?
Ringo's drumming isn't spectacular in the way that Keith Moon is (to pick someone else from the same era), but it's always tasteful and fitting with the rest of the music. Would any Beatles songs be improved by more complex and technical drumming? I think not.
^agreed
When he needs to be, he's great as well (see 'Tomorrow Never Knows').
ringo...
when you put him in context too the rest of the band he's the weakest link...goodbye!. over rated and i feel mediocre
As the great man
said, so fucking high "they even let Ringo sing a couple of tunes".
neil hannon always cocks up the solo on
'becoming more like alfie' live.
Technically he's not good. But the songs, oh, the early nineties output... gifted.
Daniel Johnston
Bad musician, fucking spectacular songwriter.
Agreed with the guitar playing
but stuff I've heard of him playing the piano and organ (harmonium?) is actually pretty good.
I remember from the film that at one point he decided to stop with the keyboards and only play the guitar basically because of the idea of it as a more 'rock and roll' instrument.
Virtually every one of my favorite artists
are not London Symphony quality musicians. But you haven't got to be able to play Beethoven to play rock 'n roll piano. Country music stars are typically really shitty musicians because country songs are inherently easy to play.
Up and comer youngster indie pop bands eg Black Kids often sound like a lesson or two might be in order. Bands like Times New Viking (I'm guessing) cleverly cover their lacking skills with tape hiss.... sometimes it's an issue, sometimes not.
I saw the title of the thread and immediately
the middle England mediocrity of Oasis sprang to mind.
But I'm not surprised in any way that they are successful in a country which hands Britain's Got Talent top ratings (and listens to Amanda Holden), swears by Big Brother, reads the Daily Mail in huge quantities, and makes James Blunt number one for 150 (or whatever it was) weeks.
I cannot think of an outfit that wallows so comfortably in mediocrity and artistic stasis than Oasis.
But
This isn't about who is a mor songwriter. It's about who's a substandard musician.
Oasis are not substandard musicians seeing as half the band are session musicians and Zac Starkey, although now left I believe, is an incredible drummer.
There is a difference between a musician and a songwriter. Musicians play music, they don't necessarily write songs.
OK they can play their instruments to a proficient standard.
But create mediocre music.
I've seen Times new viking live
and their guitarist is much better than you might think.
^^ very much so
russell crowe
URGE OVERKILL
to quote Steve Albini.
Filter
well they were big a few years back.
oh, and the fucking Dandy Warhols. shambolic!
joy division
ahohoho
Kravitz
dillinger escape plan
I'll get my coat.
the drummer from los campesinos
the first time i saw them he was rubbish. very sloppy.
he seems to have got better now though.
Probably loads of people.
I couldn't care less though. I don't necessarily look for someone to play a technically correct, note-perfect anything in some of the bands that I watch. If I wanted that, I'd watch my old music teachers non-stop.
what a silly thing to say
!
In what way?
Musical proficiency is about
more than just being note-perfect. Besides, it's always better to play the song's you've written well rather than badly, unless you're going for the washed up junkie approach.
Your old music teachers sound pretty good though.
I know bugger all about musical proficiency.
I assumed that being proficient meant being Grade 8 on the recorder or whatever. I was merely saying that there are probably hundreds of musicians on records that I own that could probably be classified as 'mediocre'.
It depends what you mean by 'play the songs well' as well. If that means by slamming in a note perfect solo somewhere purely to show off your proficiency, I can live without that.
I could live without it
but then what would I do when I wanted to listen to some mozart or kick-ass folk-prog!
It doesn't have to mean fret-wanking though. Neil Young is probably my alltime favourite geezer what makes sounds and his style can be characteristically "sloppy". But if he started playing bum notes on Old Man I'd have to say "hmm...that could have been done better"
Yeah, I getcha.
It's the difference between hitting bum notes and, like, not being the best musician in the world to start off with.
Although the idea of 'kick-ass' folk prog existing scares me more, I think :)
Kid Rock
Eugh.
Believe me
it unequivocally does! It sounds like just about the least credible thing to admit listening to but who gives a hoot.
I think it's pretty undeniable that being a great musician technically opens up your options, though yo ucan probably get too bogged down in the detail.