Why underground music is more enjoyable (beatles, u2, The Cure, concert)

Cobe Kai · 10-20-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minstrel

In other words, you like to hear new things. I don't think that'll be too controversial.

Yeah. I've a lot of appreciation for the classics of rock. I learn from them every day, but we cannot continue in an endless circle of same sounding music. As much as we may criticise some bands for changing (as long as it is not to sell out) like Metallica with Saint Anger. It needs to be done or it will become boring.

TheBig3 · 10-20-2008, 01:53 PM

I can't wait to do a

"100 things that piss me off about musicbanter" thread."

anticipation · 10-20-2008, 02:35 PM

them, roaringtwenties and lautrec are good.

dac · 10-20-2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobe Kai

Let's refine my original comment then. What I'm saying is the truly hardworking bands that, like I said, are taking risks musically, are more entertaining than say, ACDC, because no offence to ACDC, but they're just doing the same old thing all the time. They've done it to death.

like i've said, the local bands i've seen have been incredibly unoriginal... it's not the popularity status that determines how good a band is, the band itself determines that

WaspStar · 10-20-2008, 03:12 PM

I read one of those "100 Records that suck" books a while ago, and the introduction said something to this effect:

"Underground music is just as frequently boring as mainstream music."

...so no, a band's status as an unsigned, unheralded act (or not) had no bearing on how much I'll enjoy them.

How do you define "truly hardworking?" There are plenty of local bands that practice their asses off but still suck.

Minstrel · 10-20-2008, 03:32 PM

Who cares how "hard-working" a band is perceived to be? I mean, if the music is amazing, would you not listen to it if they did it in 5 minutes without trying?

All I care about is the end result. How they got there is immaterial. Most bands have to work pretty damn hard to produce compelling music, but the music is the point, not the work or lack thereof.

anticipation · 10-20-2008, 04:03 PM

in my opinion, going to an underground show provides a much more fierce and intimate experience than going to a sold out show in some arena.
this is not to say that all underground shwos are amazing, but for me the screamo/hardcore/indie/experimental bands that i've seen have all put on better shows than those i've seen in large venues.

i'm all about band interaction and making friends at shows, not being a faceless entity in a sea of people.

Eggman · 10-20-2008, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anticipation

i'm all about band interaction and making friends at shows, not being a faceless entity in a sea of people.

I couldn't have thought of a more perfect way to put that.

Malicious Wakizashi · 10-20-2008, 07:48 PM

I agree with the statement that underground music tends to be more risky and boundary-pushing than conventional mainstream. Big time bands just slightly tweak their songs and they tend to all sound the same.

dac · 10-21-2008, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eggman

I couldn't have thought of a more perfect way to put that.

Making friends is cool and all, but that doesn't mean a thing, from a concert standpoint, if the music blows.

10-20-2008, 01:53 PM	#12 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,172	I can't wait to do a "100 things that piss me off about musicbanter" thread." __________________ I've moved to a new address

10-20-2008, 03:12 PM	#15 (permalink)
WaspStar Back to mono Join Date: May 2008 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 509	I read one of those "100 Records that suck" books a while ago, and the introduction said something to this effect: "Underground music is just as frequently boring as mainstream music." ...so no, a band's status as an unsigned, unheralded act (or not) had no bearing on how much I'll enjoy them. How do you define "truly hardworking?" There are plenty of local bands that practice their asses off but still suck. __________________ "This sure doesn't look like 'Crazy Ernie's Amazing Emporium of Total Bargain Madness!'"

10-20-2008, 03:32 PM	#16 (permalink)
Minstrel Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 436	Who cares how "hard-working" a band is perceived to be? I mean, if the music is amazing, would you not listen to it if they did it in 5 minutes without trying? All I care about is the end result. How they got there is immaterial. Most bands have to work pretty damn hard to produce compelling music, but the music is the point, not the work or lack thereof. __________________ "Blow your tuneless trumpet, the choice is yours / We don't want the glamour, the pomp and the drums / The Dublin messiah scattering crumbs"

10-20-2008, 07:48 PM	#19 (permalink)
Malicious Wakizashi Music Addict Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 203	I agree with the statement that underground music tends to be more risky and boundary-pushing than conventional mainstream. Big time bands just slightly tweak their songs and they tend to all sound the same. __________________ . ..a love sour ... ..a diesel supreme http://soundcloud.com/stoondtje-jupiter http://soundcloud.com/couldnthaveaparadesoimad

10-20-2008, 02:35 PM	#13 (permalink)
anticipation Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 3,565	them, roaringtwenties and lautrec are good.

10-20-2008, 04:03 PM	#17 (permalink)
anticipation Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 3,565	in my opinion, going to an underground show provides a much more fierce and intimate experience than going to a sold out show in some arena. this is not to say that all underground shwos are amazing, but for me the screamo/hardcore/indie/experimental bands that i've seen have all put on better shows than those i've seen in large venues. i'm all about band interaction and making friends at shows, not being a faceless entity in a sea of people.