That Sucks!!!!!!!

[Father Gino]

For some reason I keep thinking about this, so I might as well express it. I remember Tom C saying he didn't like the word "suck" when referring to bands as in "That band sucks".

 

If nothing sucks, then nothing is exemplary either. Can't have one without the other. It's a yin & yang sorta thing like good & evil, darkness & light, hot & cold, male & female. It's the power that drives the cosmos.

 

OK, enough philosophy, I really should do some work.

[jeremy c]

Well, in some sort of strange twisted way you are right, Father Gino.

 

However, saying X band sucks and Y band is great really doesn't tell us anything at all.

 

And didn't your mother ever tell you, "if you can't say something good about someone, don't say anything at all"?

 

There are large numbers of bands that I truly dislike. Some of them I dislike because they can't play their instruments. Some of them I dislike because they write music which is repellent to me, or music which is just uninteresting to me. Some of them I dislike because their musical values have been subverted by their quest for publicity.

 

For instance, I could say "Madonna sucks" and many people here would agree with me. (without getting into a literal interpretation of the word).

 

But it would be way more accurate to say that she has a weak voice which just barely stays in tune. No one ever says that, because her self-made image has distracted us from that.

 

She is a brilliant performer and hires the best musicians in the world for her backup bands. She is also a genius at generating publicity.

 

At one point she seemed to have a vision of a certain kind of dance music and wrote some ok songs, but that is long gone and she hasn't made a good record in years.

 

If she called me up to be in her band, I'd start packing before hanging up the phone.

 

Now isn't that better than saying what we all think, MADONNA SUCKS!

[alexclaber]

Originally posted by Father Gino:

If nothing sucks, then nothing is exemplary either.

Indeed. Yet Primus both suck and are exemplary.

 

Alex

[getz out]

Saying a band sucks or someone is a no-talent-bum causes some issues; way too subjective.

 

As musicians, we all tend to have a much different criteria to evaluate music than the general public.

 

How often have we subjected our friends or significant others to music that we find extremely satisfying, yet others can't find a way to listen to it without crying?

 

While I enjoy certain material by bands like Soul Coughing and Rollins Band, my non-musician friends can't seem to find anything in the material that is pleasing.

 

While I concur with most of Jeremy's comments regarding Madonna, he is making his assessment based on his very, very trained and educated ears. Jane and John Doe don't quite disaggregate the music in the same way Jeremy and other musicians would. Where we think vocals, rhythm, harmonies, leads, performance, and stage-presence as all separate items, the non-musician thinks of it as "the act."

 

Just my thoughts.

[saxofunk]

JeremyC doesn't suck!

 

IMHOP he's absolutely correct. When someone tells me a band sucks or a brand of gear sucks, and that's all they have to say, then they are giving me an opportunity to judge them in their ignorance.

 

If I dislike something, I like to find a specific reason. That gives me more ammunition when I get to the LowDown and start my aimless babble.

[tnb]

Jeremy sez:

If she called me up to be in her band, I'd start packing before hanging up the phone.

Damn straight.

 

If the gig was good enough for Darryl Jones and Victor Bailey, it is certainly good enough for me. And not just Madonna. If sucky band x calls and offers me $$$$ to do a tour, consider me gone.

[Adamixoye]

My outrage against people saying this or that "sucks" is that they usually don't clarify. Stylistically, nothing does in fact suck. It's just a style and a matter of opinion. If you are saying that you don't like the style, or that you find a particular artist within that style to "suck" because they lack creativity or technical merit, then okay. But say what you mean, back it up, and don't just blindly criticize bands or styles by dropping a "You suck!" That's what the issue is here.

[erikmag]

I think the term "X band Sucks" is really just a thesis and an opening to an argument on why the band is so far from being good. If you just say "they suck" and cant back it up, you look like an asshole. Besides its all opinionated anyways.

