Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Rock & Metal (https://www.musicbanter.com/rock-metal/)
-   -   Worst Songs by Good Rock Bands (https://www.musicbanter.com/rock-metal/26496-worst-songs-good-rock-bands.html)

Howard the Duck 07-07-2012 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Friend (Post 1206351)
WHAT! Please elaborate on this point because I completely think that is poppycock.

all that Moon could do was add more colour to the sound

it's not like he had any say over the song structure

Friend 07-07-2012 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howard the Duck (Post 1206358)
all that Moon could do was add more colour to the sound

it's not like he had any say over the song structure

Yes, but structure is not what made the music great. Anybody can have structure, but it is just what you said, color is what makes things great.

And you can't say that one of the greatest drummers of all time didn't make that much of a difference in his music. Is that how you fell about all drummers that put style in their playing, and serve as more than just a metronome? That it all is just pointless and they should stick to the structure of the song.

Unknown Soldier 07-07-2012 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rjinnx (Post 1206347)
Judas Priest is horrible. As for Alice in chains, Layne Stayle had a tortured mixed with a tinge of emotion to his voice, which fitted his lyrics. What do you expect it was grunge, a lot of it was centred around emotional issues.

If Alice in Chains had half the talent that Judas Priest had, they could've been a good band.

Howard the Duck 07-07-2012 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Friend (Post 1206372)
Yes, but structure is not what made the music great. Anybody can have structure, but it is just what you said, color is what makes things great.

And you can't say that one of the greatest drummers of all time didn't make that much of a difference in his music. Is that how you fell about all drummers that put style in their playing, and serve as more than just a metronome? That it all is just pointless and they should stick to the structure of the song.

honestly, i can't even tell the difference between real drums and a drum machine

people had to drum back then cos of lack of technology

i'm being serious here, not taking the piss

Rjinn 07-07-2012 06:02 AM

Lol Judas Priest talented.

Unknown Soldier 07-07-2012 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rjinnx (Post 1206394)
Lol Judas Priest talented.

Any band that can put out at least half a dozen classic albums over the course of their discography, I'd call them talented. Given the fact that Judas Priest were repeatedly influential on metal is another feather in their bow, as is the fact that few metal vocalists had the vocal chops of Rob Halford.

Rjinn 07-07-2012 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier (Post 1206395)
Any band that can put out at least half a dozen classic albums over the course of their discography, I'd call them talented. Given the fact that Judas Priest were repeatedly influential on metal is another feather in their bow, as is the fact that few metal vocalists had the vocal chops of Rob Halford.

How many albums they released has very little to do with it. Sure they were influential but doesn't necessarily mean they were talented. By that theory, Alice In Chains released 4 albums and had a huge impact on bands later to come. Does that make them talented? I don't think so. It was their expressive sound and Layne's unique, effective and impacting voice that meshed the band together. But I have to admit, new Alice In Chains suck.

Robert Halford didn't sound so distinctive from the other metal vocalists. Pretty much a cross between Ozzy and Bruce Dickinson. Their lyrical content was cliche as metal lyrics can get.

Talent is a subjective matter I guess.

Unknown Soldier 07-07-2012 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rjinnx (Post 1206398)
How many albums they released has very little to do with it. Sure they were influential but doesn't necessarily mean they were talented. By that theory, Alice In Chains released 4 albums and had a huge impact on bands later to come. Does that make them talented? I don't think so. It was their expressive sound and Layne's unique, effective and impacting voice that meshed the band together. But I have to admit, new Alice In Chains suck.

Robert Halford didn't sound so distinctive from the other metal vocalists. Pretty much a cross between Ozzy and Bruce Dickinson. Their lyrical content was cliche as metal lyrics can get.

Talent is a subjective matter I guess.

I didn't give reference to how many albums they released, just to how many classic albums they released which does make a band talented, there's a difference.

I don't see that much relation voice wise between Rob Halford and Ozzy and Bruce Dickinson came after Rob Halford and if anything Rob Halford would've been an influence on him.

Rjinn 07-07-2012 11:32 AM

Fair enough Iron Maiden formed several years after. I really don't see what general albums and classic albums regards to talent. A lot of bands have written classic albums with disparaging criticism. It's a point of view taken from their composition of it. There's a lot of apparent comparisons to Black Sabbath, even UFO which didn't further their streamline of music. Vocals and lyrics where an obvious rip off from Black Sabbath. Nothing stood out or were incredibly distinctive besides the drummer. Personally I hated the vocals.

Judas Priest does deserve its respectiveness because of being influential. But I don't see how they are any more "talented" than Alice in Chains.

Unknown Soldier 07-07-2012 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rjinnx (Post 1206462)
Fair enough Iron Maiden formed several years after. I really don't see what general albums and classic albums regards to talent. A lot of bands have written classic albums with disparaging criticism. It's a point of view taken from their composition of it. There's a lot of apparent comparisons to Black Sabbath, even UFO which didn't further their streamline of music. Vocals and lyrics where an obvious rip off from Black Sabbath. Nothing stood out or were incredibly distinctive besides the drummer. Personally I hated the vocals.

Judas Priest does deserve its respectiveness because of being influential. But I don't see how they are any more "talented" than Alice in Chains.

To create and perform classic albums a band needs to be talented, if they're not talented how can they create these albums, not just anybody can create great albums! A band or artist's talent is measured by how many classic albums they put out and this serves as a yardstick in their respected genre. Led Zeppelin super talented and Nickelback not talented at all, how do we measure that? By the quality of the music, which when put together creates albums. Despite some differences of opinion, there is usually a general consensus of what is regarded as being great by the fans of a certain genre.

The disparaging criticism that you're speaking of exists with most bands and is not normally associated at the artist themselves, but more at the album etc that is being criticized. A lot of classic albums were slammed when they first came out, but hindsight and taking the album in its historical context corrected that.

UFO a rip off of Black Sabbath, hey come on, two very different bands! One a band that submegred itself into the occult and virtually created a whole load of future sub-genres of metal whilst the other band were one of the finest examples of 1970s hard rock, despite starting off on dodgy ground with some proggy style space rock. How can you even begin to compare the vocals styles of Ozzy and Phil Mogg!!!.

As I said Judas Priest put out at least 6 classic albums, that are seen in metal circles as metal classics.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:39 AM.


© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.