Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
And is doing so like judging a book by its cover?
Bands have chosen their name and have presumably done so in order to (in their view) best sell the image they wish to project and the music they make.
If you don't like the name, it's perfectly reasonable to assume the band might not be for you.
And given how many thousands of bands there are out there, you obviously have to filter a certain number.
All the old classics tend to have unexciting Edwardian paintings of a guy in a ruff on them
not really the same because the cover isn't usually chosen by the author
I was moreso using the idiom as a discussion starter, rather than a declaration of how I feel.
see also the thread about Maria & the Mirrors, their name has totally put me off (but not as much as listening to 40s of their music did)
because you don't like 'X & The Y's' for a band name, yet the two bands in that example (Maria & The Mirrors and Marina & The Diamonds) are musical polar opposites.
Dunno about the second. Maybe.
given that band names can be so misleading. There are certain bands with names that intrigue or entice me, but I don't think 'that's a shit band name, not going to give them a listen'. So many of my favourite bands have appauling names but it's never been a deterrent.
not a fan of death metal
There's no real logic to it, but if I don't like a band's name it'll take me ages to listen to them if I bother at all. Current example: Nedry. Something about that name really puts me off.
and all you think is
UH UH UH You didn't say the magic word?
Yeah that set me back a month or 2
There are plenty of amazing bands out there who have utterly terrible names. It's just one of those things a band has to settle on and more often than not it's a compromise. Sure, at first I might wince when I'm trying to talk to friends about a band with a bad name, but more often than not it just gets a laugh anyway and then it's back to business.
As for it being as bad as judging a book by its cover, yes. It's damn foolish. How many band names can you say are entirely indicative of the music they play?
The Smashing Pumpkins = Vegetable Enthusiast Folk
The Arctic Monkeys = Score orchestral pieces specifically for Frozen Planet segments about simians bathing in geothermal pools
Nirvana = Tibetan Drone and Yak Bells
At The Drive-In = 50s Rock and Roll
...see what I mean?
judging a band by their name and thinking they sound like a literal interpretation of their name.
completely unoriginal and boring or pretentious as fuck it would be a fair assumption that the music they play would have similar qualities
tongue in cheek appraisal of the unheard Destroyer as 'death metal'
Now I've thought of it, I totally want to hear some Vegetable Enthusiast Folk.
but if i see/hear a reallly good one, i have to check them out
And get pretty disappointed when they're not amazing. This means you, Screaming Maldini.
End of thread
I liked that Morning Benders record and their original name. I'm not even going to bother now.
Picked their name so that people wouldn't have a clue what they would sound like. Although it's impossible to now not think of them sounding exactly like Biffy Clyro obviously.
And in answer to the thread: sometimes but not always. A good name helps but a bad name doesn't automatically equal a bad band.
eg. what about the Pixies? tbh it's a tertible name and if you knew nothing about them yo';d prob think they were some hippy band.
i just think, 'what's the point of that'
but it won't stop me listening to them
They rarely do.
most people have said they don't do it
i don't think it's as common as you want to believe
"I'm pretty much against & The ___ band names" which implies that that kind of name will have a bearing on the sort of music they make. Which is utterly fucking ridiculous, especially from someone who's supposed to know about music.
Doesn't mean they actually follow it through in practice.
Consider how many people in the world are prejudiced in way and another and how few people ever admit to holding prejudices and you quickly realise that people aren't particuarly good at assessing their own decision-making qualities and rationalise the irrational.
Which is absolute cock.
it makes you look equal minded and fair in the eyes of others
there's nothing to gain from saying you don't judge a band by their name, it's just a perfectly rational thing to do. you wouldn't boast about it out of context.
i'm not buying this 'people always lie, secretly everybody judges bands by their name' thing because it's just a really dumb thing to do based on what we know about how terrible a good chunk of all bands are at thinking up band names.
and this is the reason I'll never listen to Dingus Khan.
I haven't got round to listening to Forest Swords yet, but I fucking love battle metal. \m/
New Black Bear F*cker & Th' 1967 Little Red Cold Young Crystal Deer Bells
comes along to give the scene a kick up the arse, we'll sound like total shite, but still be bigger than The Beatles due to a rigorous cover-all-the-bases naming policy.
'Club' on the end and you're there
I'll just never listen to a band with a name like casiotone for the painfully alone, for example. just no.
that one is an exceptionally awful fucking name
but i still listened to them. i can ALMOST see why you wouldn't, but as a general rule, still no.
They Might Be Giants
Trout Fishing in Quebec
We Were Promised Jetpacks
Dogs Die in Hot Cars
and you forgot barenaked ladies. like zappa for tweens
and they're pretty well loved in indie circles too, which makes me think you and blisters have a warped idea about what kind of band they are
I really like that song.
any other punning band names are just an instant turn-off
and Dogs Die in Hot Cars are / were both good bands.
but it's going to take a fucking miracle to get me to listen to Does It Offend You, Yeah?
sometimes the best bands have stupid names - guided by voices. sometimes shit bands have shit names to match - flaming lips, florence + the machine.
sometimes I can overlook dumb names if the band is great enough - sonic youth in their 50s.
better yet - get a picture of them. If they look like The Band, forget 'em. Super tight jeans & sneakers with dumb-ass haircuts, ditto. Six inch beards, nope. metal band t-shirts, you're an asshole, ironic or not.
Of course, you could always listen to them first, but that takes too long.
There are bands I would not go near because of the name:
Cats and Cats and Cats
Dananananaykroyd (or however you spell it)
*cough* Alabama Shakes *cough*
unfortunately they're not.
though it loses relevance once you've listened to the band. From that point on you just assimilate the name with the music. Just as there's nothing inherently 'dog'-like about a dog, there's nothing 'foals'-like about foals etc
I suppose the only exception is where a band have purposefully called themselves something in order to align themselves with a pre-existing trend
I remember when Klaxons were popular I had the displeasure of seeing a band called (and i'm not joking) GLOWSTIX!
At this year's 'Chester Rocks' there's band joining The Courteeners and The Rifles called 'The Fallows'
When I was at university this guy was in a band who sounded like The Libertines called 'Dirty Little Faces' - eww
See Coldplay and Slow Club for more details.
Very misleading band name. They look like they'd faint at the sight of blood.