are you hearing to much dave mathews ?

[Dan O]

As much as a respect their musicianship in the DMB , don't you think their getting exploited a little to much ? Or is it just the space between us ? dano

[patrick_dont_fret]

I think that they are getting a little over played (especially that one song off their new album. But I also think it's good because around the time Under the Table came out they weren't known as well as they are now. I do hope they don't sell out like some bands have. I also hope the likes of Phish and Widespread don't ever get too much radio play that little girls with pony tails start goin to the concerts and get exposed to the dangers of psychoactive music. Let them have they're Britney and Backside Boys.

[offramp]

ANY Dave Matthews is too much Dave Matthews, IMO.

[The Bear Jew]

[quote] ANY Dave Matthews is too much Dave Matthews, IMO. [/quote]I agree with that. Dave Matthews Band is probably the least rock n' roll thing in the universe.

[Steve LeBlanc]

I don't hear him at all. Is he on the radio or something? They don't play him on Public or College radio. I like his music...his CD is rarely in my player though...not enough surprises...pretty bland stuff. I do love Carter Beauford when he's on.

[offramp]

Years ago, there was a record review (yes...RECORD)of a Rush album; the reviewer said someting about 'more splattery drum-bashing than you'd ever care to hear'. When I hear Carter Beauford, I think of this review. More recently, there was an interview in MD with Carter, where he said (and I paraphrase) "Yeah, I think I tended to overplay a bit in the beginning." Master of Understatement, that Carter. Don't get me wrong, he's good, but it's like a Dave Weckl record...it all sounds like typewriting.

[Steve LeBlanc]

HAHA...well when I listen to those first couple of albums the only thought that goes through my head is... "It's a good thing SOMEONE is playing with some balls on this record!" If he hadn't "over-played" those CDs would have gone straight into the trash can...I mean EVERYONE's trashcan...think about it. The albums are boring even with the interesting drums. I can agree to disagree but I don't care what anyone says...IMO Carter Beauford is the only reasons any of those tunes were popular.

[The Bear Jew]

The Dave Matthews Band is just awful. I put this band in the same league as John Tesh and Yanni. In 15 years, I'm sure some scientists will find that those guys somehow managed to encode some kind of sonic mind-rotting symmetrical sine wave (known as Dave Matthews Bandwaves) into their music that robs listeners of their senses. This same sine wave also makes people complacently shop at The Gap or American Eagle Outfitters and spend $100. for lousy concert tickets. Luckily, there are a few bands (like mine) who try to battle the spread of these waves through the use of non-symmetrical waves. When applied correctly, these cancel out the pernicious DMB Waves and foster better fashion sense, eliminate date rape and promote grindcore music played by cure Japanese girls (like Yellow Machinegun.) It's a tough battle, but it's absolutely necessary. I really, really hate DMB and those other neo-hippie bands that attract crowds of smelly, pot-smoking, hemp-promoting, tie-dyed suburbanites. UGH. I don't care HOW many little hi-hat grace notes Carter Beauford can play -- he needs to stop. Someone call Bun E. Carlos... Carter needs a lesson in rock.

[Kris]

[quote]Originally posted by CMDN: [b]The Dave Matthews Band is just awful. I put this band in the same league as John Tesh and Yanni. Luckily, there are a few bands (like mine) who try to battle the spread of these waves through the use of non-symmetrical waves. When applied correctly, these cancel out the pernicious DMB Waves and foster better fashion sense, eliminate date rape and promote grindcore music played by cure Japanese girls (like Yellow Machinegun.) It's a tough battle, but it's absolutely necessary. I really, really hate DMB and those other neo-hippie bands that attract crowds of smelly, pot-smoking, hemp-promoting, tie-dyed suburbanites. UGH. I don't care HOW many little hi-hat grace notes Carter Beauford can play -- he needs to stop. Someone call Bun E. Carlos... Carter needs a lesson in rock.[/b][/quote]I'm no big DMB fan but like it or not, at least they have an original sound... not something that has been regurgitated over and over since the 80s.

[The Bear Jew]

Kris... I wouldn't say DMB has an original sound. I find the band boring and redundant. Blech. Sorry. My style of silly sarcam doesn't translate well here. I forgot my sarcasm code training. IMO, the band sounds like watered down Steely Dan, which is another group that probably could stand to be battled with rock n' roll sine waves.

