Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 I'm not falling for this. It's a trick question! Well let me give your answer. A Jam Band is: The Grateful Dead playing Space. BTW I hate that too. I fall asleep.
4merper4mer Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 I'm not falling for this. It's a trick question! OK. Then name a jelly band.
Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 Perhaps, "imperfect," is a more accurate term. I listen to a lot of music and most of it is live recordings and I'm amazed at how perfect some of these bands are. I can listen to a 2-3 hour show and sometime hear no clunkers. Trust me I'd know I cringe when I hear one. So in my mind imperfect, though better than sloppy, is still not the right word. OK. Then name a jelly band. Easy.
Buftex Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 I'm not falling for this. It's a trick question! Name 42 jam bands?
bbb Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 Well let me give your answer. A Jam Band is: The Grateful Dead playing Space. BTW I hate that too. I fall asleep. Thanks. That was easier!
Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 Thanks. That was easier! Yes it was. It was an easy way for me to learn you don't know what a Jam Band is.
Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 I told you this was a trick! Well you can't come here a dis a whole genre without first demonstrating you know what the genre is.
Delete This Account Posted June 4, 2013 Author Posted June 4, 2013 Name a Jam Band. BTW saying the Stones are overrated does not mean I think they suck. To me there is very little music that sucks. Plenty I won't listen to but very little that sucks. Dirty, spontaneous and unprompted is not sloppy. I agree with Pooj that the word sloppy is wrong to describe R&R but not wrong with regard to a live Stones concert apparently. i'm using sloppy as "sloppy." the Replacements were at times sloppy, and that is upon which they helped build their reputation, sometimes to their ruination, and the audience be damned. no more so was this apparent than the night they played cbgbs with numerous record execs and vips on hand. they were pissdrunk, and didn't care, playing songs and covers they hadn't even practiced, let alone ever attempted. it was a sloppy mess, so much that Gene Simmons walked out in disgust. and yet _ YET! _ there were a few who got it, understood what was actually happening. and that included Seymour Stein, of Sire Records. he signed the 'Mats the following day. it's no different than when the 'Mats _ in later years, and at Sires' demand _ flopped as an opening act for Tom Petty. Sire execs thought that teaming the two up would allow the 'Mats to perhaps gleen something of how a "pro" tours. the 'Mats had their own designs. i like that in a band. i like that in a person no less. out of some of the sloppier stuff, inspiration comes. listen, perhaps, to some of the out-takes between the 'Mats and Tom Waits. much of it is unlistenable. and then, in one bright sober moment, something magical happens and they click on "We Own The Night." Westerberg, in fact, attempted to make sure there was a mistake -- off key, off beat, something -- in every 'Mats song released. it's the imperfection that makes life and everything we know about it. say what you will about the Stones at 70 and on a 50-year reunion tour. they were sloppy at times in recording "Exile on Main Street." and yet, it still comes off as one of the most important albums every done and my favorite. sloppy is most impossible to mask, even with technology. cds, for example, were hailed as the end all and be all of music listening because they took the crack and rattle out of the record-playing process. also took the guts out of it. "Louie Louie" works better because of the singer coming in early on one of the verses or choruses. to me, that's sloppy. and it stayed on the track because, if i recall correctly, they only had so much time booked in the studio. no 18 year old kid in some garage is perfect, nor should he/she be expected to be. i like mistakes sometimes. and i wouldn't use a sweeping brush to wipe them all away. jw
Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 i'm using sloppy as "sloppy." the Replacements were at times sloppy, and that is upon which they helped build their reputation, sometimes to their ruination, and the audience be damned. no more so was this apparent than the night they played cbgbs with numerous record execs and vips on hand. they were pissdrunk, and didn't care, playing songs and covers they hadn't even practiced, let alone ever attempted. it was a sloppy mess, so much that Gene Simmons walked out in disgust. and yet _ YET! _ there were a few who got it, understood what was actually happening. and that included Seymour Stein, of Sire Records. he signed the 'Mats the following day. it's no different than when the 'Mats _ in later years, and at Sires' demand _ flopped as an opening act for Tom Petty. Sire execs thought that teaming the two up would allow the 'Mats to perhaps gleen something of how a "pro" tours. the 'Mats had their own designs. i like that in a band. i like that in a person no less. out of some of the sloppier stuff, inspiration comes. listen, perhaps, to some of the out-takes between the 'Mats and Tom Waits. much of it is unlistenable. and then, in one bright sober moment, something magical happens and they click on "We Own The Night." Westerberg, in fact, attempted to make sure