Premier Rock Forum

MisterX wrote: In some cases bands that suck musically can be critically acclaimed because of the accuracy with which their name, clothing ect. matches their sound.

Name?


I have a different perspective. "Band" to "sound" ratio has definitely shifted towards "band" from my high school days, when I literally had no idea about bands I am listening to. I didn't know how they look like cause I was mostly listening it from sceond/thrid cassette copies. I had no idea what is a difference between a major and independent label. Like, I knew, independent is probably smaller, but is this it? Very rarely I would read an article about a band I was listening to and that was it. But for the most part it was just about my reaction to the hissy and muddy sounds coming out of the speakers or headphones. And it was great, in a way, cause it was a very pure.
Now, with the Internets, I can learn about a band, see how they behave, whether they act like rock stars, see a live clip and see if they suck on it (which would probably mean that "sound" on the record was in some parts 'manufactured' in the studio) etc. It's not only about the music anymore. I'm miles from Steve ("I don't give much of a damn about the music"), but I have some understanding of his position.
I think in some ways this view put to the extreme would results in Tommy's way of checking whether he likes a band: see a first image of the band in the google search. And it works more often than not!
NOT KRAP:


CRAP:

See?

But I still care about the music.

I would like to be in a band.

steve wrote:Bands are way way way more important than whatever music they are making at the moment. Like miles ahead. I use the term "music" to mean the audible component of the band's aesthetic.

The sound -- the part you're probably referring to as "music" -- that's the part that I really don't give much of a damn about.

what about bands that don't have a great aesthetic but solely rely on the goodness of their sound? you don't have time for them at all?

I like music, and I like bands. The music is #1 for me, for sure. The instances where I like a band for their pathos or ethos or mithros or whatever the hell, as opposed to their music, are few if any. I don't want to know what a band looks like, or what their stage antics are like, or if they're rich doudes or poor chicks or whatever. That stuff is irrelevant and even a distraction to me, especially if I find out they've got some important defining plot-point before I hear their music.

I really prefer the music. I love to hear music that speaks to me. Whether the band moves around on stage or sits in pools of jello or dresses up so they all look like Chairman Mao, that is not what's of import to me.

There are definitely cases where I can like a band's music and then find them unappealing for all the other non-music concerns. And likewise there are cases where the music isn't much of anything to me, but the band's obviously got a great energy or feeling or mood or whatever that will then make me like the band, even though the music hasn't done much or anything for me.

I don't listen to bands, I listen to their music. I enjoy a band with some certain quality that makes it special, for sure. But usually I just like the music.

the best band I was in never released recorded music, never played in public but played our asses off every weekend in a basement for three years straight. we had the best time of our lives.

i miss that band a lot.

I'm going with Scott's above post about 99.9%.

I really like the idea of almost complete anonymity in music. I feel like when I hear a great tune or band, especially one with little precedent, knowing nothing about the band I want to imagine that they came from Mars with their own music.

Of course, hiding one's identity in music is just as corny as self-mythology. There is little worse than band press photos.

Being in a band has little to do with this. It's more like a club...or X-rated summer camp. I'm also going with the above post.

I have different answers depending on what side of the fence I am in:

Creator of our own music vs. listener of others' music.

As a member of a band, the band itself is more important than music quality.
Right now, I am playing with really amazing guys and great friends whom I can trust and safely depend on.
I don't have much creative input in the band in terms of sound.
All of the songs are already written by the singer, and most of the time the demos he shows us are very developed.
I still manage to change some things with my personal interpretation, and and we start touring as a band, the songs kind of evolve towards a new unique shape, fortunately better than the original demos.
I have other responsibilities like mixing, graphic design. web sites, etc.
These are more like "enhancing and providing visual context to the meanings and emotions which are broadcasted by the sound component".

I really love the music we make, even if I have little influence in it's outcome.
But what makes it really important is the guys.

On the other hand, I used to have a band that made great music, but it was a horrible experience. There were ugly fights all the time, and just a general bad vibe during rehearsals. Playing live was like torture, when one of the guitarrists would sometimes just decide 1 hour before the gig that he wasn't going to play. It was a fucking nightmare, and although the music we made during that period was great and leaves me nostalgic, I don't ever want to repeat that again.

As a listener of other people's music, I prefer to know as less as possible of their appearance or who they are, before listening to the music. I can hear the music unbiased, and attribute my own meaning to it.
I can't help but feel some respect for bands whose members hated each other, yet made some amazing music.

After I've heard the sound, It's mosty irrellevant whether I see their faces or not. There is an album of Pére Ubu that has been very influencial on me since I heard it when I was 15 (10 years ago) yet to this day I haven't yet seen a picture of David Thomas (except one live photo where he is in the shadows and his face is not visible).

Although there have been some artists that because of their image I was compelled to hear their music. Results are mixed, but I don't regret making that effort.

I think Ben Adrian hit the nail on the head. Popular music is entertainment. For people like us, we don't do it for the glory, we do it because we love music and put it first in an order of priority. Steve also brought up a good point, but I think that's really based on an individual level. Personally, I enjoy being in a band. My bandmates are my friends, not just music partners. I enjoy the administrative levels of managing a band, but I wouldn't do any of that if I didn't care about the music.

Sowley wrote:the best band I was in never released recorded music, never played in public but played our asses off every weekend in a basement for three years straight. we had the best time of our lives.

i miss that band a lot.

so very true.

i have said for a long time with any band i've been in that i could care less if we ever played a show or released anything (other than for me to listen to myself in the car or whatever)

to me, its always been about playing with friends and enjoying the time with them and making music that we wanted to make...and feeling really good about making that music.

the rest of the shit never really matters.

andyk

bebio wrote:There is an album of Pére Ubu that has been very influencial on me since I heard it when I was 15 (10 years ago) yet to this day I haven't yet seen a picture of David Thomas (except one live photo where he is in the shadows and his face is not visible).

He looks just like Jackie Gleason. Not kidding about this.