|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 8, 2021 15:41:48 GMT
The title is of course stolen from the closing track of that critically despised, massively successful Poison album Open Up and Say... Ahh! And it's fitting that the thread title would be taken from Poison, because they were by most accounts pretty bad--at their instruments.
The history of popular music beginning with rock and roll is littered with commercially successful acts who weren't very good at their instruments. Some just rolled with it, their own mediocrity on display. Some worked hard in the studio, testing the patience of engineers and producers trying to get something releasable out of them. And some hired session musicians to perform in the studio, either actively of passively hiding their relative incompetence.
Some of these musicians won the hearts of their fans: Ace Frehley, far and away the worst guitarist in the history of KISS, is far and away their most popular guitarist. Ditto Peter Criss and drums. Some of these barely-musicians even were critically acclaimed, generally for their "authenticity." During the '90s--and yes, the '90s thread has me covering this territory--you heard a lot of how perhaps the new grunge movement didn't have virtuosos, but it was "real." The guitarists may barely be able to play a solo, but those few notes had "soul." (I never bought this, and still don't.)
Other bands are loaded with absolute ringers. Staying in the hard rock vein, Mr. Big and Winger may be two of the most technically gifted bands of the latter stage of the "hair metal" era. Each had a few hits, but neither really established itself as a major, durable band in the public's eyes. They carried on, but not with much success, especially in the US.
Do you have strong feelings about bands' technical capabilities? Examples of bad bands you love or good ones you dislike? Is it "all's fair in love and rock?"
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 11, 2021 15:48:21 GMT
I don't feel overly strongly about technical abilities.
I think there are bands with brilliant musicians, but don't have the material to really back it up. The biggest example for me is Dream Theater. I have tried, tried to get into them. From a purely technical standpoint, they might be the most talented metal band out there. But, I just cannot get into the bulk of their material.
Steve Vai comes to mind too. Amazing guitarist. And I love his work with David Lee Roth and Whitesnake. But, I find much of his solo material to be boring. Out of the big shredders, that's one of the reasons I gravitated more to Yngwie than any of them. I just feel like his material is much stronger overall.
On the other hand, you mentioned KISS. Ace and Peter are beloved because they were on their 1970s albums which is generally regarded as their best period. Vinnie Vincent, Eric Carr, Bruce Kulick, Eric Singer, and Tommy Thayer are all better musicians, but the material's just not as good.
But, one of my big bugaboos about punk and grunge is the general lack of musicianship, especially how grunge essentially killed off the notion of "guitar hero" over a quarter century ago. When guitar solos were no longer en vogue, Metallica infamously released an album completely devoid of solos - St. Anger. There's a scene in the documentary Some Kind of Monster where the band debates if the idea of solos was outdated. Kirk Hammett argues that leaving solos off the album would date the album to that dire early 00s period. He was 115% correct.
I think musicianship is important, especially once rock music moved beyond the two or three minute song, but at the end of the day, it's about the material the musicians are playing.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 11, 2021 15:54:35 GMT
Two of the biggest of all-time come to mind.
Other than Paul McCartney, The Beatles weren't exactly virtuosos. They did great within the band concept, but as individual musicians?
I think Bob Dylan is another one. He certainly did alright instrumentally, but I'll bet even he would admit that he wasn't the greatest...player.
And, stop picking on Ace and Peter. Who do you think you are...Gene Simmons?
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 11, 2021 15:58:59 GMT
Speaking of which, Gene and Paul aren't exactly topping anyone's lists of greatest bassist or guitarist either.
I think that was the case with a lot of the early 60s bands in addition to The Beatles. I'd put The Beach Boys in that list too.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 11, 2021 16:09:22 GMT
Obviously I'm not a musician, but if I didn't read about it, I never would've thought of Ace Frehley or Peter Criss as less than good/great musicians. I really enjoyed their playing and thought, well, I thought they were great.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 11, 2021 16:40:01 GMT
I'm not a musician either, nor have I ever played one on TV. But, I think watching some of the KISS concerts from the 1970s shows that, from a technical standpoint, KISS were not in the same league as many of their peers. But, the shows were more about spectacle than anything. Plus, the original KISS were great at knocking out great, hooky 3-4 minute hard rock songs.
