Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 good for you. but the two don't translate. and let's not pull the elitist card of rock and roll not being that hard. puh-leeze. that's so wrong. it's like people suggesting writing's easy, or coaching's easy or anything that takes time to craft is easy, heck, cooking a good bowl of spaghetti, ain't easy, and yet most of us can boil water, no? each have their levels of difficulty. though it's easy to write something or coach someone or cook something, it's difficult to do it well or at an elite level. it's why i'll never pretend to be Bukowski, who had a certain way with words, or despite an inside joke Howard Simon and I have, "the refreshments" will never be confused with "The Ramones." and to suggest classical music is more difficult than rock and roll is silly. they both involve music, but the comparisons end there. and to have Itzhak Perlman play a concerto much like it sounded like 200 years ago, is so different from rock and roll. Muddy Waters could perhaps play the same song 200 times each time with some small different nuance, and yet it can stil be appreciated. the democratization of music isn't a bad thing, despite what some might say or have argued. it has instead brought the art from down to the gutter where we people are, and have the right to judge it on its own or with our own palette. and in doing so, that's why folks sometimes fail to appreciate what might have been good -- ahead of its time -- in its day, or over-rated by failing to stand the test of time. the mona lisa has withstood that, and no one's going to accuse it of being over-rated -- ok, not no one, because the minute i push the "post" button, someone's going to respond with a post accusing the Mona Lisa as being over-rated. like it or not, though, it has to be appreciated for what it stands for. a classic. it's a little bit more difficult with rock and roll, because it's a genre that's still in it's relative infancy. and yet, the stones stand as a pillar of that foundation, in my opinion, while others have whithered you continue to suggest that you like all forms of music, and yet, you persist in providing us reasons as to why you don't like get your hands dirty rock and roll. somehow, i'd suggest, that you just might not get what rock and roll was, is or continues to have the potential to be, an imperfect form of expression in a very imperfect world. jw Who said I didn't like gritty rock and roll. This thread, that you started by the way is about over/underrated bands. I just feel that bands that play gritty, imperfect R&R (and yes it's not that difficult to play. Write and create? Sure but to play it? Nah, we did pretty well playing it at the age of 15) that are revered as R&R Gods are overrated in my book. Dude I love Yes, had all their albums, saw them countless times. Are they overrated? Oh yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 You make a good point - going back to the "sloppy" comment - I was interpreting it more as a separation from the album track. Not necessarily riddled with mistakes; but just different than the album. Counting Crows are a great example. Another is Jane's Addiction (I'll throw them on my underrated list) ... I've seen them 7 times and no tune has been the same from show-to-show. Yet every time, each version was clean. The first time I saw the Stones was in 1978...I was 13. Still cracks my older brother up, he says, when he asked me how I liked the show, I said it was "great...the songs didn't sound anything like the records". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted June 4, 2013 Author Share Posted June 4, 2013 Who said I didn't like gritty rock and roll. This thread, that you started by the way is about over/underrated bands. I just feel that bands that play gritty, imperfect R&R (and yes it's not that difficult to play. Write and create? Sure but to play it? Nah, we did pretty well playing it at the age of 15) that are revered as R&R Gods are overrated in my book. Dude I love Yes, had all their albums, saw them countless times. Are they overrated? Oh yeah. buhloney. imperfect is perfect when it comes to rock and roll. it's playing it imperfectly that makes the sound. easy to have the money nowadays, or the technology to attempt numerous takes. the same couldn't be said for earlier times when laying down a track meant time and money. and yet, some of the earliest versions of rock and roll were perfect because they were raw and fresh and imperfect. you're the one who brought up Perlman and repeating something perfectly. the audience expects that. that's fine. the sound of rock and roll is -- or should be -- far more spontaneous than that. like combustion. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Well seeing this thread is about overrated BANDS and you posted about an overrated GENRE I was trying to see if you give us an example of an overrated Jam BAND. So it's was not really a stupid question after all was it? Yeah, turns out it's still a stupid question after all. The first time I saw the Stones was in 1978...I was 13. Still cracks my older brother up, he says, when he asked me how I liked the show, I said it was "great...the songs didn't sound anything like the records". My memory was that I didn't even know the songs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Thing that is great about sports, you can argue them all day, and, at the very least, you can back up an argument, or opinion with some sort of data...not so much with music... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 and yet by Chef's definition, when drawing upon Itzak Pearlman, Jane's Addiction sucks. ... not sure if they're under-rated. they're certainly not over-rated. they're good. jw I'm probably not making myself clear. Just as you said JA may not be underrated or overrated they're good. Just because a band is not perfect in their skills/abilities doesn't mean they suck. Well unless they play cough, cough, rap, cough. Overrated does not equate to sucking. They just don't deserve rock god status. I'm not sure any of them do. In the words of some rock and roller whose name escapes me: I know, it's only rock and roll, but I like it. Hell even he knew it's ONLY rock and roll. Yeah, turns out it's still a stupid question after all. Listen if you have no idea what a jam band is it's ok. Just man up and say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 What's a jam band? What idiot brought them up!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 In the words of some rock and roller whose name escapes me: I know, it's only rock and roll, but I like it. Hell even he knew it's ONLY rock and roll. Yea, his name is Mick Jagger the rock and roller who said that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Finally, somebody with some real answers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Yea, his name is Mick Jagger the rock and roller who said that! Are your sources accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Are your sources accurate? Yes, we're going to need sources. And wiki is not an allowable source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Are your sources accurate? My source? Impeccable, from the horses mouth so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Thing that is great about sports, you can argue them all day, and, at the very least, you can back up an argument, or opinion with some sort of data...not so much with music... TSW is an example that arguments regarding sports can be backed up. Not necessarily backed up with any sort of intelligence but they can be backed up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) I like the Stones, but I cannot in good conscience include them among the likes of the Beatles and Zep. The Stones cut a disco album when rock started to lose favor. I'm willing to bet they'd have recorded a gregorian chant album if there was a paycheck in it. Shameful. Edited June 4, 2013 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 I like the Stones, but I cannot in good conscience include them among the likes of the Beatles and Zep. The Stones cut a disco album when rock started to lose favor. I'm willing to bet they'd have recorded a gregorian chant album if there was a paycheck in it. Shameful. The Yardbirds incorporated Gregorian chant in their early work. Since Keith Relf and others where in a choir as kids.Gregorian chants in a blues band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 I like the Stones, but I cannot in good conscience include them among the likes of the Beatles and Zep. The Stones cut a disco album when rock started to lose favor. I'm willing to bet they'd have recorded a gregorian chant album if there was a paycheck in it. Shameful. What the !@#$ is wrong with Gregorian Chant? Hell, now I want to hear Mick and Keith do a Gregorian Chant...that'd be a riot. I have to call the Stones "overrated" simply because of "Angie" and "Wild Horses". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 What the !@#$ is wrong with Gregorian Chant? Hell, now I want to hear Mick and Keith do a Gregorian Chant...that'd be a riot. I was going to say that too. Gregorian Chants kick ass. But then again I used to smoke a lot of pot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted June 4, 2013 Author Share Posted June 4, 2013 sports can be argued just as much as music. who the best quarterback is. who the best goalie was. compare Gretzky to Howe. ... and i do think i've attempted my best to back up my points with both opinion, perspective and a few facts. as i said, there is a consensus that the Mustang was a great car, and that the Mona Lisa is an amazing piece of art. they must be appreciated for what they are as relatively iconic. tastes regarding music can differ, too, but there has to be an appreciation of what the genre at its base was, is and still can be. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 What the !@#$ is wrong with Gregorian Chant? Hell, now I want to hear Mick and Keith do a Gregorian Chant...that'd be a riot. I have to call the Stones "overrated" simply because of "Angie" and "Wild Horses". For starters, Gregorian Chant is totally overrated. Second, its just so air brushed and polished. Totally over produced. Where's the grit, where's the grime, where's the sloppy piety? Greogrian is as about as rock and roll as Def Leppard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 For starters, Gregorian Chant is totally overrated. Second, its just so air brushed and polished. Totally over produced. Where's the grit, where's the grime, where's the sloppy piety? Greogrian is as about as rock and roll as Def Leppard. What the !@#$ is wrong with Def Leppard*? *excluding Hysteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts