Shit Bands

[Robo Axl]

1. U2

2. Radiohead

3. Blur

4. Rush

All pathetic bands who churn out absolute garbage with 0 artistic merit or entertainment value year after year while acting as if they actually mean something. Uninteresting music and lyrics, pseudo-intellectualism, pretentiousness. Ugh. Who else?

Edited March 16, 2009 by Robo Axl

[Lithium]

What a joyful, uplifting thread.

[Gods Favourite]

Thanks dude, that sure was enlightening!

[BrandNewCadillac]

Wow, I've seen the light. I'll stop listening to those artists immediately and download Limp Bizkit's entire discography instead.

[dirtylenny]

1. U2

2. Radiohead

3. Blur

4. Rush

All pathetic bands who churn out absolute garbage with 0 artistic merit or entertainment value year after year while acting as if they actually mean something. Uninteresting music and lyrics, pseudo-intellectualism, pretentiousness. Ugh. Who else?

OK, artistic merit?!?! behave, its music, its there to entertain you, if it doesn't entertain you, move on, simple. Artistic merit You crack me up...then you got the gall to poke at them for "pseudo-intellectualism" and "pretenciousness". Heres a tip for ya Sparky, more often than not its the motherfuckers that go off on that "artistic merit" shit that are pretencious. On the one hand you rag on em for being pseudo intellectual then you drop a phrase right out of the pseudo-intellectual's 101 Handbook on em.

Tell me, what exactly is artistic merit, in your estimation?

[Robo Axl]

Wow, I've seen the light. I'll stop listening to those artists immediately and download Limp Bizkit's entire discography instead.

Go ahead if you're that way inclined. Personally I think Limp Bizkit are pretty naff but they're popular with kids like you and your buddies.

[KetchupNotMayo]

You better be a cupcake, otherwise I find your lack of taste in music disturbing...

[Tater Totts]

May I direct you all to this thread!

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showtopic=146838

[Robo Axl]

1. U2

2. Radiohead

3. Blur

4. Rush

All pathetic bands who churn out absolute garbage with 0 artistic merit or entertainment value year after year while acting as if they actually mean something. Uninteresting music and lyrics, pseudo-intellectualism, pretentiousness. Ugh. Who else?

OK, artistic merit?!?! behave, its music, its there to entertain you, if it doesn't entertain you, move on, simple. Artistic merit You crack me up...then you got the gall to poke at them for "pseudo-intellectualism" and "pretenciousness". Heres a tip for ya Sparky, more often than not its the motherfuckers that go off on that "artistic merit" shit that are pretencious. On the one hand you rag on em for being pseudo intellectual then you drop a phrase right out of the pseudo-intellectual's 101 Handbook on em.

Tell me, what exactly is artistic merit, in your estimation?

So your argument is that music cannot have artistic merit? Lay off the crack son. Songs don't need to be artistic achievements to be entertaining but they do to be enduring.

"Artistic merit" may sound like a "big word" to you but it has nothing to do with pseudo-intellectualism. It doesn't take a great intellect to recognise good music - just someone with an ear for melody and lyrics.

Artistic merit can't be defined in simple terms. It's part entertainment, partly the emotional impact of the music etc.

Pretentious doesn't have a "C" by the way.

[JAC185]

1. U2

2. Radiohead

3. Blur

4. Rush

All pathetic bands who churn out absolute garbage with 0 artistic merit or entertainment value year after year while acting as if they actually mean something. Uninteresting music and lyrics, pseudo-intellectualism, pretentiousness. Ugh. Who else?

wat

[stacks on deck]

failure to find pleasure in music isn't a reflection of the artist but of the listener.

[Robo Axl]

failure to find pleasure in music isn't a reflection of the artist but of the listener.

No.

[SpUd_Jr]

I can't wait to pick this up!

[dirtylenny]

So your argument is that music cannot have artistic merit?

