Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
how much do you care about whether a band can play their instruments properly?
i love nirvana. i love trivium.
Mainly because I have no idea what "proper" playing sounds like. It looks a bit shit live though if the guitarist can't play at all...
call this a huge generalisation if you will, but people who care about this (or at least care too much) tend to be fans of satriani/vai/other noodle freaks - idiots.
obviously live competence is nice. but you know.
i've just remembered that dragonforce are so immensely talented that their songs are funny. i'd like to see them live, no joke. i'd wet myself.
are so awful it hurts. And what is with their hair? Your right though, they are immensely funny.
they are painfully funny, i bet its intentional ;)
It was one of the more irritating experiences of my life seeing as their only attraction is the guitar work, and the Astoria soundsystem as ever had no treble.
So we had to stand their watching their hands move, imagining what it might sound like while being deafened by the sound of flatulent giants moving furniture around a swimming pool.
Sound engineers can't fucking deal with metal. I hate them.
good, who cares. I mean if the end product sounds ace, what does it matter how they got there. I can admire good instrument playing, and sometimes it does sound really good. But, there's nothing more annoying than some twat on the guitar playing some overly long ridiculous solo - it's just boring.
does it really matter if they play thier hearts out? passionately played instruments are even with technically-accomplished playing as far as im concerned. im sure there are centre styles of playing i tend towards, but if you listen to music by mood...or even season i can come full circle from technical wizzes to power chord dudes
what natalie said
it's natalia, with an a. lol, and i didn't get your post either.
as long as the writing is good, the songs have strength, the talent in terms of playing instruments is irrelevant.
You get some genius Spanish guy with an acoustic who can play faster than anyone, but he might not have the creativity of someone like John Lennon.
Goes for vocals too. Ian Curtis couldn't really sing, but he's probably my favourite singer of all time.
no offence to anyone who's used the word but... does anyone else really dislike the word 'musicianship'?
It doesn't mean anything.
instruments don't mean shit. In my opinion, often the best musicians make the worst bands, cos they are instrument, rather than music, heads, and would rather talk guitar strings and drum tuning than obscure bands.
what about all the NME style bands that just play the 3 chords over and over again. It does my head in. BTW there is also good musicianship in other genres like jazz rather than just limiting musicianship to cheesty metal solos.
well yeah, obviously.
I'm a fucking good musician, I can play my ass off, and if it wasn't for the fact I'm a total record geek searching for original sounds, I'd probably just widdle my way into obscurity
There's nothing wrong with being a good musician, but the ambition has to be there to do something other than impress with 'difficult' playing- and basically 90% of people with the technical skill to astound lack the ability to suprise
Whereas a moron can always suprise you- hence Iggy Pop playing a lap steel with all the strings tuned to the same note, early on with the stooges.
creativity IS more important than technical ability - as is passion
but then there is the whole different level of people who have the rare ability to master an instrument at an early age and get tired of the showing off by the time they're in their early twenties - they usually end up playing jazz.
this thread makes me think of Picasso
he was an artist of high technical ability who put aside that technique in order to develop a new way of looking at things and a style of his own
maybe im just pissed off because ive been playing jazz bass for years and trying to form experimental bands with no success and maybe feel I need to dumb down because I cant find musicians that are willing.
do you enjoy songs, or just jazzbass workouts?
It'd be so cool if you could do something complex and difficult to play, but within the context of an entertaining three and a half minute (tops) song with verses and choruses.
That's my ambition at the moment- good pop songs using avant garde techniques
if theres a good songwriter in the band it doesnt matter how well you can play your instrument just as long as your competent.
most great guitarists need a songwriter in the band, guns n roses, the smiths, stone roses etc etc
couldnt write good songs, they were MEGA SHIT. thats a capital mega there just to show how shit they are.
but i still think they have their place in rock and do have some good songs
To me, the Arcade Fire sounds like lots of people playing badly all at once.
thats a good thing, it shows they don't want people getting hurt at their gigs. deftones have a long history of doing this too.
can still make a mindblowing album e.g Joy Division. But you cant really make careers out of it, so its nice to see bands emerge that have a certain "level" of musical talent,i.e being able to produce albums encompassing many different musical styles. But then again, it really all does come down to the songwriting.
i mean, i could go on.