I wouldn't say they're bad players, but they're definitely not great. And, unfortunately for Ace and Peter, they lost their jobs (a couple times) because they became liabilities.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 11, 2021 17:05:13 GMT
As you all know, I really enjoy those early KISS albums quite a bit, and they were also hugely influential to me when I was a tween-to-teen learning to play guitar. Ace and Peter (and Gene and Paul) were fine for what they were doing, which was simple rock and roll. It was supplemented by outsiders, especially as the music incorporated more challenging bits. None of them was what you'd call a virtuoso by any stretch of the imagination, even just within the rock and roll context (to say nothing about actually challenging forms).
I could by late high school play anything Ace ever played, and I say that not to brag but to point out he wasn't that great. Cool? Yes. Great guitarist, no. (To be clear, I went to school on a partial jazz guitar scholarship, was probably the 4th best jazz guitarist of the five on full or partial scholarships, and realized early on my future in that arena was zilch. I switched to theory and composition within a year. So it is not like I'm some guitarist.)
KDS's post made sense to me, because I'm sort of all over the board on how important it is to be technically good. On one hand, I really did hate the "we're awful and we're proud of it, it's about feeling, man!" ethos of grunge and, before my time, punk. (Even most of the mediocre rock musicians I've loved made a point of either improving or hiring better musicians over time, because who wouldn't get better, and want to get better, in his art?)
But on the other side, Dream Theater was the perfect example. My brother worships them and other than appreciating their skill, I just can't even pretend to care. If your material doesn't connect with me, your skill is irrelevant to me.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 12, 2021 14:02:12 GMT
Good call, by the way, on Mr. Big and Winger. I'd even put Extreme into the mix. Each of those bands had hits that weren't really indicative on their abilities. Mr. Big and Extreme are probably best known for acoustic ballads, so they tend to get unfairly labelled as "soft" or "ballad" bands. I remember a friend and I went to the first M3 Festival in 2009, and Extreme were on the bill. My friend, who really wasn't familiar outside of More Than Words was absolutely flowed by how hard they rocked. I said "I told you."
We also saw Winger and Mr. Big other years, and I'll say I was even a little surprised at how heavy Winger were in concert.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 12, 2021 14:18:26 GMT
Yes, Extreme were definitely another band in the "very technically gifted" side of things. And also the short-lived popularity side of things, showing that being good at your instruments/craft isn't necessarily the deciding factor for lasting.
What's funny is, from that same era, you had Poison. I would lump them in with KISS in terms of ability, which is to say they were (barely) competent for hard rock, and incompetent for anything beyond it. (Interviews with past producers and engineers who worked with them include some pretty eye-opening information. That said, they also always say the guys were all-in in terms of trying: they knew who and what they were, and wanted to get it right.)
Yet their music and brand endured, and they can still bring in relatively big numbers of fans (considering the genre and vintage) to this day. So they are a good example of a band that wasn't any good (technically), yet they achieved lasting success. Which makes them good, at least in one sense.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 12, 2021 14:38:06 GMT
I also think that the timing of Extreme, Winger, and Mr. Big hindered their long term success. If I recall, Mr. Big's To Be With You hit right around the same time Smells Like Teen Spirit did.
Poison, on the other hand, had perfect timing. I remember, I think it was comedian Brian Posehn on one of those Vh1 talking head nostalgia shows called CC Deville "the best worst guitarist ever." Yeah, you'll never see him on any lists in Guitar World any time soon, but the Poison and KISS comparison is very apt since both bands made up for their lack of musical prowess by writing very memorable, hooky rock songs. One thing I have to say that I respect about Poison is that they stay in their lane. Other than a brief attempt to try to fit with the 90s alternative scene (there's something ironic about trying to fit in with grunge while also upgrading your guitarist with Richie Kotzen), they've just embraced that they are the quintessential mid 80s rock band. They didn't try to do soccer mom / bro country fodder (looking at you, Jon Bon) to stay relevant. They don't give a fuck about trends, critical acclaim, or RNRHOF consideration. They just go out every summer and give the people what they want.
Even Motley Crue weren't exactly gifted musically, but they remain one of the most popular bands from that era, I think partly due to their scandalous lifestyle. Their book, The Dirt, flew off the shelves in 2002, at a time when their music wasn't exactly hip.
|
|