No my arguement is that it's inconsistent to rag on bands for what you deem as pseudo-intellectualism and then on the other hand subscribe to potentially high falutin notions like artistic merit. Tell me, what is it in the intellectualism of the bands you've cited that makes them pseudo as opposed to fully realised 360 degree intellectualism? And whats the yardstick of artist merit that you hold musicians up to, i'd like to know, it'd make your statements sound a little more than the rhetoric they sound like at the moment, talk to me

Lay off the crack son

You should try some Daddy...

"Artistic merit" may sound like a "big word" to you but it has nothing to do with pseudo-intellectualism

Depends whose using it really..

It doesn't take a great intellect to recognise good music - just someone with an ear for melody and lyrics.

And that'd be you right? Coming from the man who said:

When you brand this guy as overrated, his defenders swarm to his defense. "He had a great ear for pop melodies", they say. Funny then that Nirvana's music consisted of mindless grunge noise.

I guess your ear fails you when the amps are up. Oh well.

Artistic merit can't be defined in simple terms. It's part entertainment, partly the emotional impact of the music

Emotional impact huh? Well excuuuuuuussee mee

Pretentious doesn't have a "C" by the way

Gee whizz Pa, You're right, it doesn't, well how do you like that? Oh oh, i know a word that does? :xmasssanta: Artistic merit is two words by the way. Ooh, whats the grammar game score now? Are we even stevens yet? Or should stevens have a capital S?

Edited March 16, 2009 by dirtylenny

[stacks on deck]

failure to find pleasure in music isn't a reflection of the artist but of the listener.

No.

i.e. music itself cannot be boring, but a listener can experience boredom while listening--hence, a reflection of the listener.

[Tater Totts]

failure to find pleasure in music isn't a reflection of the artist but of the listener.

No.

i.e. music itself cannot be boring, but a listener can experience boredom while listening--hence, a reflection of the listener.

Excellent Point!

[Robo Axl]

No my arguement is that it's inconsistent to rag on bands for what you deem as pseudo-intellectualism and then on the other hand subscribe to potentially high falutin notions like artistic merit. Tell me, what is it in the intellectualism of the bands you've cited that makes them pseudo as opposed to fully realised 360 degree intellectualism? And whats the yardstick of artist merit that you hold musicians up to, i'd like to know, it'd make your statements sound a little more than the rhetoric they sound like at the moment, talk to me

So you accuse me of being a pseudo-intellectual for judging songs by their artistic merit, and then go on to say that artistic merit doesn't exist? What's the point in writing/recording songs then? What's the point in pursuing arts of any kind? Music isn't purely for entertainment and if you believe it to be you are shallow and unintelligent. Is Missa Solemnis entertaining? No. But it's sure as hell an amazing piece of music that hits hard at the listener's emotions. If the intention is entertainment, great, if the intention is to do something avant-garde and intellectual etc etc and you end up with a run-of-themill album that is hyped as something other than that it becomes pseudo-intellectualism.

The yardstick of artistic merit? Look at the giants of achievement in the history of music. Beethoven, Mozart, The Beatles... That's the benchmark. All artists should be measured in comparison to the greats.

Depends whose using it really..

Elaborate.

And that'd be you right? Coming from the man who said:

When you brand this guy as overrated, his defenders swarm to his defense. "He had a great ear for pop melodies", they say. Funny then that Nirvana's music consisted of mindless grunge noise.

I guess your ear fails you when the amps are up. Oh well.

Huh? I was in fact arguing that Kurt Cobain didn't have an ear for pop melodies, so the quote doesn't serve your purpose in this context. Try again.

Emotional impact huh? Well excuuuuuuussee mee

Are you arguing that emotional release has no bearing on the quality of music?

[SpUd_Jr]

The yardstick of artistic merit? Look at the giants of achievement in the history of music. Beethoven, Mozart, The Beatles... That's the benchmark. All artists should be measured in comparison to the greats.

