10 Bands That Just Really Need To Stop Like Right Now

[tlbonehead]

There's barely a band on that list that's worthy of being considered sacred at this point. For the most part, each and every one of them is doing whatever legacy they have more harm than good. I get it Lee; you don't like people taking the piss out of things.you don't like snark. Fine for you. SOME of us , though, take to that particuar kind of humor. And the fact that there's more than a little truth at the heart of the piece only adds to that. But ok, NOBODY can be made fun of. Sure; the Rolling Stones arent just going through the motions and are above reproach and everything they've done in the past 25+ years is entirely on par with Exile. Absolutely.

but so what if it isn't as good. Maybe they still enjoy it. Should I quit playing sports just because father time doesn't allow me to be as good as 20 years ago when I was in my early 30s, even if I still get enjoyment?

[wades_keys]

They have more than earned their right to keep doing it as long as they like.

 

Yeah I agree with this.

 

It works that way in golf (Lifetime exemption once a certain amount of victories) - why not music?

[Vito Corleone]

Of course they've earned a "right". No one has seriously suggested they haven't. But what's so wrong with taking a piss out of them? If this was a list of "most overrated movies" or "TV shows that should have been cancelled years ago" or "lamest #1 hits of the past 20 years", everyone hear would be joining in. But since the list is about--OMG!--rock legends, then even coming up with such a list makes one an arrogant ass?

 

Whatever...

[kmart]

 

They have more than earned their right to keep doing it as long as they like.

 

 

Sure they have.

 

 

And I and everybody else here likely has earned the right to comment when it stinks. And even when its 'just' sub-par for what they could accomplish.

 

There's NO sacred cow above being criticized.

[Lee Knight]

Here's what gets me.

 

I am a professional musician and have been one for 35 years. I resent other musicians poking fun at people so far above them in terms of talent and experience. If you're slamming movies, have at it. You don't work in movies. But you work in music. The little leager making fun of Nolan Ryan. So it either exposes you for being a fraud, or it is incredibly shaky of you to slam somebody so much better at the very thing you're trying so hard to be good at. Are you really a professional musician or just playing at it?

 

That... is lame.

 

I mean really, is this hobby land? I didn't realize.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Here's what gets me. I am a professional musician and have been one for 35 years. I resent other musicians poking fun at people so far above them in terms of talent and experience. If you're slamming movies, have at it. You don't work in movies. But you work in music. The little leager making fun of Nolan Ryan. So it either exposes you for being a fraud, or it is incredibly shaky of you to slam somebody so much better at the very thing you're trying so hard to be good at. Are you really a professional musician or just playing at it? That... is lame. I mean really, is this hobby land? I didn't realize.

 

 

What's lame is taking it all so seriously.

[Lee Knight]

What's lame is taking it all so seriously.

Wouldn't you get a creepy feeling hearing Oliver Stone slamming Kubrick? I think that'd be cheap. And maybe he does. I don't know, but it seems like that would discredit Stone more the Kubrick.

I might seem like I take it all so seriously, but it seems to openly criticize the greats, not sacred cows, but artists who are great. To criticize them is to somehow suggest you could do better. And if you can't do better, why criticize.

Once again, you want to slam movies, sure why not, authors, athletes, CEOs, sure... but musicians? That implies you could do better. Now, since you aren't better, should you quit?

I think based on what you and Kmart are saying, yes, you guys should definitely quit. Right? Makes sense. Time to wrap it up guys. Or is it just artists in decline? OK. So if you've never achieved greatness you're exempt?

[Vito Corleone]

So can I say I've never liked the Stones? Or can I only not say that I don't like what they do now? Is it ok to say I've never liked "exile on main st"? Or do I have to shut up about it because it's a recognized classic? Can I say their last album sucked? Or do I have to remain silent because I'm a musician who has never had a album?

 

I can only leave the criticisms of music and musicians to non musicians? Is the writer of the article a nonmusician? If so, then shouldn't his criticism be ok?

 

I'm confused about the rules here....

[Lee Knight]

 

So can I say I've never liked the Stones? Or can I only not say that I don't like what they do now? Is it ok to say I've never liked "exile on main st"? Or do I have to shut up about it because it's a recognized classic? Can I say their last album sucked? Or do I have to remain silent because I'm a musician who has never had a album? I can only leave the criticisms of music and musicians to non musicians? Is the writer of the article a nonmusician? If so, then shouldn't his criticism be ok? I'm confused about the rules here....

 

 

You can do what you want David, but you're going to look silly criticizing the Stones when you've never made an album yourself. It makes perfect sense to say you don't like them. Of course, but this silly "They should wrap it up" business. I'm sorry, it doesn't hold water. You're criticizing people that are way better than you at what you do? How does that make sense?

