haVoc 0 Report post Posted October 23, 2003 I was going to add "All of the above" but that is too easy. Not many bands have all three traits in their music. It always seems like people judge bands by the lyrics to songs. Critics especially focus on that too much, IMO. Personally, I care more about musicianship. I care about the flow, groove and feeling I get from the music. More times then not I could give a rats ass what the singer is saying. I think a singers voice should be an extension of instrumentation. The voice should blend in with the music. Not over power it. Innovation in this day in age is way overrated. Bands like the White Stripes being critically praised because they supposedly sound different from everyone. I like the White Stripes, but damn they are overrated and RollingStone needs to get off Jack Whites nut sack. Anyway, what do you guys look for most in songs and bands? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Baron 0 Report post Posted October 23, 2003 It just depends on how you perceive the music, and the music you listen too. For a band to be well like IMO, they need a great deal of musicanship, then lyrics. Innovation is over-rated though, because there is some one who has done it better before, or there is some one else who would do it better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLAGIARISM! 0 Report post Posted October 23, 2003 I'd say most of my favourite bands have all three, Tom Waits being the prime example, but of course, I sometimes like music that has none of the above, eg KISS. You can't really generalise something like this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Agent of Oblivion Report post Posted October 23, 2003 Innovation is over-rated though, because there is some one who has done it better before, or there is some one else who would do it better. Couldn't disagree more. There's always going to be a better pure guitarist out there, or some no-name classical guy that could out shred any guy in the world of rock if he were to suddenly lose all of his cultural overtones, and jam out. Also, if it were just about musicianship for me, I'd be creaming all over Dream Theater or some shit. I think innovation is the one way that a band can set itself apart from the rest. Simply do something that no one else has tried before. It might be good, it might suck, but at least it'll be different. Of course, THIS is where the musicianship comes into it for me. Just being able to rock out, but playing samey riffs, no matter how technical, isn't going to go anywhere. Lyrics are really pretty secondary for me, unless they're just brutally bad, or exceptionally great. I think vocals either make or break a band in those cases, but most rock lyrics suck anyway, so it's not like it'd be a huge deal if all the words don't quite fit right. Having a good voice (depending on the genre) is way more important than good lyrics, IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Baron 0 Report post Posted October 23, 2003 But being Innovative will lead to 1000 other bands trying to mimic the innovative band, thats a downside. Also sometimes being to Innovative can lose your fans, and just blatenly suck, but continue to innovate because, staying the same path would not really suit the band. A perfect example is radiohead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Agent of Oblivion Report post Posted October 23, 2003 That's the gamble a band takes though. Look at a band like King Crimson, they changed their sound more times than I can count, all while retaining generally the same progressive roots, and managed to make their career a cohesive unit. Same with Floyd. Sure, not everyone loved Ummagumma as much as say, Wish You Were Here, but having the cojones to split the band up individually, and have them write their own tunes is a neat concept. Put it all together, and it becomes a layered cross-section of Pink Floyd's sound at the time. Awesome idea. As far as having a million imitators, I don't see how that one works. Everyone and their brother has borrowed something from Led Zeppelin or The Beatles at some point, does that detract from what they did? Not at all. That shows just how creative they were. It's not like George Harrison is the best guitarist either, or John Lennon is the best pure vocalist ever. Hell, Ringo pretty much sucked, but that doesn't keep them from being arguably the greatest rock band of all time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skywarp! 0 Report post Posted October 23, 2003 I like plenty of bands with bad lyrics, and knowing how to play only makes you another generic face in the pack. So, I say it's definitely innovation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon Report post Posted October 23, 2003 I'm not sure that I evaluate music according to any rigid formula. but lyrics generally aren't the most important criteria, though horrible lyrics can ruin a song in my opinion and can be an element to focus on when I strongly dislike something. I don't necessarily look for either technical proficiency or innovation, just something that sounds "good", and there usually has to be something interesting or unique going on, but it doesn't have to be overtly "innovative." I just can't feel like it's something I've already heard 200 or so variations of already. So I guess I would say musicianship, if I have to answer this question, but not in the sense of technical proficiency or "chops" or whatever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Plushy Al Logan Report post Posted October 23, 2003 Innovation is pretty much "All of the above." Examples: Van Halen Megadeth Poison Elvis (despite never writing a song) Dean Martin ...etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haVoc 0 Report post Posted October 23, 2003 Poison?????? Megadeth is also arguable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