[Father Gino]

Well, in some sort of strange twisted way you are right

 

Who You callin strange & twisted?!?!?!?!?!? Well, at least I right about something.

 

And didn't your mother ever tell you, "if you can't say something good about someone, don't say anything at all"?

 

Remember Moms Mabley? Speaking of her dead husband - "They say don't say nuthin' but good things 'bout the dead. He dead... Good!"

 

But it would be way more accurate to say that she has a weak voice which just barely stays in tune.

 

Bob Dylan has a weak voice and often it would be hard to categorize it as in or out of tune. But he doesn't suck, does he?

 

And then you said a lot of other stuff that all made sense. But sometimes one might want a simplistic answer which is of course, always subjective. I'm not saying "suck(s)" is succinct, I just don't mind the word. It has its uses.

 

Saying a band sucks or someone is a no-talent-bum causes some issues; way too subjective.

 

As musicians, we all tend to have a much different criteria to evaluate music than the general public.

 

I've yet to find any critique of any art form that isn't subjective in the final analysis. Out of tune? Most of modern jazz would be out of tune to people used to Gregorian chants or some such thing (my wife too). The "objective" rules of any art form are simply man made definitions. And of course they are, art is a man made concept. The rules are usually broken by people who are later recognized as giants in their field. You can judge art based on your knowledge & experience. Your judgement might be different than someone with different knowledge & experience. Then again, your judgement may be different than someone with extremely similar knowledge & experience. In the end it's still a subjective call.

 

As musicians, we must answer this question (and it's a doozy if ya think about it for a while): For whom is music made? other musicians? Beer swilling morons? The Pope? Critics? Your mom? The girl that wouldn't date you in 10th grade? Yourself?

 

My outrage against people saying this or that "sucks" is that they usually don't clarify. Stylistically, nothing does in fact suck. It's just a style and a matter of opinion. If you are saying that you don't like the style, or that you find a particular artist within that style to "suck" because they lack creativity or technical merit, then okay. But say what you mean, back it up, and don't just blindly criticize bands or styles by dropping a "You suck!" That's what the issue is here.

 

Outrage? that's strong. You must be outraged a lot. Again, "suck(s)" is never a detailed description of anything. Make believe this is a multiple choice question. No chads allowed.

 

Madonna

 

1) Sucks

 

2) Doesn't Suck

 

3) No Opinion

 

I think Led Zeppelin sucks. A lot of people here would no doubt disagree. I could tell you why I say that if you want. But do you really care? Especially if you think they don't suck.

 

Then again, a lot of people somewhere out there would think Madonna is great.

[getz out]

I disagree, it is way too subject.

 

Here is the flaw in your argument:

 

Saying something "sucks" in a general statement about the ability and product of an artist.

 

Saying you "dislike" an artist or their material is a statement about your personal tastes.

 

You might say it is semantics, but the power of language to convey feelings is a beautiful thing. Use it wisely.

[Adamixoye]

Originally posted by Father Gino:

Outrage? that's strong. You must be outraged a lot. Again, "suck(s)" is never a detailed description of anything. Make believe this is a multiple choice question. No chads allowed.

Well, yes, I am outraged a lot. But that's another issue. Maybe "frustration" more accurately describes what I'm talking about.

 

Originally posted by Father Gino:

I think Led Zeppelin sucks. A lot of people here would no doubt disagree. I could tell you why I say that if you want. But do you really care? Especially if you think they don't suck.

Quite the contrary, if you say something sucks that I don't think sucks, I want to know exactly why. I want to know because I am assigning a high level of value to something you don't...unless you clarify, you're saying I'm wrong. We're disagreeing. I want to know what we're disagreeing about. If it's a matter of taste, then okay. If we disagree about the things that tend to be more objective (i.e., how technically proficient the music is), then we can debate it until one person convinces the other or agree to disagree. But at least we know where it stands.

