band hating

[Father Gino]

What a fun topic! The older I get, the more everything sucks!

 

No fair judging young dude bands by old farts. Of course you (us) old poots think that stuff sucks. That's the point.

 

I think that music, like any art form, expresses something of the artist. If you like him/her and what they have to say (verbally &/or artistically), chances are you'll like their art. I've always hated some bands and I don't know why. I hate some bands but chastise myself for liking some of their tunes. Just hearing, seeing some bands makes me wanna puke. I won't get into my own personal list.

 

I also hate bands that I percieve are in it only for the money. They're trying to make derivative music that they or some fat, cigar smoking Madison Ave. type thinks is gonna sell. All pro musicians want a hit assuming they like to eat, but there's a line there somewhere.

 

As for the guy that said musicians all respected each other, what closet have you been hiding in? I find musicians as a group to be petty & insecure. They're always in competition with all other players. They'll say all other musicians suck except the ones that are obviusly their betters. This is especially true of the typical rock geetar player.

 

Oh, and BTW, I suck!

[ibescotty]

"suckiness"

 

I think we need to send this word to Webster!!!

 

I guess it's the nasty connotation that goes with the word 'suck'!! Saying 'they can't play', or 'their not my cup of tea' works and doesn't some out so nasty.

 

....wait a minute!! Who let Mrs Manners in here!!!

 

KoRN SUCKS!!!

[Adamixoye]

Originally posted by NickT:

This is the wonderful thing about music. It is almost totally subjective. As far as each of us is concerned...our opinions are right. (If you don't agree with me...that is your right, but you're wrong. It's you're right to be wrong, but I'm right.) hee hee hee.

 

But seriously if you didn't think that your opinion was right, then it wouldn't be your opinion, surely. Anyway enough of that.

 

The great thing is that I can feel totally secure in saying "The Vines suck" or "Yes suck", just as my g**tar player can feel totally secure in saying that "Led Zep suck". It's all subjective, but, on our own terms, we are all right.

Actually, I disagree. You're mixing two types of opinions. There are opinions I hold that I do believe are objectively correct and I believe everyone should agree with me (religion, politics, etc.). Then there are opinions that are a matter of taste (red is my favorite color, "Get Free" by The Vines may not be the best song ever but is energetic and is fun to listen to).

 

If it's subjective, there is no right or wrong. Saying "it's right to me" just confuses the issue.

[Father Gino]

Originally posted by Adamixoye:

There are opinions I hold that I do believe are objectively correct and I believe everyone should agree with me (religion, politics, etc.).[/QB]

Wow, do you really mean that? That's really scary. Jihad!!!!

[_Sweet Willie_]

Originally posted by Adamixoye:

Actually, I disagree. You're mixing two types of opinions. There are opinions I hold that I do believe are objectively correct and I believe everyone should agree with me (religion, politics, etc.). Then there are opinions that are a matter of taste (red is my favorite color, "Get Free" by The Vines may not be the best song ever but is energetic and is fun to listen to).

 

If you believe your opinion is "objectively correct," then you are asserting that it's a fact, not really subject ot dispute. You are even putting forward that you can provide proof of its correctness. In terms of religion and politics (your example), conviction might be a better descriptor of your position -- not quite the same as a fact, but certainly much stronger than an opinion.

 

You can certainly try (and even succeed!) to convince someone to change their opinion or even agree with your conviction. Opinions, however, like NickT is getting at, allow us to disagree. They are judgments and interpretations. Think about the Supreme Court, for example, where following a decision, there is the opportunity for one or more justices who did not agree to write a "dissenting opinion" and state their different view and interpretation of the law and the facts. The opportunity to write that dissenting opinion is a chance for disagreement to exist while also a roundabout way of acknowledging that "we are all right," even though someone had to "win."

 

Ain't nuthin' quite like a discussion on semantics!

 

However, this is heading a bit off-topic, and takes us away from music that sucks and how that's a subjective decision that could often be expressed in a less antagonistic way!

[Adamixoye]

Originally posted by Father Gino:

Wow, do you really mean that? That's really scary. Jihad!!!!

I also believe that the Earth is round. I firmly believe that everyone should agree with me about that. You're right...that's soooooo intolerant of me. But until I start killing people over it, I don't think that's Jihad. You're quite wrong about that.