[Jonathan Hughes]

"I really, really hate DMB and those other neo-hippie bands that attract crowds of smelly, pot-smoking, hemp-promoting, tie-dyed suburbanites. UGH. I don't care HOW many little hi-hat grace notes Carter Beauford can play -- he needs to stop. Someone call Bun E. Carlos... Carter needs a lesson in rock." truer words have never been spoken! I think they're pretty decent musicians, but any time I've seen them play live on TV it was _really_ painful -- Dave Mathews' more- tuneless-than-usual caterwauling, the seriously out-of-tune violin, the extended "jams." UGH. Seriously, I'd rather listen to Nsync.

[Kris]

Well for one you can't really call DMB rock n roll in the sense that you are thinking. As far as boring and redundant... I was listening to plenty of stuff like "grindcore music played by cute Japanese girls (like Yellow Machinegun.) " back in the 80s... I've got tape cases full of it. The only thing that changes with this style of music is the people playing it. I really can't think of anyone previous to the DMB that had a similar style... Anyways, different strokes for different folks I guess. And again I'm not a big DMB fan , though I like and respect some of their music and musicianship,... but I bet I am a fan of some of "those other neo-hippie bands that attract crowds of smelly, pot-smoking, hemp-promoting, tie-dyed suburbanites" that you refered to... ;)

[The Bear Jew]

Yo Kris... Yeah, it's nothing personal. DMB is one of those bands that just makes me cringe. Maybe it's his voice, maybe it's the smug, snooty musicianship -- I dunno. Like I said, it's probably the evil sine waves. Whatever. DMB is far, far, far away from anything that even remotely resembles rock in every way. It's totally unfair and irrational for me to disclike this band so much. If it makes you feel any better, I don't care for Tool or The Beach Boys, either. I only mentioned Yellow Machinegun to be silly. I could have just as easily used bands like Melt Banana or Shonen Knife as examples of something interesting played by cute Japanese girls. What can I say? I like music by cute Japanese girls. Again, nothing personal. DMB is just the most truly evil thing I can think of... next to Phish (who replaced The Grateful Dead for evilness in the '90s.) And I mean "evil" in the most non-rock n' roll, bad way, of course.

[Gulliver]

[i]Topic: are you hearing to much dave mathews?[/i] Not too much, really... (but hey, I don't live in the US :D ).

[flyscots]

Sorry to get off the subject as I squeeze in here to try and get [b]CMDN's[/b] attention. [b]Erik[/b] - are we counting you in for tomorrow now that we have updated details? Please let me know by PM or on the "Let's Celebrate" thread. Thanks. Anyway, Dave Matthews Band.......I agree with Kris [quote][b] I'm no big DMB fan but like it or not, at least they have an original sound... not something that has been regurgitated over and over [/b][/quote]John Scotsman

[vintagevibe]

CMDN, So you despise Dave Mathews with heated passion. Stealy Dan is obvoiusly way over your head. So.. who do you like?

[Yuri T.]

Not at the moment thought my band used to play that song.

[Dak Lander]

I'll make no apologies for not liking Dave Matthews Band. My step daugher is a huge fan of theirs & brought one of their cds to me. To me, every song sounded the same with nothing to cause any interest. One of my sons is a musicisian in a band (maybe extreme alternative?). He give all kinds of stuff to listen to. Some I can listen to and appreciate the expertise, direction or difference of the band/performer. DMB is not one of them. ECHO CMDN I can't stand Steely Dan either & there is no way in hell they go over my head. They sucked in the 80's & still suck 20 years later with the same o same o crap. I don't know, it was a year or so ago, time flies when your having fun, there was a "NEW" song on some radio station or other. I listened a half minute or so & thoght, "shit that's an old Steely Dan song. [b]WRONG![/b] It was a new Steely Dan song. Damned thing sounded the same as the crap that had been played all those many years ago. Maybe you do need to be on a higher level to appreciate such tripe as DMB & SD, like on a level attained by some mind altering chemical... PFFFFFTTTT???? UHNUHNUH! AHHHHH, That's good shit man....