 

Just saying whether you think something sucks or not and then refusing to explain your reasons why is pointless. Even in this thread you are trying to give reasons to defend your points and in general trying to explain yourself. Why are you arguing against doing so when it comes to your views on music?

[Father Gino]

Originally posted by getz76:

I disagree, it is way too subject.

 

Here is the flaw in your argument:

 

Saying something "sucks" in a general statement about the ability and product of an artist.

 

Saying you "dislike" an artist or their material is a statement about your personal tastes.

 

You might say it is semantics, but the power of language to convey feelings is a beautiful thing. Use it wisely.

I looked up "suck" in my 1953 dictionary here at work and found no entry for the slang meaning.

 

I typed "suck" into google and got a whole bunch of matches, but we won't go into that here.

 

Microsoft Word's dictionary says: "to be very bad or inferior (slang)"

 

I see nothing here about ability, products or artists specifically.

[getz out]

So, you don't see a difference in saying:

 

1. That band is very bad.

2. I don't like that band's music.

[_Sweet Willie_]

Ooh, ooh, ohh! Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter!!!

 

#1 comes across as an absolute, unattached to personal opinion or preference.

#2 is more specific, and is clearly linked to personal opinion or preference.

 

Semantics are definitely in play here, but will carry different weight for different people. The Scarlet Knight is usin' his noggin' today; must've stayed in last night.

[getz out]

Originally posted by Sweet Willie:

Ooh, ooh, ohh! Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter!!!

 

#1 comes across as an absolute, unattached to personal opinion or preference.

#2 is more specific, and is clearly linked to personal opinion or preference.

 

Semantics are definitely in play here, but will carry different weight for different people. The Scarlet Knight is usin' his noggin' today; must've stayed in last night.

I'm sick; it's the Theraflu typing.

 

A+, Mr. Horshack.

[J.A.]

Originally posted by Father Gino:

[QB]For some reason I keep thinking about this, so I might as well express it. I remember Tom C saying he didn't like the word "suck" when referring to bands as in "That band sucks".

 

If nothing sucks, then nothing is exemplary either. Can't have one without the other. It's a yin & yang sorta thing like good & evil, darkness & light, hot & cold, male & female. It's the power that drives the cosmos.

 

OK, enough philosophy, I really should do some work.

 

Father Gino, that's bad philosophy. There doesn't have to be bands that suck for there to be bands that are good. To use an analogy from philosopher J.L. Mackie (slightly paraphrased)- Say that on Monday 93% of objects are red and 7% are non-red. On Tuesday, 96% of objects are red and 4% are non-red. On Wednesday, 99% of objects are red and 1% are non-red. Finally, on Thursdday, 100% of objects are red. Does that mean that there is no such thing as red because there are no non-red objects??? Hardly- the percentages have just changed. Replace the concepts of red and non-red with good and evil, hot and cold, great band and sucky band. Let's not say 'enough philosophy, when we should be saying 'enough bad philosophy'

[zeronyne]

Uhh, sorry Justin, but that analogy does not apply here. Red is a chromatic value, not a relative adjective in this case. The proper analogy would be: if there were only one kind of red, would it be dark or light red?

[jeremy c]

Hey, and since you brought up Bob Dylan, by all objective standards he can't sing at all.

 

I remember how people reacted when his records first came out....people couldn't believe it.

 

On the other hand, he's probably the most important songwriter of the last 50 years. He changed songwriting entirely and inspired an entire generation.

 

On the subjective side, many people love to hear him sing his own songs. But that doesn't make him a singer. And, no, he doesn't suck.

 

But as the perhaps first major recording artist to succeed with such limited singing skills, he opened the floodgates for all the non-singers that have come after him.

 

I love Leonard Cohen's songs (no he's not related) but I would prefer to hear ANYONE else sing them.

 

But people rarely talk about things like this when they talk about bands. And don't forget, talking about a band does not necessarily mean you are talking about music. In fact, in most of the "Music Magazines", talking about a band rarely means talking about music.

 

And the typical listener, especially high school age, listens to a band, decides they don't like it, and makes a derisive comment.

 

And as far a in-tuneness goes, yes, we do have a different tuning system then they did in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the Baroque eras.

 

And the definition of consonance and dissonance has changed over the years.

 

But as far as I know, we haven't yet devised a new standard for whether a singer can sing in tune or not. And that certainly goes for Bjork.

 

But obviously there is only one solution here.

 

All the music I don't like sucks and all the music I do like is great. And who cares about whether the bassplayer can play or not? After all, his band and all the bands like his suck anyway.

[Cthulhu Fhtagn]

Ok, let's separate this into the objective and subjective.

 

I could say "Rap Sucks" or "Jazz Sucks" or "Nu-Metal sucks" and the spend the next five weeks having my butt flamed off. Then someone who is a big fan of Rap, or Jazz, or Nu-Metal might intimate that my "Metal" sucks. Again another debate would insue. To take something that is purely esoteric, and a matter of taste, and stamp it with the heavy hand of "This Sucks" is an admission that one is not willing to give even a modicom of consideration or thought.

 

My son was driving home two nights ago and smacked a deer with his truck. It did $900 worth of damage. He was planning to get a Jackson and a stage amp for Christmas, now his present is going to repair the truck. The deer was killed. Now whether you are rooting for the truck or the deer, THAT SUCKS!

[J.A.]

Originally posted by zeronyne:

Uhh, sorry Justin, but that analogy does not apply here. Red is a chromatic value, not a relative adjective in this case. The proper analogy would be: if there were only one kind of red, would it be dark or light red?

*******i think you missed the point i was trying to make. read what father gino said, and my response. the analogy is a valid analogy commonly used to discuss the problem of evil, philosophically opposed to the theory 'if there was no evil there would be no good.' father gino said if there were no bands that suck, there would be no exemplary bands. its just a matter of substituting terms in the analogy, if the analogy is understood correctly. Father Gino implies a false dichotomy between a world in which there are bands that suck, thereby allowing us to recognize the good bands, and a world where there are no bands that suck, and no good bands either. its faulty logic. plain and simple.

[bc_dup1]

So, you don't see a difference in saying:

 

1. That band is very bad.

2. I don't like that band's music.

The second is a frankly subjective opinion.

 

The first at least pretends to a measure of objectivity. Question: are there any objective criteria by which the relative values of works of art can be judged? Can 1 ever mean more than 2?

[Adamixoye]

Originally posted by bc:

The second is a frankly subjective opinion.

Well that's the point, which is why this forum wants people to define what they mean when they says "sucks".

[BenLoy]

A story:

 

When I was just out of college and playing with a popular local swing band, we had a lot of subs come in and out of the drum chair during the busy months, simply because our drummer was also a very busy club date drummer and often had previous engagements.

 

9 times out of 10 the subs were all excellent and impressed the hell out of this particular green kid in their ability to sit down, screw down a few cymbals, and immediately fall into place as if they knew all the tunes and had been playing with me for years. They varied in their personalities offstage, but onstage I always had a good time.

 

One particular night however, we had a drummer who was not so pleasant to play with. He started off by immediately talking about how great he was when he was "back in vegas" and dropping names of club date offices the moment he walked through the door of the club we were playing. I immediately thought "uh-oh," but held off on judgements until I heard the guy play.

 

When we counted off the first tune...ugh...it was a truly awful experience. His feel was wooden, his time was all over the place, he didn't listen, and his idea of a jump blues shuffle was damn near close to hitting quarter notes with all four limbs at once. And he was so LOUD...his snare drum was tuned so tightly that if you dropped a feather on it it would bounce six feet in the air. I was physically exhausted after the first set just trying to keep things held together.