 

What I meant about religion, politics, whatever, is this: They are only opinions in the sense that perhaps they cannot be proven to the satisfaction of many people. But they reflect opinions concerning facts.

 

It's like this statement: "There is life on other planets." At this point in time, we probably can't prove that unless the aliens show up at our front door. We certainly cannot disprove it. But the statement is in the realm of fact. It's either true or not, regardless of our limited knowledge or limited ability to prove or disprove it. That does not mean it can be "true to me" and "false to you". It's true or false, period. If I believe it's true, and then it's not, my opinion is wrong. These are the types of opinions the Supreme Court gives. Whenever there is an opinion of this type given, it is correct or incorrect. Two conflicting opinions of this type cannot both be correct.

 

Opinions about favorite colors and musical styles are opinions of a different type. True and false don't apply here, and I think that to say things like, "it's right to me" confuses the issue. It's not right or wrong, it's an opinion about something that doesn't have an objective true/false value. That's my point.

 

Disclaimer: Sorry to keep going off topic, but I enjoy the philosophical discussions we have in these forums. I'd rather discuss them here than in a dedicated socio-political/religious/philosophical forum, because the people in those get a little too amped up for my taste.

[_Sweet Willie_]

Originally posted by Adamixoye:

Opinions about favorite colors and musical styles are opinions of a different type. True and false don't apply here, and I think that to say things like, "it's right to me" confuses the issue. It's not right or wrong, it's an opinion about something that doesn't have an objective true/false value. That's my point.

 

Disclaimer: Sorry to keep going off topic, but I enjoy the philosophical discussions we have in these forums. I'd rather discuss them here than in a dedicated socio-political/religious/philosophical forum, because the people in those get a little too amped up for my taste.

Ah-ha! I now understand better your point about "it's right to me."

 

I, too, enjoy the socio-psycho-politico-religio-economic-philosophic-etc. spoutings/exchanges we have here.

[Adamixoye]

SW, glad I could clarify.

[Father Gino]

Hah!!!! the earth is spherical!!!!!!!

 

OK, so you're not that scary but I'm still not sure I can accept any absolutes. At one time, all the facts pointed to the earth being flat. Now it seems spherical. The facts are not yet all in, nor are they ever likely to be.

 

And what FACTS are you refering to in religion or politics? There are laws to be sure, but facts? The Supreme court renders a judgement and it interprets the law (in their country), but where's the fact in that?

 

There is a god. There is no god. God is dead. Perhaps the question is too complex for a simple factual answer, I don't know about you, but I don't see facts having too much to do with religion.

 

And politics? A real fact would instantly explode most politicians and their governments.

 

How do you know you're not just a brain in a tank, and all the "facts" are added by the tank keepers? Can't prove that one either way either. Wasn't that Descartes? You can't even really prove there is a planet, let alone are there others with bass players on them.

 

Does the ground feel and look solid to you? It's not, you know. It's mostly empty space. See how easily we're fooled. Facts indeed!

 

What was the subject again? Oh yeah Led Zeppilin sucks

[Adamixoye]

Your definition of "facts" is questionable, and you pretty much were a fantastic example of what I was trying to point out.

 

God exists. That's either true or false. Just because I can't prove it conclusively does not mean that it is no longer a true or false question.

 

Jesus existed and did certain things. Also either true or false (or a series of separate questions that are true or false).

 

Mohammed heard from the true God when he wrote the Koran. Also either true or false.

 

We all live in a big energy field and can tap into The Force to move things and live our lives. Also either true or false.

 

Sounds like these are issues of fact to me...whether they are true, whether they can be proven, etc., does not mean that they are not issues of fact. And whether or not these statements are true has implications for philosophy, politics, etc.

 

"There are no facts in religion" is simply an assertion of fact itself, a statement that says all religions are false but have some subjective value. But how can one make a statement of fact about something that contains no facts? Quite the conundrum, indeed.

 

Whether or not an absolute exists is not defined by our ability to prove or know it, that's the point I made that either you're missing or you do not accept. If it's the latter, then our gap may be too wide to even continue this discussion.

[Connie Z]

Originally posted by Penguinsarebirds:

Originally posted by Connie Z:

 

Do you ever hear a Cardiologist say, "Man, those Endocronologists suck!" ????

 

I'm going to assume thats how you spell that big "E" word and give you a for being able to spell it.

Well, thank you Penguinsarebirds for the thumbs up ... but as Adamixoye has gently and diplomatically pointed out... I spelled it wrong!!! Darn it!!!

 

OK, a doctor specializing in the endocrine system would be called an Endocrinologist. That does make sense.

 

Thank you Adamixoye!

 

... connie z

[Connie Z]

Originally posted by NickT:

Connie, I take issue with your opinion that musicians should automatically respect other musicians. (Forgive me for paraphrasing.)

 

Hi NickT,

 

Professional courtesy is just "professional"... that's all. Not everyone has to be professional, but it makes our line of work a more pleasant one, if people strive to behave that way.

 

And why wouldn't you respect my talent and effort? I would respect yours! I am not necessarily saying that I would respect you as a person, because I don't know you as a person... but there is no reason that I cannot afford you the automatic professional courtesy of respecting your talent and effort.

 

[psycho-analysis rant ON] And I also personally feel that when musicians criticize other musicians, it is a "self esteem" problem. They build themselves up by putting others down. (This, in my humble opinion, does not apply only to musicians, of course.) The better someone feels about themselves and their abilities, I think it's no coincidence that they become less critical of others. [psycho-analysis rant OFF]

 

... connie z

[Cup]

What a topic, whoever started it deserves a medal.

 

I tend to agree with Connie on the respect thing. If I even see a person carrying a guitar I silently salute them (same goes for an easel or any tool which aids creativity). I may not respect them as people once I get to know them, but I usually don't get to know them.

 

Cup

[Father Gino]

Your definition of "facts" is questionable

 

I wasn't aware I had offered a definition. Seems to me the only irreputable fact is: "I think, therfore I am." Isn't that Descartes? Are there no bass players on the internet that took philosophy 101? Is it true that bass players are all igerant?

 

The problem here is the absolutes. Newtonian physics had absolutes and adheres to common sense. Quantum mechanics has no absolutes and makes no sense without the aid of higher mathmatics. An electron is not really here or there as we think of it. It has only a probability of being somewhere. The little bugger could be here in Newington, CT, US of A, or in Sri Lanka. The little guy doesn't orbit around the nucleus like a planet, it's just got a probability of being somewhere. The point of all this is that there is no such thing as a factual description of the location of this particle. These are some of the new facts we have today. They come from the evolution of science that told us the world is round. Spherical.

 

The question therefore is not whether we can prove or disprove an absolute, but rather is there such a thing as an absolute. Maybe god exists and doesn't exist at the same time. He does work in mysterious ways you know. Who said any of this must adhere to common sense. Personally, I dunno and can't do the math.

 

It is a scary thing that good & evil, right & wrong are absolutes to many people when many cultures have differing ideas about them. What's right to some isn't to others and vice versa. Morality, ethics, religion are all evolving constructs of society. The facts keep changing and it's dangerous to hold on to those absolutes when the reasons behind their creation are hidden by the mists of time. Too many people see the world in black & white when it is really an ever changing palette of grays.

 

My implying that there are no facts in religion is certainly not a fact, only my opinion. I don't do facts.

 

I doubt that either of us will have a great revelation from this discussion. It's hard to have a discussion when writing in this manner. I suspect that we're really discussing semantics anyway. Whether it continues or not, I've enjoyed the brain exercise and hope you have as well.

 

Fact: I could never stand Billy Joel either.

[Adamixoye]

Sounds a lot like you're saying "There are absolutely no absolutes."

 

Are you saying it's not absolutely wrong to murder? That's just ever-changing shade of grey in societies? (I mean murder, not just killing; ignore war and capital punishment for the moment.) What about stealing? If you say it's just a shade of grey, I'll be by to pick up your stereo later on.

 

And I'm actually a physicist myself (of course I meant spherical with reference to the Earth); the implications of quantum mechanics that you put forth are questionable. Quantum mechanics really says more about our limited ability to know everything and the fact that when we try to measure something, only a limited amount of precision is available to us. This is a far cry from "there are no absolutes in nature" (not that you said that specifically, but I'm assuming this is the line of reasoning) which doesn't necessarily imply that there are no moral absolutes.

 

Fact: I am primarily ambivalent towards Billy Joel myself.

