Wow, the Chili Peppers suck ass - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-27-2006, 11:18 PM   #76
ONE
love, blood, life
 
GibsonGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,270
Local Time: 11:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1
When you start using the "he plays better" line, you're out of passion or love for music.

You also have no idea what music is.

Leave the board.

Sell your records.

You suck.
Oh come off it, Brau. I don't see anyone here saying that they think one band is superior to the other just because they feel that there is a difference in the musicians' technical abilities. If U2 are better technical musicians than the RHCP, then they sure as hell haven't shown it between 1976 and the present. I don't care if you think I've no idea what music is, but the RHCP completely outshine U2 in the technical department. Doesn't mean to say U2 are any less of a band though.

No, I'm NOT selling my records.
__________________

__________________
GibsonGirl is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 11:18 PM   #77
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 10:47 AM
I find it curious that as bands move to more song oriented material, more people scream they suck.
Songs really are the last thing on peoples minds when they listen to music. They need something wacky or flashy to hold their interest. Whether it be socks on penis or giant lemons. The songs bands write take a back seat to image and perception.
__________________

__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 11:28 PM   #78
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by GibsonGirl


Oh come off it, Brau. I don't see anyone here saying that they think one band is superior to the other just because they feel that there is a difference in the musicians' technical abilities. If U2 are better technical musicians than the RHCP, then they sure as hell haven't shown it between 1976 and the present. I don't care if you think I've no idea what music is, but the RHCP completely outshine U2 in the technical department. Doesn't mean to say U2 are any less of a band though.

No, I'm NOT selling my records.
I think were actually on the same page.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 11:50 PM   #79
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 577
Local Time: 03:47 PM
Hard Core fans are to rock and roll

what

Pharisees were to religion

The letter of the law (perform a certain way or you've "sold out")
__________________
dietcokeofevil is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 12:57 AM   #80
Blue Crack Addict
 
Reggie Thee Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Hell Ain't A Bad Place To Be...
Posts: 17,934
Local Time: 07:47 AM
I like RHCP for the most part...they are better players than U2, but I don't necessarily think that makes for better music. Rush are better players than U2 but c'mon who would you rather listen too?

The only thing that bugs me about RHCP is that Anthony Keidis sings every song in the same cadence. I mean you could pull his vocals from "Tell Me Baby" and put them in "Around The World" and no one could tell the difference...seriously.
__________________
Reggie Thee Dog is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 01:31 AM   #81
Refugee
 
Nate Dogg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: South Florida
Posts: 2,134
Local Time: 10:47 AM
Wet Sand
__________________
Nate Dogg is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 01:58 AM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Tiger Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Everglades
Posts: 4,740
Local Time: 11:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Nate Dogg
Wet Sand


Can we change this thread into a Wet Sand appreciation thread?
__________________
Tiger Edge is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 02:38 AM   #83
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 04:47 PM
if anyone would hail Stadium Arcadium while even a tone deaf nun can hear it's the Peppers being a pale imitation of themselves while accusing U2 of having lost it (while both bands only sell more & more) then I would say there's a weird double standard yes
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 02:10 PM   #84
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Zoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: the great beyond
Posts: 36,802
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1
I find it curious that as bands move to more song oriented material, more people scream they suck.
Songs really are the last thing on peoples minds when they listen to music. They need something wacky or flashy to hold their interest. Whether it be socks on penis or giant lemons. The songs bands write take a back seat to image and perception.
What's that got to do with technical proficiency of the musicians in the band???

I think what Gibby is saying is that RHCP are better technically and that is a fact. Doesn't matter if U2 do it for us, which is not fact but opinion.
__________________
Zoots is offline  
Old 10-29-2006, 01:42 AM   #85
I serve MacPhisto
 
unforgettableFOXfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,053
Local Time: 10:47 AM
The thing that really bugs me is the notion that bands aren't allowed to change over time.

How exactly does a band release a 'Blood Sugar Sex Majick' or a 'Joshua Tree' every single time? Furthermore, how do they release the 'same' album, albums of equal calibre and merit, without sounding identical to the previous and therefore boring? An album is a creation unto itself; while it can be discussed in reference to other works, there's nothing that says this must be done. Of course, if it is going to be done, let it be done in a meaningful way and not in vague terms.

Let it also be said, noone's holding a gun to your head and saying 'If youre a true fan, you'll love this album!'. Music should never be about what other people think. If you don't find it compelling, then you don't, and let that be it.

Of course, what I look for in music might not be what other people look for. That said, I don't see much point in comparing albums and saying 'oh, such and such is washed up because this album isn't as good as the last one' without offering the qualifications on which it is judged. Technical skill, I'll argue, is a factor, but that technical skill is judged based on music theory and not independent perceptions and interpretations. If you don't know anything about music theory, then you shouldn't be judging on technique, because really you're only reiterating what you've heard other people say -- and again, music isn't about what other people think. If you are able to speak about technique, and choose to do so, you are by no means obligated to like the way someone uses their abilities, you're free to think that they're abilities are being misused in terms of their purpose and intent, as long as you can make an argument of that nature. I think, though, to dismiss musical knowledge and technical ability outright as a non-factor for whatever reason is an easy way to get out of having to think about it and be informed about it; saying technical skill isn't valid grounds for discussion of music is like saying aerodynamics isn't a valid component in the discussion of flight.