 

After the first set I was sitting at the bar with the trombonist and commenting on this drummer. "Man, his feel is so stiff, and he doesn't listen, and I don't think he's ever played this style of music before--"

 

The trombonist cut me off: "Ben, you're wasting too much energy talking about this guy. He just plain sucks. Let's get a drink. I know you need one."

[Father Gino]

Originally posted by justinruins:

*******i think you missed the point i was trying to make. read what father gino said, and my response. the analogy is a valid analogy commonly used to discuss the problem of evil, philosophically opposed to the theory 'if there was no evil there would be no good.' father gino said if there were no bands that suck, there would be no exemplary bands. its just a matter of substituting terms in the analogy, if the analogy is understood correctly. Father Gino implies a false dichotomy between a world in which there are bands that suck, thereby allowing us to recognize the good bands, and a world where there are no bands that suck, and no good bands either. its faulty logic. plain and simple.[/QB]

Oh boy!! Finally a bass playing philosopher. Or at least a philosophizing bass player.

 

I must admit my comnplete ignorance of Mr. Mackie, but I don't understand the precise connection between the two arguments either. Being Red or black, though also a man made convention, is extremely objective give the definition of what a color is. Good, evil, sucks, great on the other hand seem pretty subjective. When a cat disembowels a mouse seemingly for the joy of it I don't consider this evil. It's just the nature of the cat. If a person does the same thing, I'd consider it evil. Good & evil a relative social concepts.

 

I can't comprehend a world without good & evil. If there was no evil, how could there be any good? Good compared to what? Less good? Least good? Wouldn't the least good be evil?

 

And let's not for a moment assume that philosophy is an objective science.

 

I think that "suck(s)", like many a slang word has multiple meanings depending of context, inflection, etc. I'm defining the word in this instance as something completely lacking in value. And yes, that is a personal opinion on my part. I'm lying therefore by saying "Led Zepelin sucks" as I don't really believe they are totally bereft of value. Close though.

 

The musician ship in Louie Louie is pretty poor. It might even suck. But the song is great. It might not be a timeless masterpiece, but it certainly doesn't suck.

 

From the BenLoy post: "Ben, you're wasting too much energy talking about this guy. He just plain sucks."

 

For me, that's what I think of Zepelin. Ultra rock star macho crap, egocentic butchering of the blues, Robert Plant's voice worse than nails on a chalkboard, Over indulgent endless, boring solo crap, stealing Robert Johnson lyrics all over the place and not giving him credit.

 

Too me they suck. One man's junk is another's treasure. Some of my best friends are Zepelin fans. I don't hold it against them (too much).

 

I just hope this outrage at the word "suck" is not really a manifestation of some PC thing. Yes, it is a vague word. But a word noe-the-less in the world I live in. How many of you out there really don't use it?

 

Here's something that really sucks: Writing this at home with a pathetic 33K dial up on AOL which keeps dumping me.

[Tom Capasso]

Gino,

 

I've been watching this thread to see how it goes, and to see if you derive any satisfaction out of it. Also, I felt kinda guilty, since I am partly to blame for planting an idea in your head that took months to come out (sorry - it wasn't my intention to linger in your mind...). Anyway, let me address your topic.

 

I think that "suck(s)", like many a slang word has multiple meanings depending of context, inflection, etc. I'm defining the word in this instance as something completely lacking in value.

One of the problems with on-line boards is that it becomes more difficult to get in the inflection and meaning. For example, there are posters here that I thought were crude or stiff or forceful. After I get to know them (or have the pleassure of talking to them), I come to understand them better. Some people like having a tough veneer. Also, we span lots of generations here, and the ease with which a younger person says "that sucks" seems crude to me.

 

Once you defined how you use the term, it makes more sense to me.

 

Still, I wish people would chose different words. It's not PC, or the belief that opinions should be soft and squishy. As a community, I would prefer that things be kept as civil as possible. You saying "LZ sucks" is civil, but the use of "sucks" often degrades into nastiness. And if you chose to say "LZ has no value for me at all ", I get the point with all the inflection.

