Lithium Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 (edited) I'm over arguing "this band sucks because." I don't like Frank Sinatra, but tons of people still do, decades and decades later, so if means that much to so many people, he must not suck. Most music isn't all-encompassingly good. It will appeal to your baser instincts or it will appeal to your intellect or it will appeal in a variety of other ways. I no longer want to argue that one music listener is superior to another. I'm the type of listener who listens to zone out or to sing along and pump a fist. I rarely listen for other reasons. Def Leppard is the type of band that fills that desire very well, as I suspect it does for millions of others for the past 25 or so years. I'm sure the Jonas Brothers fulfill the desires of 9-year-olds very well for whatever those 9-year-old desires might be. All I'm saying is Def Leppard doesn't suck. If it does that much for so long for so many, it certainly has some kind of a quality to it. The same goes for Nirvana, who I absolutely hate. I never want to hear Nirvana, ever again. I hate Nirvana's music. But they don't suck.Sure, a lot of bands sell a lot of albums, but that doesn't mean they have any sort of artistic quality, and that's what matters to most people who are involved and interesting in music. ABBA probably sold hundreds of millions more than, for example, The Velvet Underground or Howlin' Wolf, but we all know who's the better artists. Bands like the Jonas Brothers appeal to nine year old girls is a result of commercialism - I doubt most of those girls even listen to the lyrics, they just want something good to look at and a fun sounding chorus to satisfy their undeveloped brains. That's not artistry, that's entertainment. Edited January 26, 2009 by Lithium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stacks on deck Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 howlin' wolf is the greatest bluesman to ever walk the earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevdo242 Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I'm over arguing "this band sucks because." I don't like Frank Sinatra, but tons of people still do, decades and decades later, so if means that much to so many people, he must not suck. Most music isn't all-encompassingly good. It will appeal to your baser instincts or it will appeal to your intellect or it will appeal in a variety of other ways. I no longer want to argue that one music listener is superior to another. I'm the type of listener who listens to zone out or to sing along and pump a fist. I rarely listen for other reasons. Def Leppard is the type of band that fills that desire very well, as I suspect it does for millions of others for the past 25 or so years. I'm sure the Jonas Brothers fulfill the desires of 9-year-olds very well for whatever those 9-year-old desires might be. All I'm saying is Def Leppard doesn't suck. If it does that much for so long for so many, it certainly has some kind of a quality to it. The same goes for Nirvana, who I absolutely hate. I never want to hear Nirvana, ever again. I hate Nirvana's music. But they don't suck.Sure, a lot of bands sell a lot of albums, but that doesn't mean they have any sort of artistic quality, and that's what matters to most people who are involved and interesting in music. ABBA probably sold hundreds of millions more than, for example, The Velvet Underground or Howlin' Wolf, but we all know who's the better artists. Bands like the Jonas Brothers appeal to nine year old girls is a result of commercialism - I doubt most of those girls even listen to the lyrics, they just want something good to look at and a fun sounding chorus to satisfy their undeveloped brains. That's not artistry, that's entertainment.I have to stop you there, Jonas. Holy shit, I was going to put a different perspective on things when I realised multiple uses of the name 'jonas' makes things increasingly mindfucking for all involved.Anyway, sure Jonas Brothers are commercialised. But who knows, they might think they are true artists. Maybe they aren't writing for a sub-culture of prepubescent future single mothers. Maybe they're just writing for the sake of it and find themselves at the centre of a scene they didn't create. Maybe they could go on to mature, get laid, and write about something other than prom nights and shopping malls and all that American hoohaa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lithium Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I hate sharing names with those little fuckers. I highly, highly, highly doubt that they do it for the music. If they had any artistic pride whatsoever, they wouldn't be in a multimillion dollar contract with The Walt Disney Company, and they would drop the image, as well as changing their lyrics and instrument-use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevdo242 Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Well, I don't know how they got signed. But picture yourself in their situation. You're in your early teens, you've been playing guitar for a while and know at least 4 chords. You find your voice is changing and you're getting hair in really strange places. You start a band for a hobby and start writing songs. Then some soul-less bozo who reeks of guitars and 18 year old Scotch asks to sign you. They offer you a million. You're not going to sit back and say no for the artistic integrity. They may not be that talented, but they do have an opportunity to develop as songwriters. I doubt it aswell, but you never know. If they write, say, 3 albums with the same formula, it might encourage them to try something new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havoc907 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Whaddya expect when you hear the words "Extreme" and "Def Leppard".Normally, they both make great albums. I love Extreme's "III Sides To Every Story" and "Waiting For The Punchline." Nuno Bettencourt is an amazing musician--i'll give you that. But, once the album started off with a Queen ripoff--I started getting bored with the Cd. DEF LEPPARD normally makes great music. "X" was the last great Def Leppard album. I love every album from that album and before. Can't believe they titled their covers album, "Yeah." They go from Pyromania to Hysteria to Adrenalize to Retroactive to Slang to Euphoria then to X and YEAH! On the new album, they have a song called, "Go!" I wonder if they were going to call the album, "Go." But, finally a good album title, "Songs From The Sparkle Lounge." Very bland album. I don't know what they were trying to accomplish with the "Love" song. That song kind of ruins the moment...I can't believe that anybody would like "X". Seriously, it sounds like a boy band wrote and sang all the songs. The only good song on that turd was the last track, but I'm not sure what it was called. After that album, I gave up on Def Leppard forever... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getizzyback Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Well X was a good listen for a short time for me, I put it away and it's collecting dust now, I may check it out again someday.....I did like the Yeah album with the covers.I seen a lot of stuff on Legalsounds I don't have, I need to check out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.