[henryrobinett]

Well not to be intimidated, I like Dave Matthews and love Steely Dan. Why the hostility? Dan is harmonically dense. If they aren't responsible for introducing extended chords and harmony to pop music, a field normally devoid of these things, they certainly have enriched it, IMHO. But I suppose for those who like the status quo and endless triads and power "chords"; who think that bands like AC/DC/Led Zep (no criticism intended) are the panacea for everything rock/pop should be, they might be a bit much. I like bands that try to stretch the boundaries [i]MUSICALLY[/i] of what we've come to expect. This I feel they've done. Yeah, sometimes they take themselves too seriously and get caught up in their own self importance. Who hasn't tripped in this mine field? "You got to shake it baby, shake it baby, shake it baby, shake it", at the end of Babylon Sisters is a hip quarter note quintuplet figure hard for a good drummer to do, and those singers pulled it off and made it sound soulful too. Quintuplets are unusual and [i]hard[/i]. "Gaucho" is a great tune I never hear talked about. Probably because Keith Jarrett sued their ass. "Aja" - forget it. "Deacon Blues". "Third World Man." Well sorry. I'm a musician. It takes musicians to have written it and it certainly takes musicians to have played it. OK, I'll admit. I haven't been a fan of pop music and rock, R&B for many of year. This is music even I can enjoy. There should be something for everybody, yeah? Re everything sounding the same, this is a major criticism I have of most all music. I don't think it's just the fault of DMB. Yeah he has a sound and a formula. When you take a back beat, basic triadic chord progressions (I-IV-V variations), single or multiple guitar instrumentations; acoustic, electric, distorted, clean; singers who scream or sound like they're almost dead or bored senseless; there seem to be only a limited, certain variety of possibilties. It all quickly starts sounding the same to me. Bands imitate each other. Producers start imitating success and demand everyone soud the same. Yuck. [i]TO ME[/i], someone not with a head for pop music and have little patience for it most of the time, DMB sounds different than the maddening crowd. I can always identify him immediately. And the distinctive quality is not just the voice, as is the case with so many, but it's actually the band and the music. Ready for the flames. :wave:

[nhcomp45aol.com]

I saw them once on one of the late night shows, What a steril boring band. Maybe you have to be stoned out of your mind to dig them.

[whitefang]

[quote]Originally posted by CMDN: [b] [quote] ANY Dave Matthews is too much Dave Matthews, IMO. [/quote]I agree with that. Dave Matthews Band is probably the least rock n' roll thing in the universe.[/b][/quote]And THAT makes it BAD? Geezo, talk about narrow tastes! I never thought Matthews was all that bad. Have the first three, and like them pretty much, mostly for the musical areas he chose to wander into. When one considers that there were groups out at the time he came around like Hootie and the Blowhards, Matthews was a breath of fresh air. I'll admit that it sounds like Dave has gone into "auto-pilot" as far as his sound and composition are concerned, but there are many that have fallen into that rut as well. Even on the CD's of his I own and like, there IS a bit of redundance. I just skip past it. And like anything else out there, you can just listen to it for so long. Gotta move to something else. What I thought was amusing in all this in the thread, were the comments about Steely Dan. Most amusing was the reply that they pretty much sucked the last 20 years. When you consider they busted out 30 years ago, and none of that material was mentioned, it gives one the impression we're not dealing with well informed opinions all the time. But I digress, and agree. Some bands DO plod on, year after year, with no real change of direction as if they only intend to "cash in" on nostalgia. Think Stones! Those long-time bands that go on and on but try to offer something new and different are rare indeed. Sometimes you get so close to death, you can't smell the rot. Maybe Matthews is decomposing at this point and doesn't realize it. We oldsters often speak of the sadness we felt when The Beatles broke up. But, in retrospect, maybe they knew better and did what was inevitable. Better to go out at the top of your game, than to wither and vanish amongst pity. Whitefang

[Dak Lander]

No flames from me Henry, & really no animosity unless it's received from the SD or DMB lovers first. I really don't care what or who, anyone listens to & likes, but I do get agitated when they slam me for not getting into the crap they like. I'm open to any and all types of music. I don't necessarily like it, nor will listen to some of it ever again, but I do give it a chance. As I said, my son, the musician, gives me lots of new music to hear. I've not purchased any of it yet but I do appreciate the offer, as well as the music itself. Does this make any sense? I listen to such a wide variety of music I can't tell.