So... Axl Rose is in that group?

[Robo Axl]

The yardstick of artistic merit? Look at the giants of achievement in the history of music. Beethoven, Mozart, The Beatles... That's the benchmark. All artists should be measured in comparison to the greats.

So... Axl Rose is in that group?

Closer to it than anyone else currently active in rock music.

[SpUd_Jr]

The yardstick of artistic merit? Look at the giants of achievement in the history of music. Beethoven, Mozart, The Beatles... That's the benchmark. All artists should be measured in comparison to the greats.

So... Axl Rose is in that group?

Closer to it than anyone else currently active in rock music.

That's cute.

[Snake Eyes]

failure to find pleasure in music isn't a reflection of the artist but of the listener.

No.

i.e. music itself cannot be boring, but a listener can experience boredom while listening--hence, a reflection of the listener.

Interesting analagy, I'd agree with that mostly. For most people, it's normal to experience boredom listening to some forms of music. I've got a pretty diverse range of taste - rock, pop, metal, funk, punk, pychedelic, reggae, rap, country etc. but I can find nothing relatable or appealing from listening to a band like My Chemical Romance, which is a reflection on me, not on them, as other people enjoy their music.

[dirtylenny]

So you accuse me of being a pseudo-intellectual for judging songs by their artistic merit, and then go on to say that artistic merit doesn't exist?

No actually i was asking a question of you if you look closer. And where on earth was that you saw me say artistic merit doesn't exist?

The yardstick of artistic merit? Look at the giants of achievement in the history of music. Beethoven, Mozart, The Beatles... That's the benchmark. All artists should be measured in comparison to the greats.

That is hands down the most ridiculous statement i have ever heard. Why? Why on earth would you wanna do that, why would you want to even enter into this game of measuring up and stacking up against. See what you're engaging in here is something that, to me, is in stark contrast to someone who understands anything about artistic merit. Why cheapen music or art like that? Is that what its about, these high ideals you hold, is that the as good as they get? This celebrity squares bullshit?

See this is the problem, the core of the problem with your posts in this thread so far (being that i dont know you outside of this context). "Shit bands", betters and worses, number 1, number 2, number 3, its totally contrary to anything art has anything to do with. Art, by virtue of what it is, has NOTHING to do with competition, not for the people who really understand anything about it, this is why the commercial aspect of the arts are so often cited as what fucks the whole riddle up, cuz commerciality is based on competitiveness, this pecking order, top of the pops mentality. The minute you enter into all of that and yet still try and propagate some kind of intellectualism is the minute that you become a pseudo intellectual yourself because you either can't see or wilfully ignore or can't understand what it is that makes art so important to the human expierience.

Elaborate.

I just did in the above paragraph..

Huh? I was in fact arguing that Kurt Cobain didn't have an ear for pop melodies, so the quote doesn't serve your purpose in this context. Try again.

Right and i was explaining that maybe the problem is with your ears here because Nirvanas songs were intensely melodic, just because something is amped and distorted and possibly because of this to your ears it becomes "noise" don't make it so. Behind that ampedness and distortion, as showcased on Unplugged In New York, Nirvanas songs were extremely melodic.

Are you arguing that emotional release has no bearing on the quality of music?

No i'm kinda having a giggle at someone who pokes at psuedo-intellectuals and then uses broad terms like "emotional impact" like its meant to have some kind of immediate relevance in the context of a debate.

[kevdo242]

Good thing you didn't mention Biffy Clyro, or I'd have to start another thread about why I love Simon Neil and the Johnston twins.

EROTIC ROBOTIC

DESPITE THE ACCENTS WE'RE SCOTTISH

[Guest Satanisk_Slakt]

Metallica

Kiss

This list could of course be longer, but these are the most essential ones.

[Snake Eyes]

^^ Saw Biffy open up for RHCP at Hampden a while back. Awesome live band.