B. Brian Brunzell 0 Report post Posted October 23, 2003 I think the Poison being innovators has to do with the hair metal genre. But Motley crue did it first AND better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Plushy Al Logan Report post Posted October 23, 2003 Poison?????? Megadeth is also arguable. What the Hell is wrong with Poison?! Just becuase they arent whiny depressed little rats, doesent mean they aren't good! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haVoc 0 Report post Posted October 23, 2003 Poison *might* have been a decent band if they took the glam and excess not only out of their looks, but out of their sound. When I started this thread I said lyrics mean shit most of the time. I could care less about about most of these "whiny depressed little rats" myself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Baron 0 Report post Posted October 23, 2003 their decent, but they just did what Motley Crue are doing, and Motley Crue were doing the better job. The only thing Poison did being innovative is having a moster ballad from a hair band, but thats arguable, because Bon Jovi did it a year earlier. As far as imitators. It not back then when Zeppelin, Floyd, because no one could imitate their sound, but the Beatles, you had a spawn of bands copying their sound, which it worked very well. Now, once something is innovative, 1000 or so bands pop out of no where, and get instant success, because of one band, and the sad thing is, no one is really being "innovative" these days. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Agent of Oblivion Report post Posted October 23, 2003 and if you'll notice, the majority of recent popular music sucks... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haVoc 0 Report post Posted October 23, 2003 I'll admit, I actually like two of Poison's ballads. "Every rose has it's thorn" and "Something to believe in." Why do I like these songs? Because they weren't typical "power ballads." They were stripped down and acoustic for the most part. They stood out from the rest at the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted October 23, 2003 Lyrics are absolutly crucial to me, I take a song like I do with a Book, I want the words to guide me through like a story. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Corey_Lazarus 0 Report post Posted October 23, 2003 Megadeth is also arguable. Megadeth DEFINITELY innovated. When thrash metal was mostly about speed and lyrics about Satan, Megadeth focused on technical precision and INTELLIGENT lyrics. Name me ONE band Megadeth sounds like (and if you say Metallica, you're getting smacked). Anyways, I'd say musicianship is the most important aspect of a song. Not so much how talented the musicians are, but how well the songs themselves are written (particularly in relation to the style that the song is). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Henry Spencer 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2003 The most important part is the intangible thing that makes a certain band so appealing. For example, I love The Clash, The Velvet Underground, and Radiohead above most else, but I'll be damned if I could tell you why. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
godthedog 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2003 lyricism is the wrong choice of words there. a song can be "lyrical" without having any lyrics to it. anyway, i don't think lyrics are terribly important. there's way too many really good songs with bad lyrics out there. the most important thing for me with any given band or song is probably melody. musicianship can sometimes just equal wankery instead of greatness, and innovation can do the same. i can take innovation up to a point, until it gets amelodic. case in point: lou reed's 'metal machine music'. strictly speaking, you may be able to call it the most innovative rock album ever, but who the fuck would want to listen to that shit? by comparison, take the beatles or hendrix. the shit they did wasn't nearly as extreme, but through all of it they always kept strong melodies, and are often credited with being more innovative. i doubt anybody would give a shit about "a day in the life" if the tune wasn't good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest macheteofodin Report post Posted October 26, 2003 Innovation is not important to me. A lot of the music I listen to has a very similar sound...and it doesn't really bother me. Lyrics, too, are not important to my listening pleasure. Half the time I don't know what the lyricist is trying to present because they are singing in metaphor...and I hate poetry. It's more how the person sings rather than what they are singing, and that leads me to Musicianship. Musicianship is what I believe to be the most important element of a song. It's not just one musician, the whole band has to come together to pull it off. The right vocals, with the right guitars, with the right bass, with the right drums, etc.... When one of those things is off, the song is ruined for me. The people don't have to be the best musicians, but they have to know how to work with the ability they have. Take the Ramones for example...none are (were) awesome musicians, but they worked with what they had and came up with some excellent songs (sure that's arguable, but in my opinion it is true). ...so basically what most people in here are saying. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2003 One word: Emotion. If there's one thing that links all the records I love, it's the fact that there is genuine emotion there. The people making the music actually believe in it. Whether it's Radiohead, Outkast, Aphex Twin, Kid Koala, The Velvet Underground or The Ramones, there's just a stream of emotion running through it which lifts it above and beyond. And I'm not talking about that whining shit in most metal, that's just put on for marketability. Which is probably why I've gone off the genre... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Nacho Nixon Report post Posted October 26, 2003 The right answer isn't even on there. The most important element of a song is the drum solo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2003 Megadeth DEFINITELY innovated. When thrash metal was mostly about speed and lyrics about Satan, Megadeth focused on technical precision and INTELLIGENT lyrics. Name me ONE band Megadeth sounds like (and if you say Metallica, you're getting smacked). I would have to say Queensryche was the first technical/intelligent metal band They helped beget intelligent metal in ways Dream Theater could only dream of, and without the musical elitism or snobby fans. Also I'd throw in the band Death too, for being one of maybe three death metal bands with intelligent lyrics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
