Wow, the Chili Peppers suck ass

[Utoo]

I agree. Though my husband just walked by me and said they both sucked

 

[angelordevil]

Wait, Lila, don't you have the Chili Peppers on speed dial?

Lila is our direct link to the band! You went to school with them, right?

Has anyone ever sat down and just listened to Flea and Chad in Blood Sugar Sex Magik? It's unbelievable. Those two guys blow my mind. Every song, every fucking song on that album flows perfectly from start to finish.

BSSM was the very first album I bought with my own money. From the music, right down to the liner notes and cover art, there was something utterly authentic about it. And the flow is incredible, as you point out. The transition that never fails to amaze me is the one between Suck My Kiss and I Could Have Lied--an unparalleled display of emotional range for a rock band. (John's solos on the latter are also like chocolate heaven.)

Stadium Arcadium is also brilliant, in an understated way. It's more philosophical and a bit of a star-gazing thing, but it's undoubtedly my second favourite RHCP album beacuse of those elements.

 

[Lila64]

I may need to pick up some of the last studio releases prior to Stadium Arcadium

And yes, I have a yearbook with Anthony in it. And a few others associated to the band (Jack Irons, Hillel Slovak,...). But that was 20+ years ago. And I have a friend who many years ago sold her house to an attorney, who as it turns out was and still is the attorney for them as well.

 

[DaveC]

I'm going to say this right now, and sit back and see what happens:

Except for the singers, Red Hot Chili Peppers are better than U2. Bono is a better lyricist than Anthony Kiedis, granted.

But John Frusciante's a consistently better guitarist than Edge, Flea is a wayyyyyyy better bass player than Adam Clayton (i think even chili haters would agree with this), and Chad Smith is a better drummer than Larry Mullen Jr.

Period.

 

[Zoots]

I'm going to say this right now, and sit back and see what happens:

Except for the singers, Red Hot Chili Peppers are better than U2. Bono is a better lyricist than Anthony Kiedis, granted.

But John Frusciante's a consistently better guitarist than Edge, Flea is a wayyyyyyy better bass player than Adam Clayton (i think even chili haters would agree with this), and Chad Smith is a better drummer than Larry Mullen Jr.

Period.

I agree with this and think it's okay to agree and still prefer U2.

 

[DaveC]

Me too.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

the chili peppers used to be a funk almost rap/rock band... after under the bridge they've slowly turned more and more away from that style all together, while still keeping a slight funk edge, thanks largely to flea. the peppers sound nothing today like they did before they did that one song...

and of course the guy who convinced kedis to record Under The Bridge despite it being so different from the rest of their work was rick rubin

 

[ZeroDude]

I agree with this and think it's okay to agree and still prefer U2.

In my opinion:

The technical aptitude of the musicians who happen to be the constituent parts of a band, does not dictate the actual quality of the music produced by said band.

For example:

Joe Perry and Richie Sambora are considerably better guitarists (in regards to purely technical criteria) than John Frusciante, Dave Gilmour and The Edge, although I very much doubt that anyone, especially within the confines of this particular forum, would employ a similar argument to propose that ‘Aerosmith’ or ‘Bon Jovi’ are ‘better’ bands than ‘RHCP’, ‘U2’, or God forbid ‘Pink Floyd’.

Interestingly, the musicality and technicality of bands, and their constituent musicians, are the only factors in attracting our aural attention that are actually quantifiable, and preference, as everybody knows, is a purely subjective matter that is much more difficult to define.

In short ‘Zoots’:

“Knock yourself out!”

By the way (it’s funny that I should say that), music is not a competitive sport, it’s an art form.

 

[Zoots]

In short ‘Zoots’:

“Knock yourself out!”

 

[Dorian Gray]

I'm going to say this right now, and sit back and see what happens:

Except for the singers, Red Hot Chili Peppers are better than U2. Bono is a better lyricist than Anthony Kiedis, granted.

But John Frusciante's a consistently better guitarist than Edge, Flea is a wayyyyyyy better bass player than Adam Clayton (i think even chili haters would agree with this), and Chad Smith is a better drummer than Larry Mullen Jr.

Period.

isn't this the ol'superior technique = 'better' arguement?
don't most of us agree that great technique doesn't always mean great music?
would Desire or Streets have been better had they been written by Chilis?


I guess, in the end, the question is, whose songs do more for you?
for me, it's U2.

 

[If you shout...]

But John Frusciante's a consistently better guitarist than Edge, Flea is a wayyyyyyy better bass player than Adam Clayton (i think even chili haters would agree with this), and Chad Smith is a better drummer than Larry Mullen Jr.

Period.

I wouldn't say that Bono is a definitively better lyricist than Keidis simply because of how low he's fallen in the last ten years (Bono has peddled vague platitudes to the masses for some time, now, though his handful of high points are shockingly high and Keidis's are...well, nonexistent), but I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post. U2 are...average musicians at their very, very, very best.

I'm not really into comparing these two bands, since I think they both suck, these days, but I have to fall back to Dorian Gray on this one--technically skilled doesn't always mean a band or artist is good. Steve Vai? Satriani? They're beyond unlistenable. I don't give a shit if you can play a 128th note unless it's in an interesting song. Again, I don't want to take a side in the Chili Peppers vs. U2 debate, but I can't accept a band on sound musical technique alone. I don't like Mastodon either, you know? But they're still so much better than U2 at using their instruments that it's embarrassing...

 

[GibsonGirl]

But John Frusciante's a consistently better guitarist than Edge, Flea is a wayyyyyyy better bass player than Adam Clayton (i think even chili haters would agree with this), and Chad Smith is a better drummer than Larry Mullen Jr.

Period.

Pretty much, yeah. I don't think many people could disagree with that. They're all fantastic technical musicians, and not in the emotionally hollow way that some good 'technical' bands are (as Zero Dude pointed out.) They absolutely blow U2 off the screen when it comes to pure technicality. That said, U2's musical simplicity does work particularly well for albums such as UF.

Speaking about technicality, I listened to Salute To Kareem for the first time in a long time the other day. Oh, Flea. 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.

 

[Canadiens1131]

isn't this the ol'superior technique = 'better' arguement?

Not really. The guitar player for Scorpions (oh dear) was technically more proficient than Edge, but Frusciante's been pumping out some amazing riffs on Stadium Arcadium instead of the same ol delay.

 

[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.

 

[SpaceOddity]

isn't this the ol'superior technique = 'better' arguement?
don't most of us agree that great technique doesn't always mean great music?

I guess, in the end, the question is, whose songs do more for you?
for me, it's U2.

Totally agree with this. I really like RHCP (especially their older stuff, like Blood Sex Magik) but at the end of the day, I prefer U2. Their music has just affected my life in so many more ways, even if their technical skills aren't up to par with other bands.

 

[GibsonGirl]

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.

 

[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.

 

[MrBrau1]

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.

 

[dietcokeofevil]

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")

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

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.

 

[Nate Dogg]

Wet Sand

 

[Tiger Edge]

Wet Sand

Can we change this thread into a Wet Sand appreciation thread?

 

[Salome]

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

 

[Zoots]

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.

 

[unforgettableFOXfire]

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.

 

[DaveC]

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.

 

[AtomicBono]

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

 

[BVS]

Blood Sugar Sex Magic was the last good Chili Peckers album.

 

[thrillme]

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.

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

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.