Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => E-Board - Movies, Music, TV, Videogames, Comics => Topic started by: Bluto on April 16, 2008, 11:58:11 AM
-
i wonder
-
hmmmmmmmmmm............. .... no
-
t heyre up there !!!
UP THERE I SAY
-
No
The only good thing out of that bunch was the lead singers hot daughter.
-
:-X :-X :-X
-
:P :P :P
-
great band
great songs
-
.................. NO.
Hope this help.
-
No, There first 3 albums were incredible. When a band admits to getting back together and staying together just to make money I think that zaps the creditability just a little.
-
plenty of good songs released after those 3 albums, like permanent vacation and pump.
-
Looks like Liv hit the wall.
-
Great yes, greatest no IMO.
I would put the Stones #1
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=210394.0;attach=245979;image)
Nothing worse than a tall frame, with no titties.
It's funny how someone can drool over such mediocrity. You put someone in movies or on tv, they become a "sex symbol", yet merely plain as hell..haha I wouldn't look twice at this bitch. ;)
Great yes, greatest no IMO.
I would put the Stones #1
The Rolling Bones?..they can barely play their instruments..haha A few decent tracks, but they're simply horrid.
KISS=The worst band ever
Beatles>Most, but not my favorite...from that era
Aerosmith, Pump was a great recording, solid material...aside from that, we're talking about 3-4 tracks tops, which were good
-
aerosmith baby
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=210394.0;attach=245979;image)
The Rolling Bones?..they can barely play their instruments..haha A few decent tracks, but they're simply horrid.
Of course this debate is extremely subjective and a matter of personal taste. Friends I have who are musicians think Watts is a great drummer and Keith plays some decent blues guitar. On objective criterial such as longevity, concert take, cultural relevance, total revenues generated, I'm on pretty solid ground.
-
Of course this debate is extremely subjective and a matter of personal taste. Friends I have who are musicians think Watts is a great drummer and Keith plays some decent blues guitar. On objective criterial such as longevity, concert take, cultural relevance, total revenues generated, I'm on pretty solid ground.
KISS has sold millions and millions of albums, yet they're one of the worst bands ever. Sales don't equal greatness. Take a look at rap. ;)
As far as Charlie Watts, I wouldn't say he's a poor drummer...simlpy cause I don't listen to enough of the Stones, but compare him to drumming greats...he's elementary, at best. I always laugh when someone tells me, Neil Peart is the best drummer, etc or John Bonham..haha While they're good in a rock sense, compared to beasts like Colaiuta, Gadd, or Chambers...not even the same league.
It's almost like me only being exposed to Men's Fitness and saying Dugdale is the biggest bodybuilder ever..haha People simply don't know of many great players or can distinguish great from good at playing one style.
For bands, just because someone is around for a long time, only means their fans grew old with them. I'd be foolish to tell you who to like, but based on musical merit...the Stones are shit. ;)
-
Keith cannot play anything but decent blues guitar. There is a reason why Chuck Berry (originally an all out blues and country player before his style became known as "rock 'n' roll) hauled off and punched him!!! Keith would listen as Chuck told him what and how to play something correctly!!! Sonny Boy Williamson II also had a famous quote about English/European blues players....
"They want to play the blues so bad, and they do play blues so bad."
Charlie Watts is a great drummer- for what he does. He keeps the beat and has GREAT timing. Really the drummer has two jobs: to color the sound, and to be "protector of the beat." That's it.
Watts' feel and timing is what make him a great player. Not that he's flashy or knows how to use every cymbal out there.
Finally, many many players only play one style on records. The Stones do/did this quite often, and by doing this some players never truly stretch out. Hell, one of the premier white blues guitarists prior to his death (Hollywood Fats) came into rehearsal one day in shock, barely able to speak. When asked what his problem was....he had seen Wayne Newton playing on the Late Night Show, and said he was playing blues better than half of Chicago in the 50's. But ya don't here him do that in Vegas, I bet!!! (Never seen his act, just a hunch however!)
-
Keith cannot play anything but decent blues guitar. There is a reason why Chuck Berry (originally an all out blues and country player before his style became known as "rock 'n' roll) hauled off and punched him!!! Keith would listen as Chuck told him what and how to play something correctly!!! Sonny Boy Williamson II also had a famous quote about English/European blues players....
"They want to play the blues so bad, and they do play blues so bad."
Charlie Watts is a great drummer- for what he does. He keeps the beat and has GREAT timing. Really the drummer has two jobs: to color the sound, and to be "protector of the beat." That's it.
Watts' feel and timing is what make him a great player. Not that he's flashy or knows how to use every cymbal out there.