[ClarkW]

Originally posted by Sweet Willie:

Thus, the use of the phrase "that band sucks" (or even "that bass sucks") is really an expression of an opinion, rather than an absolute or a universal.

But let us consider what would happen if I were to make a bass from scratch. I assure you that with my woodworking, metalworking, and electronics skills (or lack thereof), it would be barely capable of producing sound, and that sound would certainly not resemble anything that comes out of a Fodera, or a Lull, or even a Peavey, or a Fender, or a GuitarCo $50 kiddie special at Walmart. It would, by most measures, suck.

 

If I ever use the word "suck" to refer to a band, then that means that they are so horrible and incompetent as to cause the listener to question whether they really deserve to be called a "band" and whether they are actually "musicians" and not merely "people molesting musical instruments, coincidentally standing on the same stage and mercilessly amplified."

 

Once upon a time, I went to a house/pool party hosted by a hot chick that I liked. An acquaintance of mine, a nice guy, was the bass player for the "band" that was there.

 

They were terrible. Utterly horrible. They were turned up insanely loud. The drummer had obviously spent far more money than practice time on his drum kit. Neither of the two people with microphones could either hit a note or hold it. It was sloppy and abusive. They were a punk band doing covers of non-punk songs, which basically meant taking a rough outline of the chord progression of a song and playing it very loud and very fast, and missing some of the chords, while screaming partly-forgotten lyrics into the microphones.

 

They sucked, and there's no two ways about it. They had energy, and some people tried to capitalize on that energy by dancing, but you could really only be near the band for two or three minutes before you were in physical pain from the volume and the screeching.

 

The evening was brought to an incredibly awkward end when the father of the hostess came out and actually listened to the band for a while. He had let them play for 45 minutes or so already, but apparently he had had enough. In a song break, standing in front of them, he let loose, not shouting but loud enough for anyone to hear. It went something like this:

 

"Man, do any of you guys know what you're doing? You can't possibly claim to be ignorant of how awful you sound? My kids have thrown more than a hundred parties here in all these years, and I've heard a lot of bands, and you guys are far and away the worst I have ever heard. It just amazes me, honestly."

 

Frankly, I bet that more than half of the people there felt exactly the same way he did. Of course, a few people got indignant with the dad and left, the band argued with him a bit trying to guilt trip him for being so brash but not really contending the accusations of being terrible, and the girl threw a royal fit and lectured her father (haha) on tact, but the damage was already done. Most of the party-goers had bailed because, well, yeah...

 

But at the end of the day, I wonder if sometimes destructive criticism is the only thing that will either motivate someone to really put forth some time and effort, or bail out now and save us all a little pain. Which would you rather have giving you feedback, Paula Abdul or Simon Cowell? I suppose that having one 14-year-old tell another 14-year-old during lunch that "Metallica sux" isn't going to make Metallica clean up the production quality of St. Anger, but I don't think you should come down on someone too hard for coming down on someone too hard.

 

PS: Point of fact, the Earth is slightly oblong at the equator due to its rotation. Close to spherical, but not exact.

[Dave da Dude]

Just a quick question. What style are Megadeath and Metallica considered?

 

Thanks, Dave.

 

PS, I agree, there's a difference between not liking a band (for me the Beatles, for instance) and them not being accomplished musicians with a legitament style.

[_Sweet Willie_]

 

"Suckiness" is a social, or at least cultural, construction. It has meaning because we assign it meaning. Its meaning is related to our socio-cultural norms.

 

The band at that party that ClarkW referred to most definitely sucked. However, in a different context with different cultural reference points, they might not have been perceived as sucking. Their atonal (non-tonal?! ), meandering, wickedly loud crap might have carried different significance under different circumstances or in a different context or if one or more party-goers had a different framework by which they "heard" or judged the music.

 

Clark's piece of crap, non-functioning bass most definitely would suck, and even challenge the idea that it could even be considered a bass -- but his mom and/or dad might not see it that way (e.g., see some of the crap I've made in my life that my dad still has in his office or photos of which he still has hanging on the wall! ) We can always find some relativity that allows for subjectivity to come into play.

 

 

That said...

 

The Smithereens? Not sucky.

The Strokes? Suck.

Led Zeppelin? Not sucky.

James Brown? Not sucky.

My bass playing? Usually not sucky, but it has its moments of big-time suckiness.

