|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jan 18, 2006 14:35:46 GMT -5
I mean, moshing is not a MANDATORY requirement - - all I'm saying is, it's important, and will help a band get into the "Finals". In other words, I have no problem with a band getting into the Finals even if there is no moshing at their live shows. One good example is RUSH . . . I'm not sure if there is moshing at their shows. . .. . damn! And I've seen em 13 times ! Nobody moshes @ RUSH, do they?! And they are certainly one of the prime contendors in my book for "best band on earth". . . so the moshing thing is certainly not an essential requirement, but it does provide for some serious bonus points.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 18, 2006 14:37:38 GMT -5
~They must have existed for @ least 10 years or more Why ten? That seems awfully arbitrary. Why not eight? Why not eleven? Ten is a nice round number, but I don't see any real meaning behind it. And besides, I object to any criteria (especially an arbitrary one) that disqualifies both the Clash and the Velvet Underground before the discussion even starts. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jan 18, 2006 14:38:51 GMT -5
This is crucial. If you're a band who can actually play a set where no one is really moshing, or moshing halfheartedly, you are crossed off my list, you have no hope of being considered as a Finalist in the "Best Band On Earth" competition. This is just ... Plain ... NUTS !! Read my next post, Phil... I kinda reconsidered that .. . amended it a little. HOpefully you understood the gist of my "point". It's just, I've been to sooo many live shows, that after awhile, you get to the point where, if no one is moshing, it's just kinda boring. But the most KILLER, and BESTest bands, ALWAYS get the pits started up, and that is a bonafide mark of an excellent band: they're rocking, with high energy, people are INTO it, and everyone goes nuts. It stands for SOMEthing, just not EVERYthing, I'll concede to that much. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 18, 2006 14:39:23 GMT -5
If you want physical rowdy behavior near a stage go watch a Midget hockey game with a few fanatical parents ...  |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jan 18, 2006 14:41:30 GMT -5
~They must have existed for @ least 10 years or more Why ten? That seems awfully arbitrary. Why not eight? Why not eleven? Ten is a nice round number, but I don't see any real meaning behind it. And besides, I object to any criteria (especially an arbitrary one) that disqualifies both the Clash and the Velvet Underground before the discussion even starts. Good points. I just threw "10" out there as a general idea of a band with at least some seniority under its belt. Plus none of this is that "strict", they're all just variables to be taken into consideration, is all. No band should be "ruled out" because they don't meet this general criteria. Plus, of course, as I mentioned, this is all merely MY general criteria of what goes towards shaping bands that could qualify as "best" in the world. Remember. I'm a hard rocker. Therefore, a band like Scissorfight will be considered "better" by me than a band like...I don't know, Coldplay I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jan 18, 2006 14:42:33 GMT -5
If you want physical rowdy behavior near a stage go watch a Midget hockey game with a few fanatical parents ... Or maybe Finnish metal bands whose members are trolls?  |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 18, 2006 14:42:36 GMT -5
Read my next post, Phil... I kinda reconsidered that .. . amended it a little.
HOpefully you understood the gist of my "point".HÉ ! I'm just rattling the cage a bit ! It's all good ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jan 18, 2006 14:43:58 GMT -5
I mean, if your music can double as elevator music . . . . well you're outta my book, is all.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 18, 2006 14:45:05 GMT -5
Good points. I just threw "10" out there as a general idea of a band with at least some seniority under its belt. Plus none of this is that "strict", they're all just variables to be taken into consideration, is all. No band should be "ruled out" because they don't meet this general criteria. That's fair. I agree that no band that has only been around for two years or has only done one album should really get serious consideration, but at the same time, well, if something's good then it's good, so there's got to be some flexibility on stuff like that. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 18, 2006 14:45:22 GMT -5
Or maybe Finnish metal bands whose members are trolls?
Still LMAO over that one ...
Forget "Quest for Fire" ...
Those guys are still looking for brains ... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jan 18, 2006 14:49:10 GMT -5
Good points. I just threw "10" out there as a general idea of a band with at least some seniority under its belt. Plus none of this is that "strict", they're all just variables to be taken into consideration, is all. No band should be "ruled out" because they don't meet this general criteria. That's fair. I agree that no band that has only been around for two years or has only done one album should really get serious consideration, but at the same time, well, if something's good then it's good, so there's got to be some flexibility on stuff like that. Yes. Agreed |
|
|
|
Post by luke on Jan 18, 2006 15:39:13 GMT -5
Disagree on the "years around" thing. On "all time" lists, sure, or even on "of the last ten years" list, but on a "right now" list, I don't think it matters if you have one album or fifty. What matters is the band most in their element; the band that welds the most power right now, at this exact moment. What your last couple albums sounded like means fuck all...the important thing is how good you are right now.
And agreed on the Pitchfork deal, Drum. Although it's certainly harder to tell how much impact a Pitchfork has on reputation as it would be something in a wide-spread print format like RS. They certainly elevated CYHSY, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 18, 2006 15:43:48 GMT -5
That's all true, Luke. I had switched to all-time great mode there. I agree that the best band at this particular moment doesn't have to have been around long.
I read Pitchfork every day, but I still hate it. The reviews are pretentious crap, and I often disagree 100% with them. But I still find it useful for finding new music. Occassionally the free downloads are good, but more often I can at least get a feel for what a band sounds like from their reviews and know if it sounds like something I might like (even if it's a completely negative review) and can go ahead and download a track of two to see if it's worth buying. They review a lot of bands I might not hear of otherwise, so I keep reading. They still suck though.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 18, 2006 15:46:46 GMT -5
Luke, I should point out though, that neither Radiohead nor TOOL has released an album or even done a live show in a couple of years, so nominating them for best-band-in-the-world-at-this-specific-moment might be questionable. Although I do realize that they're both working on new stuff, so they could easily be catapulted back to the top pretty quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jan 18, 2006 15:53:43 GMT -5
If we could develop a point-generation system, where a certain amount of points are added for meeting certain qualifications, and others are subtracted for it, this might help generate an "index"-value for every band, and in the end, the one with the most points wins.
|
|