Finally, many many players only play one style on records. The Stones do/did this quite often, and by doing this some players never truly stretch out. Hell, one of the premier white blues guitarists prior to his death (Hollywood Fats) came into rehearsal one day in shock, barely able to speak. When asked what his problem was....he had seen Wayne Newton playing on the Late Night Show, and said he was playing blues better than half of Chicago in the 50's. But ya don't here him do that in Vegas, I bet!!! (Never seen his act, just a hunch however!)
Charlie Watts is shit simply for the reason he's so simple yet can't seem to hit the hi-hat and snare at the same time. Watch any video of him and you'll see what I'm saying.
-
Charlie Watts is shit simply for the reason he's so simple yet can't seem to hit the hi-hat and snare at the same time. Watch any video of him and you'll see what I'm saying.
Is it that he can't do it, or that he doesn't want to do it? Perhaps it is not the sound he wants to imitate and/or the style of music the other band members want?
Lots of people other than the person CAN have an effect over what it wanted. A lead singer may hear something that nobody else does onstage because when he/she sings the time of a song is sped up and they can tell by how fast they have to speed up the words/phrasing.
A drummer friend of mine was fired from a band, not for being a bad drummer or bad guy, but because he didn't agree with the guitarist/singer about how certain things should go onstage. He could play exactly what was requested of him and did to a point. But when he would do something a bit differently, it pisses people off. Over a time period of years, it's irritating.
Maybe it's not that Charlie can't....it's because Keith says "no."
Also, it's been mentioned in interviews that the Stones don't use Charlie as the time keeper, but they use Keith. :-\ Don't agree with it, but that's a tidbit for whatever use you'd like.
-
maybe bands dont need a drummer at all
-
Is it that he can't do it, or that he doesn't want to do it? Perhaps it is not the sound he wants to imitate and/or the style of music the other band members want?
Lots of people other than the person CAN have an effect over what it wanted. A lead singer may hear something that nobody else does onstage because when he/she sings the time of a song is sped up and they can tell by how fast they have to speed up the words/phrasing.
A drummer friend of mine was fired from a band, not for being a bad drummer or bad guy, but because he didn't agree with the guitarist/singer about how certain things should go onstage. He could play exactly what was requested of him and did to a point. But when he would do something a bit differently, it pisses people off. Over a time period of years, it's irritating.
Maybe it's not that Charlie can't....it's because Keith says "no."
Also, it's been mentioned in interviews that the Stones don't use Charlie as the time keeper, but they use Keith. :-\ Don't agree with it, but that's a tidbit for whatever use you'd like.
Drums are near and dear to me since I've been playing them for 15+ years now. My personal opinion since you can argue rock drumming forever is there is about maybe 5 total Rock drummers ever that come near the high level jazz guys.
At my current stage of learning and what I personally observe jazz is the pinnacle of musical development. The Charlie Watts's, Ringo Starr's and John Bonhams of this world are like comparing WWE Wrestlers to Marathon Runners.
With that check out around the 3min mark and watch an over 70 Buddy Rich completely destroy just about everything about drums...
-
boring
that old fart couldnt finish a slayer song
-
boring
that old fart couldnt finish a slayer song
And you can't argue a point (compared to BSB and myself) in music with any knowledge to save your post count.
-
Drums are near and dear to me since I've been playing them for 15+ years now. My personal opinion since you can argue rock drumming forever is there is about maybe 5 total Rock drummers ever that come near the high level jazz guys.
At my current stage of learning and what I personally observe jazz is the pinnacle of musical development. The Charlie Watts's, Ringo Starr's and John Bonhams of this world are like comparing WWE Wrestlers to Marathon Runners.
With that check out around the 3min mark and watch an over 70 Buddy Rich completely destroy just about everything about drums...
Buddy was an ASSHOLE!!! Fuckin' killer drummer but as a person he was an ASSHOLE!!! (check for the recordings of him melting down GetBig style....in the truest sense of the word!)
Now for the drumming, I agree with you. However, since I play guitar (using many many styles but blues and jazz are my forte's) I think it really depends.
In jazz, it's very much cerebral music-especially at the beginning. Learning theory-not a must but helps- practicing and what is put into it takes time and patience.
Rock, same thing, on a different level. Sure you learn your theory, practice and play play play. But what comes out is completely different.
In blues, if you learn two scales, you've pretty much got the whole idiom covered, except what separates the men from the boys is the feeling/experience you put into it, and what genres you focus on. Coco Montoya is NOT blues IMO. However, somebody like SRV still is yet he still plays with much more of a rock base than Muddy Waters.
Kurt Cobain sucked when he came out, but I listen to him now and enjoy some of his stuff. Random point.
It's all apples and oranges (or grapefruits and bananas) on what style you play. But I do think jazz is one of the most complex and difficult forms of music to play.