Rum raisin ice cream? Sucks.

Chocolate chip cookies? Not sucky.

Your first real kiss? Fondly remembered, whether it sucked or not.

 

Interesting stuff here. I like the discussion about absolutes, but I don't have the energy to keep going.

 

Peace, y'all.

[Adamixoye]

Originally posted by Sweet Willie:

That said...

 

The Smithereens? Not sucky.

The Strokes? Suck.

Led Zeppelin? Not sucky.

James Brown? Not sucky.

My bass playing? Usually not sucky, but it has its moments of big-time suckiness.

Rum raisin ice cream? Sucks.

Chocolate chip cookies? Not sucky.

Your first real kiss? Fondly remembered, whether it sucked or not.

 

Interesting stuff here. I like the discussion about absolutes, but I don't have the energy to keep going.

This is more or less similar to how I feel. :-)

[Squ]

This is how I break it down:

 

I respect everybody's right to have an opinion, but I don't necessarily respect their opinion. Thats what everyone should do.

 

I guess I'd agree with most of what was said about "so and so band sucks," although I wouldn't really go through the effort of thinking about it that much.

 

One thing I do disagree with is what you said Jimbo:

"You really can't hate someone without really knowing them personally."

 

Oh yes you can. I hate G. Bush, most americans probably hate Osama. I can hate Hitler if I wanted to. I don't know them personally, but I base my hate on their actions.

[Father Gino]

Originally posted by Adamixoye:

 

Are you saying it's not absolutely wrong to murder? That's just ever-changing shade of grey in societies? (I mean murder, not just killing; ignore war and capital punishment for the moment.)

Why leave out war & CP? War seems to be a universal human activity that is glorified (when they win) in song and word. What about abortion? Very gray. It's society that makes murder amoral and for good reason I might add. I'm not amoral myself, but what morals I have come from my culture. Certainly cultures in the past ritually murdered people all the time. This was not an immoral practice to them at the time. What about terrorism and suicide bombers? They think they're acting extremely morally. This activity is not restricted to the Middle East either. It's been a part of human behavior for some time around the globe.

 

 

What about stealing? If you say it's just a shade of grey, I'll be by to pick up your stereo later on.[/QB]

Again I've forgotten who said this and decry the lack of philosophers to help me out here. Anyway, some philosopher type said that if you and your family were starving. it was your moral right to steal food. I can agree with this statement because no manmade morallity will ever over rule survival (which might be an absolute.)

 

 

And I'm actually a physicist myself (of course I meant spherical with reference to the Earth); the implications of quantum mechanics that you put forth are questionable. Quantum mechanics really says more about our limited ability to know everything and the fact that when we try to measure something, only a limited amount of precision is available to us. [/QB]

I am not a physicist, but I played one in college. Seems to me your statement here is in my camp. That's just my point, the accepted absolutes keep changing/evolving with technology. Will we ever get the absolute equation that answers everything? Will we define the absolute absolutes? The answer to this question is very similar to: "Is there a god." Maybe it's the same question.

 

Fact: The last redition of Jefferson Starship absolutely sucked! Society should have offed Kanter (SP, you know who I mean) long ago.

[Adamixoye]

Absolutes exist. It's not the absolutes that keep evolving, it's only our perception of them. Hopefully we're getting closer to an accurate perception, but one true reality exists independent our perception. That's my point that I made with respect to physics, which I don't think is the same point as yours unless I misunderstood you. If you disagree, you disagree.

 

I wanted to restrict the question to murder because I didn't want the issue to be clouded by comparing apples and oranges. Let's switch to lying, and assume it's an absolute. A thief is in your house, and asks if anyone else is in the house. Do you lie to save your family? I think so. But that doesn't mean it's not absolutely wrong to lie? Well, it is in a limited sense, because the reason is important as well as the action. But that does not mean that there are no absolutes concerning lying, it means that situation is a different question. Such it is with murder vs. capital punishment and war. Just because one believes murder is wrong but maybe war and capital punishment can be justified in certain circumstances doesn't mean that they are being inconsistent or there are no absolutes relating to killing, just that they are different questions.

 

I get your points, I just don't agree, and I'm only continuing to post on this not because I think I can convince you otherwise, but because I believe you are putting my posts in the wrong light.