[Dak Lander]

[quote]Originally posted by whitefang: What I thought was amusing in all this in the thread, were the comments about Steely Dan. Most amusing was the reply that they pretty much sucked the last 20 years. When you consider they busted out 30 years ago, and none of that material was mentioned, it gives one the impression we're not dealing with well informed opinions all the time. [/quote]Fang, it sounds like you're targeting me. Yeah, I'll go ahead and date myself. They sucked big time in the 70's too. I really couldn't believe they lasted through the 80's & 90's. In all reality, I was shocked to find that what I surmised to be an old SD tune? was really a new tune. As I think I made clear, I didn't like them years ago & still don't. It all sounds the same to me...CRAP! Do I know everything there is to know about Steely Dan? NO! I don't want to either. I'd just as soon they go away today as I did way back then. Hell, I'd rather listen to DMB. Each to his own mang. I'm knowing I love some stuff that you can't abide. I just dont' push it in anyones face.

[offramp]

Here's another take: I LOVE Steely Dan. Always have. HOW SD got lumped in with DMB is beyond me, as I think the two are almost diametrically opposite. With SD, I hear cohesive episodes/stories/scenarios, grooves, ambiences, calculated weirdness...life in 'Sitll Life'; with DMB, I just hear an attempt to make another dull college semester evening out a little less "'same ol' ". whitefang, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that my tastes are narrow because I don't like DMB? Not trying to start a war at all, just want to be clear on your statement, that's all. Dave has always sounded to me like Fazzie the Bear. Too much yawing. I checked in on this thread just before work ended. I get in the car, and who's on KBCO? DMB. Some tune I might have heard once before...first time I'd heard Beauford even coming close to sitting on a groove...DM's voice just sounded like a Golden Retriever with a hot PopTart in it's mouth. I just don't get any SOUL out of this band, any UNITY, any vision. 'Yes, we can show off our ensemble chops, but we don't have a common VOICE.'

[offramp]

whitefang: gotcha. thanks for the reply. :thu:

[Steve LeBlanc]

Big difference between Steely Dan and DMB. Steely Dan had Pocket...groove that is undeniable, yeah they were kinda mellow sometimes but I knew those guys could jam. DMB is good but has too many weak links IMO...it sounds like a Drummer and a Guitar player playing with people who just don't know what to do. Don't get me wrong...I found Dave Matthew's albums very refreshing at a time when there were even fewer musicians being played in the mainstream. They've steadily improved as a band over the years and actually sound like a tight unit lately but now they sound content. That's also the problem with Steely Dan for the past 5-10 years...they seem too content with just sitting back and playing. I like to witness a bit more urgency when I go to see a band play...give me something. Just flapping my opinion.

[offramp]

"...the problem with Steely Dan for the past 5-10 years...they seem too content with just sitting back and playing." well, sure...a coupla decades of good coke would do that to you, too...

[The Bear Jew]

Jeeez... I didn't realise making a little joke about DMB and Steely Dan would be taken so gravely. C'mon you guys... I'm just fuckin' with ya. Here's the deal: I just don't like these bands at all. I don't enjoy 'em. I never did. To me, Dave Matthews' voice is grating, and the music strikes me as pretentious and far too self-important to be fun or engaging. I don't care if Carter can play his ass off. IMO, it sounds like the songs are written from the "let's impress other musicians" mindset, and I personally find that annoying. There's no dirt or grime in there. The songs seem to come from a sterile, passionless environment. I have the same gripe with Steely Dan. Although I DO think SD had better songs than DMB does, they both have the same kind of super-clean, souless type of delivery. I won't argue whether or not they're all accomplished, talented musicians (both DMB and SD), because the guys in both bands are obviously highly schooled and very technically adept. However, I feel that the ol' "we can play inverted susended augmented demented minor 9th chords in 9/5 time" attitude serves the musician more than the listener. Snore. Wake me when it's over. Worse yet (as a listener AND a musician) to me, this stuff just sounds complicated for the sake of being complicated. For all of the tech skills present in both bands, the stuff doesn't really sound like anything special to me. IMO, it's boring. To me, this is the antithesis of rock n' roll, because IMO, rock n' roll is engaging music for everyone. In this case, my definition of rock n' roll isn't about music genre, and it's not necessarily dependent on people who play guitars or songs based on the blues idiom. It's about passion. For example, I'd say John Coltrane is rock n' roll, because, although he doesn't play rock, he rocks. I hope that makes sense. Like I said, it's no biggie. It's not like I'm gonna spontaneously combust if I hear "Crash Into Me" or "Hey 19" again, but I'm usually pretty quick to change the station whenever those songs come on the radio. Blarg! Neither of these bands are "over my head." I understand what they're doing. I don't like either of them. Their music doesn't speak to me. I'm just critical. Sorry if that comes off as hostility. Who do I like? Well... I like a lot of stuff. A list of my favorite artists would take up a LOT of space and cross almost every genre that exists -- from digital hardcore to free jazz and salsa. Again, I would call this critical listening rather than narrow-mindedness. I'm not trying to attack anyone. Just giving my opinion.