Great jazz drummers:
Ben Riley, Art Blakey, Smilin' Billy Higgins, Buddy Rich, Donald Bailey (I think that's his name, played with Hampton Hawes), Philly Joe Jones *all of the Joe Jones'!!!*, and so many more.
When all the guys hit a groove, it's phenomenal. Listen to some of the early Roost/Blue Note recordings of Bud Powell and that band grooves like nobody else! Same for the Hampton Hawes Trio recording (and to a lesser extent though still mind-blowing, listen to the Hawes stuff recorded live in Hollywood when he was a late teen/early twenty-something).
-
Buddy was an ASSHOLE!!! Fuckin' killer drummer but as a person he was an ASSHOLE!!! (check for the recordings of him melting down GetBig style....in the truest sense of the word!)
Now for the drumming, I agree with you. However, since I play guitar (using many many styles but blues and jazz are my forte's) I think it really depends.
In jazz, it's very much cerebral music-especially at the beginning. Learning theory-not a must but helps- practicing and what is put into it takes time and patience.
Rock, same thing, on a different level. Sure you learn your theory, practice and play play play. But what comes out is completely different.
In blues, if you learn two scales, you've pretty much got the whole idiom covered, except what separates the men from the boys is the feeling/experience you put into it, and what genres you focus on. Coco Montoya is NOT blues IMO. However, somebody like SRV still is yet he still plays with much more of a rock base than Muddy Waters.
Kurt Cobain sucked when he came out, but I listen to him now and enjoy some of his stuff. Random point.
It's all apples and oranges (or grapefruits and bananas) on what style you play. But I do think jazz is one of the most complex and difficult forms of music to play.
Great jazz drummers:
Ben Riley, Art Blakey, Smilin' Billy Higgins, Buddy Rich, Donald Bailey (I think that's his name, played with Hampton Hawes), Philly Joe Jones *all of the Joe Jones'!!!*, and so many more.
When all the guys hit a groove, it's phenomenal. Listen to some of the early Roost/Blue Note recordings of Bud Powell and that band grooves like nobody else! Same for the Hampton Hawes Trio recording (and to a lesser extent though still mind-blowing, listen to the Hawes stuff recorded live in Hollywood when he was a late teen/early twenty-something).
Yep, Buddy was an asshole but if I could drum like that and had been playing since age 4 or whatever I might be as well.
Speaking of blues, I've been on a Blind Willie McTell & Charlie Patton binge lately.
-
And you can't argue a point (compared to BSB and myself) in music with any knowledge to save your post count.
whats there to argue? he couldnt handle the kinda speed etc needed for a band like slayer
half his stuff would suit a parade
i dont need 2 full pages to make a point.
-
whats there to argue? he couldnt handle the kinda speed etc needed for a band like slayer
half his stuff would suit a parade
i dont need 2 full pages to make a point.
You don't "need" to? ::O If you aren't just post-whoring again, then on this topic you indeed NEED to.
You don't know music outside of a simpletons way of listening and saying "I like this" or "I don't like this."
Perhaps when it comes to arguing music, you'd like to put a wager on it? My (near) 3k posts, versus your 25k? Hell, instead lets just do 3k for 3k? ;)
-
You don't "need" to? ::O If you aren't just post-whoring again, then on this topic you indeed NEED to.
You don't know music outside of a simpletons way of listening and saying "I like this" or "I don't like this."
Perhaps when it comes to arguing music, you'd like to put a wager on it? My (near) 3k posts, versus your 25k? Hell, instead lets just do 3k for 3k? ;)
are you saying he could've replaced the drummer of slayer and did as good a job?
because thats what we're discussing. your bullshit personal attacks, remarks, bets or whatever you can go post somewhere else. this is the e board. not the v board.
if you cant discuss music without insulting, then just lemme know and ill happy to ban you. no problem.
-
are you saying he could've replaced the drummer of slayer and did as good a job?
because thats what we're discussing. your bullshit personal attacks, remarks, bets or whatever you can go post somewhere else. this is the e board. not the v board.
if you cant discuss music without insulting, then just lemme know and ill happy to ban you. no problem.
I'm saying yes. In another time, when the Stones were coming up as nobodies, they played music that people didn't like on a mainstream basis. Much like Slayer now, people like them, but you're not seeing them mainstream like you would Hannah Montana or the latest Gavin DeGraw album. Slayer is accepted, but not so widely.....same for the Stones back in the 60's when they debuted alongside the British invasion and a little known band called "the Beatles."
With that being said, Charlie Watts focused and concentrated on what he thought would fit the music the Stones played. The music the Stones played, was blues. Hardly a demand for the technique, speed, or anything else that Slayers music requires.
Are you saying you think the drummer from Slayer can play a Rolling Stones song?
-
im saying he couldnt pull off that kinda demanding physical music style that slayer is.