[Tom Capasso]

I had to check the forum name every once in a while - I thought maybe I was in the wrong place.

 

If I was ever in a position to argue about facts and absolutes, I'm not there now.

 

While I've observed people acting according to Gino's comment about musicians being pety and insecure, I'm not willing to assume that. I meet lots of musicians and lots of bass players. I start by respecting what they are doing (whether I really enjoy it or not is irrelevant). I've found that many more respond in kind than I might expect. I try to maintain a level of style and grace because I believe we're all better off and more at peace that way.

 

As to ClarkW's party, I disagree with the father criticizing the band. As the father, he's more at risk than many other people. Somebody close to that band needs to tell them the truth, but it should come from someone they can trust.

 

Most of all, I don't like to talk about the negative. My mentor says "accentuate the positive, ignore the negative", and while we shouldn't always do this it can be a good way to go. There are products and music that I really don't like, or that don't move me. I talk about other things instead. And I also don't care for the term "suck".

 

And MattC:

I'd still remove the word "suck" from the popular vernacular if I could, but then what would become of vaccum cleaner salesmen?

Obviously this particular group would be hosed. I have no particular attachment to them.

 

What was item 3 again?

 

Tom

[Father Gino]

Originally posted by Tom Capasso:

I had to check the forum name every once in a while - I thought maybe I was in the wrong place.

Hey, no matter where ya go, there you are

 

If I was ever in a position to argue about facts and absolutes, I'm not there now.

Me neither at the moment. Please keep in mind that to me, arguing is not a negative thing and should not be hostile. One absolute I firmly believe in is that in the course of human affairs, there are always at least two sides to any story. If you only see one, you're not looking hard enough. I also might argue any side on any given day

 

While I've observed people acting according to Gino's comment about musicians being pety and insecure, I'm not willing to assume that.

I wouldn't assume it either. Someone's got to prove themselves to be a jerk. I've met some musicians that are most definitely not that way at all. But I've also met a lot that are. Bass players aren't as bad as geetar players. Singers are the worst. Actors are even worse. This is a gross generalization to be sure. Bass players usually aren't as heavily in the limelight as geetarists & singers. People who want to be the center of attention are often driven by something other than pure devotion to their art.

 

My mentor says "accentuate the positive, ignore the negative"

What does he say about Mr. In-Between?

 

And I also don't care for the term "suck".

It's just a word. Like most words, it's all in the context. I think saying "This band sucks" is at least better than saying "All Hip-Hop sucks."

[ibescotty]

Obviously this particular group would be hosed. I have no particular attachment to them.

 

What was item 3 again?

 

Groan!!!!!

 

Sheesh. That's far to many Puns for one sentance!!

 

pUNS sUCk!!!

[Lawnmower8]

I don't "hate" any band... I might get upset with a few of them for changing their sound in a way I do not like, but that's their prerogative...

There will always been some bands I will dislike because I don't like the way they sing, play, or sound. But I don't hate them. It's not worth the effort.

[NickT]

Connie...I make a distinct seperation between professional courtesy and professional respect. I don't expect respect from anyone on this forum, 'cos none of you have ever heard me play. I have never heard any of you guys play. If I did I would listen with without prejudice (no I'm not a George Micheal fan) and then form an opinion on your musicianship.

 

Professional courtesy...always. Professional respect...only after I have heard the goods.

[ceramic_cow]

Originally posted by NickT:

But some bands do just suck:

 

The Vines, The Strokes, Underworld.

 

I rest my case.

i'll let you have The Vines and The Strokes as a matter of purely subjective opinion

 

but Underworld DO NOT suck

forget recent singles. yeuch

go listen to their 2nd album, "Second Toughest In The Infants"

it's good. really good. in an objective manner of speaking

 

consider yourself told!

[Connie Z]

Originally posted by NickT:

Professional courtesy...always.

[The Bear Jew]

I hate rats. I hate cable boxes. I hate parking tickets. I hate people who poop on my car. I hate vacuums. I hate mud. I hate hangnails. I hate the name "Seymour." I hate multi-vitamins. I hate bayonets. I hate Wrangler jeans. I hate Chick-Fil-A. I hate salamanders. I hate traffic. I hate asphalt. I hate getting killed.

 

I hate lots of stuff.

 

It's none of your damn business.

 

What was the question again?