[Vito Corleone]

It makes sense because being a musician doesnt prevent me from being a fan nor an objective observer. Believe it or not, I'm capable of being a Stones fan AND of being critical of some of what they do AT THE SAME TIME!!

[TrickyBoy]

 

You can do what you want David, but you're going to look silly criticizing the Stones when you've never made an album yourself. It makes perfect sense to say you don't like them. Of course, but this silly "They should wrap it up" business. I'm sorry, it doesn't hold water. You're criticizing people that are way better than you at what you do? How does that make sense?

 

 

Dude, it's no different than a sports fan saying " sucks and needs to retire". Just because Joe Montana was great once, doesn't mean that he doesn't get to a point where he's no longer able to do what he used to do. No different than the Stones.

[tlbonehead]

Dude, it's no different than a sports fan saying " sucks and needs to retire". Just because Joe Montana was great once, doesn't mean that he doesn't get to a point where he's no longer able to do what he used to do. No different than the Stones.

so if he joined a flag rec league to get his FB fix you would tell him to just give it up, even if he was enjoying it?

[Lee Knight]

[Lee Knight]

 

It makes sense because being a musician doesnt prevent me from being a fan nor an objective observer. Believe it or not, I'm capable of being a Stones fan AND of being critical of some of what they do AT THE SAME TIME!!

 

"

Of course. I'm not going to beat into the ground any further than I have. What's the line about nobody ever being converted through an argument. I just got a real sense of meanspiritedness today. What with the guy's solos being stepped on and you say solos are passe (pretty presumptuous) then you saying, "These people really just need to stop like right now." And when I see a regular joe like yourself taking a stance like that it seems to imply you can do better.

 

You're in a party band in Tahoe. Nothing wrong with that, it's great in fact, I thjnk I'd love that, but... The Stones still actually kick out a mean groove. As in, the meanest. The Eagles are still phenomenal. Maybe I give you too much credit. I see myself as much lower on the same totem pole so it seems pretty presumptuous of me to slam someone so much better than I. Maybe you don't even see yourself on the totem pole?

 

We obviously look at this from very different perspectives. You're quick to point out how someone can be better with their cover band, that's great, then you slam the Eagles and the Stones, guys that have written classics and continue to perform them far better than you or I could. Then you say they should give it up.

 

You can't see where I'm coming from?

 

Guess what? They are way better than you.

[CliffordN]

The whole point that seems to be missing here is that some folks, indeed a great many, still enjoy the groups as they are now.... So, with that being said, are you going to tell them to stop! That's each person's decision to make, right?

[kmart]

 

Here's what gets me. I am a professional musician and have been one for 35 years. I resent other musicians poking fun at people so far above them in terms of talent and experience. If you're slamming movies, have at it. You don't work in movies. But you work in music. The little leager making fun of Nolan Ryan. So it either exposes you for being a fraud, or it is incredibly shaky of you to slam somebody so much better at the very thing you're trying so hard to be good at. Are you really a professional musician or just playing at it? That... is lame.

 

 

What's lame IMO is thinking that someone who spends their efforts in music wouldn't, perhaps, be MORE QUALIFIED to critique the potentially misguided efforts of another musician, be they Mick and Keith or the dudes at the corner bar.

 

Joe Average non-musician doesn't know squat about music criticism compared to you or I.

 

If I criticize, be it seriously or poking fun, there's a deep fundamental knowledge of the subject matter I'm talking about.

 

 

But again, all of that is irrelevant in my eyes.

 

You're basically saying some people are above reproach, and I don't buy into that kind of thinking; nobody/no one/nothing is above reproach.

 

What's good is good, and what sucks, sucks.

[CliffordN]

The supposition that all musicians are fundamentally good at judging the quality of someone else's efforts is flawed. Do you really think that rap stars, although they sell a ton of records, might have a more qualified opinion than the average person?

[Lee Knight]

 

What's lame IMO is thinking that someone who spends their efforts in music wouldn't, perhaps, be MORE QUALIFIED to critique the potentially misguided efforts of another musician, be they Mick and Keith or the dudes at the corner bar. Joe Average non-musician doesn't know squat about music criticism compared to you or I. If I criticize, be it seriously or poking fun, there's a deep fundamental knowledge of the subject matter I'm talking about. But again, all of that is irrelevant in my eyes. You're basically saying some people are above reproach, and I don't buy into that kind of thinking; nobody/no one/nothing is above reproach. What's good is good, and what sucks, sucks.

 

 

I totally agree with you. Don't misunderstand me. I don't think an artist is above reproach. And I think the idea of musicians giving their insight on the music can be great. But, along with that is a truer appreciation for what is entailed in the craft. Have you heard any Stones lately? Not their greatest work, true. And yet Charlie and Keith are still doing things that are mind boggling. They should wrap it up? The Eagles are still phenomenal as a performing unit. So tape your band and compare it to a board tape of the Eagle. Or The Smashing Corgans. The perspective gets all whack.