 

Having said all that, many will think I'm still too sensitive. We edit out real bad words, but people need a way to express themselves. I just look for ways to say something that doesn't incite others.

 

As to whether a band or song is good or not, I'm fine with you having an opinion. You may make me re-look at my own feelings, but only if I want to. I'm pretty secure about what moves me and doesn't move me.

 

Tom

[Father Gino]

Originally posted by Tom Capasso (Zarkov):

[QB]Gino,

 

I've been watching this thread to see how it goes, and to see if you derive any satisfaction out of it.

A little bit, yes. It's made me think a little bit. I like arguing, what can I say. I don't think of it as malicious, call it "debating" if you'd prefer. It's what we used to do around the table on holidays. I do find it cumbersome and frustrating to try to have a conversation in this manner.

 

Also, I felt kinda guilty, since I am partly to blame for planting an idea in your head that took months to come out (sorry - it wasn't my intention to linger in your mind...)

Don't feel quilty! I would think it would be honorable to have someone linger on something you've said.

 

One of the problems with on-line boards is that it becomes more difficult to get in the inflection and meaning. For example, there are posters here that I thought were crude or stiff or forceful. After I get to know them (or have the pleassure of talking to them), I come to understand them better. Some people like having a tough veneer. Also, we span lots of generations here, and the ease with which a younger person says "that sucks" seems crude to me.

Not to mention different places. The youngins I know have been saying "suck(s)" since they could talk. It's just a word. I'd certainly agree that writing to this forum just to say XYZ sucks is pretty pointless. The original thought of this post was no good without evil, no Great music without sucky music etc., not the word "suck" I truly do believe that the great dualities are what powers the cosmos. Without them, there would be only static mediocraty.

 

As to whether a band or song is good or not, I'm fine with you having an opinion. You may make me re-look at my own feelings, but only if I want to.

Now I am honored. I sincerely hope you want to. It's always healthy to do so.

 

I'm pretty secure about what moves me and doesn't move me.

As it should be, an old man like you And me too But another way of looking at something, whether positive or negative is, sometimes interesting.

 

I must admit that using Zepelin for an example was a deliberate attempt to inciteful. I really don't like them and so many others put them on a pedestal. Ya can't pick on poor ole Madonna all the time.

[bc_dup1]

"quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by bc:

The second is a frankly subjective opinion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Well that's the point, which is why this forum wants people to define what they mean when they says "sucks"."

 

I may not be communicating my point. If you consider the two propositions:

 

1 I like The Beatle's music more than the Rolling Stones

 

2 The Beatle's music is better than the Rolling Stones

 

It is clear what the first statement means. The meaning of the second statement is much more problematic. It implies more than preference, that there is some intrinsic value to the Beatles music than in an objective, or quasi objective way, makes it superior.

 

More an more young critics nowadays would argue that statement 2 is not capable of meaning any more than statement 1. But of course the subject has been debated (and never resolved) throughout the history of aesthetic philosophy. Personally I like David Hume's solution to the problem best (very approximately, he would say that there is no rational basis for suggesting that proposition 2 can mean any more than proposition 1 but we can only discuss aesthetic value by pretending that it can).

[doc taz]

Originally posted by getz76:

While I enjoy certain material by bands like Soul Coughing and Rollins Band, my non-musician friends can't seem to find anything in the material that is pleasing.

Your non-musician friends should watch Henry Rollins do standup live. I saw a special of his once on Comedy Central, and he talked about everything in his life. I caught about the last half hour of that, and the best part was when he mentioned the Rollins Band opening for Iron Maiden in Madrid. He said that the crowd was constantly chanting for Iron Maiden...

[jeremy c]

This thread sucks.

[Father Gino]

Originally posted by jeremyc:

This thread sucks.

Yes, but it makes you appreciate the beter threads. And it's powering the cosmos!