-
Fight or flight. If he actually wanted to play Slayers music, I'm sure he could if he PRACTICED.
Start a routine in the gym....nobody could bench press 405x12 for sets the first day in. But they build up to it. This is the body adapting- what is natural.
Why couldn't Charlie Watts be able to work up to the physical demands of Slayers music?
With the Stones, I'd like to see Slayers drummer try to play it...even better a very simple blues shuffle.
You have to keep in mind, that Slayers drummer is a bit younger, young enough to be Charlie's grandson...Charlie needs a few nitro pills to keep up but no reason why his body won't adapt to the physical demands.
Oooops, too long of a post....
-
im saying he couldnt pull off that kinda demanding physical music style that slayer is.
From a drumming perspective Slayer is not demanding physically. I was playing Reign in Blood 4 years after I started playing and there are a great number of metal bands with much faster, more technical and longer songs then Slayer.
What Buddy Rich is playing there is so beyond the realm of what the advanced drummer can do. Buddy Rich was clocked at 1400bpm. That's the sticks hitting drums 1400 times per minute. The MOST complex song slayer has (confirmed by Paul Bostaph and Lombardo) is Angel of Death which is a walk in the park.
Do not use Slayer as a watermark for technical drumming or anything else other then a really good speed metal band.
-
Careful there BSB, that was a rather long post, and I do believe there was an attack on Bluto's character too.
However, I agree 100%!!!!!
;)
-
::)
didnt know you guys cared so much.
all i know is drumming is known for 2 things
1. drum solos, the time where people go buy beers on concerts and the rest of the band take a break
2. drummer-jokes that was popular a few years back, drummers are considered stupid
-
::)
didnt know you guys cared so much.
all i know is drumming is known for 2 things
1. drum solos, the time where people go buy beers on concerts and the rest of the band take a break
2. drummer-jokes that was popular a few years back, drummers are considered stupid
talk about a retreat from the debate.
-
talk about a retreat from the debate.
its not much to debate, drumming is pretty retarded as it is
if you can drum like slayer after 4 years that just shows how easy it is and whats then left to discuss
-
its not much to debate, drumming is pretty retarded as it is
if you can drum like slayer after 4 years that just shows how easy it is and whats then left to discuss
No NOT EASY, I didn't say easy. I was highlighting how Slayer WASN'T the standard for how music in general should be judged in terms of technical ability.
-
Not even close.
-
no
-
LOL, that looks pretty unanimous... no no no no no no...
no!
-
Great yes, greatest no IMO.
I would put the Stones #1
Listen to the Stones lyrics and then listen to the Beatles lyrics and if you come back here stating the Stones were the best band of all time, someone must hang themselves and it shouldn't be me... :-\
-
Listen to the Stones lyrics and then listen to the Beatles lyrics and if you come back here stating the Stones were the best band of all time, someone must hang themselves and it shouldn't be me... :-\
The Stones are one of the tops because even at 65 or whatever they are they are one of the few if not the ONLY rock n roll groups to retain such a bond with the black music from which rock was created.
-
I would hate to be a drummer for Spinal Tap.
-
Great yes, greatest no IMO.
I would put the Stones #1
Probably right. Or Zep.
-
I would hate to be a drummer for Spinal Tap.
You got that right.
Did you hear what happened to Peter James Bond? All that was left of him was a little green globule.
-
maybe bands dont need a drummer at all
Actually good bands live and die a lot of times by their drummer. The drummer is sort of the glue that holds it all together IMO, and I say this as a guitar guy myself.
From a drumming perspective Slayer is not demanding physically. I was playing Reign in Blood 4 years after I started playing and there are a great number of metal bands with much faster, more technical and longer songs then Slayer.
True, but Lombardo is still a great drummer...some of his best stuff though is on Testaments "The Gathering" album which he was the drummer on...kind of funny, Testaments newest album "The Formation of Damnation" which is fantastic BTW, has another "Slayer" drummer playing in this one, Paul Bostaph ...actually it's his 2nd album with the band.
As for the main point of this thread...not a chance in hell. Just about anyother band from that era wins over them...except the stones, cause I hate the stones...never understood why anyone thinks they're that great...cause they're not anything spectacular at all.
-
Aerosmith put on an awesome gig ill give them that - i saw them in Hyde park last year and they were very very good.
-
Aerosmith put on an awesome gig ill give them that - i saw them in Hyde park last year and they were very very good.
Early Aerosmith music = Excellent
Later Aerosmith music = Okay
-
great band
great songs
wow you actually like a good band :o
E
-
Just about anyother band from that era wins over them...except the stones, cause I hate the stones...never understood why anyone thinks they're that great...cause they're not anything spectacular at all.
Beatle fan?
-
Beatle fan?
Nope