 

I'm going to guess Holes drummer is better than you. And Timothy Schmidt plays and sings better than me.

 

Compare you and them and tell me they should wrap it up. If you can be so hard on them, be hard on yourself. Nobody's answered that one. Shouldn't you be quitting too then? So answer that, if they should quit, if they disappoint, do you? I kinda think I'd rather hear them. And I'm sure you'd rather hear them than me. Stand up and compare yourself with these losers.

[SandyCo]

I'm not a musician and I agree with that article. I especially agree that one original band member shouldn't be able to use to band name with an entirely new group! Many of these older bands are long past their heyday, and should retire. It's like an aging quarterback who keeps playing (and continues to ruin his stats).

Of course, there are some artists who are still amazing. Paul McCartney comes to mind. I'd pay to see him in concert! Then there are others who are obviously just phoning it in for the money, or because they don't have anything better to do. They're like their own tribute band.

On the other side, though, how does a band know when they should retire? When the median age of all the members is above 60? When the good gigs start disappearing, and they're left playing carnivals and pizza joints? They probably retire a few years after they probably should have, but it's only easy to tell in retrospect.

[KeysBear]

 

Do you really think that rap stars, although they sell a ton of records, might have a more qualified opinion than the average person?

 

many of them are competent musicians who will tell you they were influenced by mainstream artists, grew up singing gospel, and have strong studio qualifications.

[CliffordN]

Obviously, I wasn't precise enough, and my generalization left wiggle room! This is all rather subjective anyway, so I think I'm done commenting...

[kmart]

 

Do you really think that rap stars, although they sell a ton of records, might have a more qualified opinion than the average person?

 

At what?

 

Judging the production involved?

Assessing the flow of a given song?

Offering their opinion on the hook actually being catchy or not?

Judging rap specifically?

 

Yes.

Absolutely, every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

If you're trying to go down the road of "rappers aren't musicians", I'll kindly excuse myself from that idiotic sidebar, thanks, but before doing so, I'll take your words out of my mouth ("all musicians are fundamentally good at judging the quality of someone else's efforts"), and repeat what I was ACTUALLY saying:

 

Musicians, in general, will tend to have a better understanding of and perspective on the various aspects involved in a given recording than non-musicians will.

And in case it wasn't crystal clear, yes, I do actually believe that.

[kmart]

 

I'm going to guess Holes drummer is better than you. And Timothy Schmidt plays and sings better than me.

 

 

I'm not going to guess that at all, depending on which Hole album you're talking about: Deen Castronovo recorded on one of the discs, and sure, he's TECHNICALLY a monster; the other 'official' drummers of the band/on the albums? Not so much, and frankly, I'll say I'm at least as good a player and feel totally sound in saying so. I don't know your playing, and am not going to make a judegement about who's better: you or TBS...

 

 

And again...TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand.

 

Are the Eagles better at playing the well-regarded catalog of Eagles' songs than most people? Very likely.

That's not the argument or point, however.

 

The point is they, Hole (or rather, Courtney Love), the Smashing Pumpkins (or rather, Billy Corgan Inc.), and the rest of the bands in that list as well as many others, in the eyes of some, have stayed too long at the well and don't offer much, if anything at all, that's worthy of their history, so much so that some people think perhaps they should hang it up.

 

Charlie Watts & Keith Richards are still doing things that are mind boggling?

Really?

Perhaps to you, but I haven't heard a single note from the Stones released after the early part of the 1980's that I think meets that description.

 

Different strokes for different folks, obviously, but take their catalog from the past 20 years: is Rock Music (as a proper entity) impacted by it? Is Rock Music a lesser thing without it? Would the place in Rock Music history/royalty occupied by the Rolling Stones be at all diminished if it didn't exist?

I don't think so.

 

And again...

 

Not really the point.

 

The bands in the list and others like them put out clunkers and/or lesser quality 'product', and are much more likely to have done so further into their careers. And some people don't have an issue with commenting on that fact.

 

I don't know many serious Beach Boys fans who don't snicker and roll their eyes if someone mentions Kokomo, and IMO, that's an example of things being right in the world...

[KeysBear]

 

I don't know many serious Beach Boys fans who don't snicker and roll their eyes if someone mentions Kokomo, and IMO, that's an example of things being right in the world...

 

 

Kokomo compared to earlier works like Fun Fun Fun, Surfer Girl and In My Room? We're not talking about Cream or Hendrix. The Beach Boys were always about shamelessly adolescent pop music. Kokomo snuggles right in with the rest of their song collection.

[KeysBear]

 

Charlie Watts & Keith Richards are still doing things that are mind boggling? Really?

 

Yeah, they wake up in the morning.