Someone mentioned being absorbed with image, and I think that's the largest part of this issue. Someone brought up Aerosmith, in regards to technical ability, but how many people dislike Aerosmith because of the oversexed, overdosed, hyperbole of 70's rock and roll that they seem to be perceived as? How many people who have judged them and dismissed them as such, have actually sat down and listened to Steven Tyler's puns and plays on word, or Joe Perry's guitar playing? My guess would be less than 10%. People will have heard a single, heard people talking about how Aerosmith is a joke, and will base their judgement on that. Their placement vis blues will be ignored, and their musical ability won't be addressed, Aerosmith's catalogue isn't relevant to the judgement, it'll just be 'Aerosmith sucks, end of discussion' and only because other people think so.

Heaven forbid people engage in the listener experience of music for themselves. Noone says you have to like blues, and noone says you have to like Aerosmith if you do like blues. Using that example as analagous to genre/part of genre relations, I don't really see why there's so much hubbub over what amounts (largely, from what I've seen) to little more than an evaluation of reputation.
__________________
unforgettableFOXfire is offline  
Old 10-29-2006, 02:03 PM   #86
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,410
Local Time: 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dorian Gray

I guess, in the end, the question is, whose songs do more for you?
for me, it's U2.
Since 1997, the Peppers have been consistently better than U2. Put Californication, By the Way, and Stadium Arcadium up against All That You Can't Leave Behind and How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, and try to tell me that U2 has been better over the past ten years - you can't.

U2 are long past the prime of their career, in my opinion. They will never make an album as good as Pop again, let alone Achtung Baby or The Joshua Tree. I have a feeling U2's going to start going the way of the Rolling Stones - mediocre albums, the occasional hit, and what effectively amounts to a Greatest Hits tour - for the rest of their careers.

I fully admit that I really boiled the argument down to one of technical prowess in my last post, and it's definitely not the be-all-end-all of the argument. I'd rather listen to a shitty guitar player (ie. someone at my skill level) who puts a hell of a lot of effort into their music and makes something interesting, rather than someone who can rip a perfect solo at 200 BPM, but sounds (and looks on stage) like they have something much better to do.

But on the same token, the Chilis have been better in both aspects, at least over the past decade.
__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 10-29-2006, 02:17 PM   #87
ONE
love, blood, life
 
AtomicBono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 10,486
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC


Since 1997, the Peppers have been consistently better than U2. Put Californication, By the Way, and Stadium Arcadium up against All That You Can't Leave Behind and How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, and try to tell me that U2 has been better over the past ten years - you can't.
Actually, yes you can, because it's personal preference. I'd take ATYCLB over any Chili Peppers album HTDAAB... good but perhaps not quite as good

~unforgettableFOXfire~ - great post. technical skill is certainly a factor, but for me the bottom line is whether it sounds good to my ears or not. not other people's perceptions, not the ability of the players. sometimes it's not just about ability level, but what you do with the ability you do have.

and again let me say that I love the Chilis, I do not think they "suck ass." except lyrically, as we've already established. I have to admit I havent really listened to much early Peppers, pretty much everything I know and like is BSSM and beyond. I prefer songs like Scartissue and Slow Cheetah to the funky stuff, go figure
__________________
AtomicBono is offline  
Old 10-29-2006, 02:33 PM   #88
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Blood Sugar Sex Magic was the last good Chili Peckers album.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-31-2006, 03:59 AM   #89
Refugee
 
thrillme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: <---over that'a way
Posts: 1,947
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1
I find it curious that as bands move to more song oriented material, more people scream they suck.
Songs really are the last thing on peoples minds when they listen to music. They need something wacky or flashy to hold their interest. Whether it be socks on penis or giant lemons. The songs bands write take a back seat to image and perception.
Well I suppose MTV is partially to blame for the image, the "wacky"/"flashy" part. (MTV pre-1989? or so, feels like it's been ages since MTV was only music videos. )

Oh and maybe the socks were to impress the ladies.

Technical prowess really only impresses other musicians, people who play instruments themselves, or have in interest in the instrumentation.

I'm not sure many teens went to see Britney Spears, or NSYNC for the instrumentals ye know. It was the image or whatever reason they went to see them.

There've been much better technical musicians than the Beatles, but who consistently gets named best band ever? Not like most Beatles songs are all that difficult to play.

I know there's plenty of better "technical" musicians than the members of U2, but does that always mean those songs will be better?

A 10 minute guitar solo can be quite impressive, but does it really add to the song, or is it just a time for the guitarist to show off? Does it add to the song or does actually take away from it?

Sounds like U2 are much more focused on the songwriting, the structure of the songs, than making them complicated to perform.

You don't have to write complex music to make a good song. Is "Hey Jude" a difficult song to play?

I've heard some of the songs off Stadium Arcadium, and it sounds like RHCP are doing the same. I read something from Flea saying lately he's more about the song rather than the flash, which seems to be what Adam has been doing consisently throughout his career. If nothing else, Adam is known for making his lines fit the songs. Playing to the song.

////////////////////////////////

Quote:
GibsonGirl: I still shudder to think that people at Interference think Flea is a lesser bass player than Adam. Well, at least that's the way it seemed from that old Adam vs Flea poll...absolutely disgusting results.
I thought the poll was just a piss take, a joke really. I literally rolled my eyes when I saw it. I mean it's like an Edge vs. Jimi Hendrix thread. I think 50% or more the people who even vote in the polls are lurkers, probably just voting to get a rise out of people. If I was bored enough I'd probably have done so too.

The ironic thing though is that I read from another bassist who felt some of Flea's basslines on By the Way felt "Clayton-esque." Why is the better bass player taking an approach the 'lesser' bass player has been doing for awhile?

/////////////////////////////////////

Another person mentioned in his experience as well as people he knows, the more mature you get as a musician, the more you tend to play the song, than the instrument.

////////////////////////////////

Why is it that Chad Smith is the Will Ferrell lookalike and not the other way around?

I like RHCP, though not as consistently as other bands.
__________________

__________________
thrillme is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com