[Wewus432]

Shit man you guys have got to go back and listen to some of the early Steely Dan stuff because it DOES rock. For example the song Kid Charlemagne. I love that song, and the guitars on it are magnificient. They were one of the first bands to combine jazz with rock sensibilities and yes some of that stuff does seriously rock. You're missing out if you haven't heard it. Then they got into Aja and all that which I like but I can see how it's not very accessible to non-fans. See there's also reverse prejudice going on here. Should you not like something because of a complicated music structure? Hell no, Steely Dan made some GREAT, GREAT, GREAT, sounding records and Fagen and Becker are two of the best songwriters of the last century. To me they stand up there with Lennon/McCartney, Irving Berlin, The Gershwins, Paul Simon, John Phillips Sousa, Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, Burt Bacharach/Hal David ,Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller and other folks like that. Dave Matthews is a very interesting guy. The first word that comes to my mind is eclectic, but you're right he doesn't [b]ROCK[/b] , does he? Oh BTW. I PinheadWewus, I Pinhead Wewus. I PinheadWewus, I PinheadWewus. I guess that should be my new signature, remember sung to a Latin beat.

[henryrobinett]

[quote]Originally posted by CMDN: [b] To me, this is the antithesis of rock n' roll, because IMO, rock n' roll is engaging music for everyone. In this case, my definition of rock n' roll isn't about music genre, and it's not necessarily dependent on people who play guitars or songs based on the blues idiom. It's about passion. For example, I'd say John Coltrane is rock n' roll, because, although he doesn't play rock, he rocks. I hope that makes sense. [/b][/quote]No. SD is not rock n' roll. And no, R'n R is not engaging music for [i]everybody[/i], because by and large, I don't like it and neither do most of my musical compatriots. By your definition I see how you mean that even Coltrane can rock. No SD doesn't rock that way either. I appreciate people who "rock" this way, but I also can appreciate people who have other things to say. "Self important"? I'd dare say you'd [i]have [/i] to feel self important to make it in this business. Who isn't self important? Creed seems to be. Zep were some self important assholes if you ask me. Dylan. The Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, Cream, Sting . . . They all are self important because they are important. When they play music or even when they speak, people listen. Isn't that what important is? I don't know. When I listen for songwriting craft I listen to Fagen and Becker. I've always hated "Hey Nineteen" though. I don't have a lot in common and hate their drug anthems like "Time out of Mind", but I dig the music. BTW I don't know how DMB is intellectual or how their stuff sounds like it was written for musicians. I don't get it. It sounds very simple to me. I don't see any great displays of chops or even musical sophistication. To me it sounds like a great band with a sound/vibe. I'll go back and listen but I have 5 of his CDs. Keep in mind, I don't listen to the radio. I love "Crash Into Me", but I also have no idea how much air play it got on radio or MTV. If it DID get a lot that should detract from the importance of the tune itself. If I could play in any pop band in the world, no question it'd be The Dan. Next it'd probably be James Taylor. I have a friend who's playing with him. But Steely Dan would be it. Except for the fact that they don't tour nearly enough to make serious money and I doubt whether they have a band on retainer. They've always had some serious guitarists too. Man would it be fun! I wouldn't be interested in playing with DMB. I'm so sick to death of merely major/minor or "power chords" - those chords that aren't even chords. Give me a friggin' major seventh or an altered dominant every once in a friggin' while. That's not complicated. Interesting progressions. Interesting melodies that may venture into another key, EVERY ONCE IN AWHILE!!! That's not too complicated. Nothing complex in it. And they groove. I like grooves. So some Steely Dan tunes have poly chords in them. Good for them! Polychords have only been around for what? 100 years? Pretentious? No. Maybe unwilling to pander to the lowest common denominator any more. They're just not wearing spandex and singing songs tailor made for 13 year old [i]boys[/i]. Just another opinion.