there was a mistake -- off key, off beat, something -- in every 'Mats song released. it's the imperfection that makes life and everything we know about it. say what you will about the Stones at 70 and on a 50-year reunion tour. they were sloppy at times in recording "Exile on Main Street." and yet, it still comes off as one of the most important albums every done and my favorite. sloppy is most impossible to mask, even with technology. cds, for example, were hailed as the end all and be all of music listening because they took the crack and rattle out of the record-playing process. also took the guts out of it. "Louie Louie" works better because of the singer coming in early on one of the verses or choruses. to me, that's sloppy. and it stayed on the track because, if i recall correctly, they only had so much time booked in the studio. no 18 year old kid in some garage is perfect, nor should he/she be expected to be. i like mistakes sometimes. and i wouldn't use a sweeping brush to wipe them all away. jw And that's a major difference in music between us. I can't stand sloppiness. What you consider raw I consider lazy and disrespectful. We're not talking 18 year olds in a garage. We're talking people who have "perfected" their craft for years and if they can't bother to try to be perfect then I can't be bothered to be a fan. Once again our differences. That's why I love classical music. Listen to Itzhak Perlman play a Mozart Violin concerto and be 100% note for note perfect. Played the way it was writting over 200 years ago. Rock and Roll ain't that hard.
bbb Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 Well you can't come here a dis a whole genre without first demonstrating you know what the genre is. You take yourself pretty seriously, don't you?
Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 You take yourself pretty seriously, don't you? When it comes to music? Yes. Espcecially when someone says a whole genre is overrated. Now if someone comes along and says a whole genre is overrated and can articulate why they feel that way I'll cut them some slack. But in your case you don't even appear to understand the genre you're calling overrated.
bbb Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 By what - not answering your stupid question? Good thing you take yourself so seriously on such an important subject.
Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 By what - not answering your stupid question? Well seeing this thread is about overrated BANDS and you posted about an overrated GENRE I was trying to see if you give us an example of an overrated Jam BAND. So it's was not really a stupid question after all was it?
The Poojer Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 and that is precisely the reason i DON'T gravitate towards classical, i enjoy the variations, the slight nuances, the mistakes, the grit, the experimentation...listen to the counting crows do 'mr. jones' live....almost unrecognizeable, at first, from the record version...that's what i like, also what i love about the jam bands...always something new to listen for And that's a major difference in music between us. I can't stand sloppiness. What you consider raw I consider lazy and disrespectful. We're not talking 18 year olds in a garage. We're talking people who have "perfected" their craft for years and if they can't bother to try to be perfect then I can't be bothered to be a fan. Once again our differences. That's why I love classical music. Listen to Itzhak Perlman play a Mozart Violin concerto and be 100% note for note perfect. Played the way it was writting over 200 years ago. Rock and Roll ain't that hard.
Delete This Account Posted June 4, 2013 Author Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) And that's a major difference in music between us. I can't stand sloppiness. What you consider raw I consider lazy and disrespectful. We're not talking 18 year olds in a garage. We're talking people who have "perfected" their craft for years and if they can't bother to try to be perfect then I can't be bothered to be a fan. Once again our differences. That's why I love classical music. Listen to Itzhak Perlman play a Mozart Violin concerto and be 100% note for note perfect. Played the way it was writting over 200 years ago. Rock and Roll ain't that hard. good for you. but the two don't translate. and let's not pull the elitist card of rock and roll not being that hard. puh-leeze. that's so wrong. it's like people suggesting writing's easy, or coaching's easy or anything that takes time to craft is easy, heck, cooking a good bowl of spaghetti, ain't easy, and yet most of us can boil water, no? each have their levels of difficulty. though it's easy to write something or coach someone or cook something, it's difficult to do it well or at an elite level. it's why i'll never pretend to be Bukowski, who had a certain way with words, or to share an inside joke Howard Simon and I have, "the refreshments" will never be confused with "The Ramones." and to suggest classical music is more difficult than rock and roll is silly. they both involve music, but the comparisons end there. and to have Itzhak Perlman play a concerto much like it sounded like 200 years ago, is so different from rock and roll. Muddy Waters could perhaps play the same song 200 times each time with some small different nuance, and yet it can stil be appreciated. the democratization of music isn't a bad thing, despite what some might say or have argued. it has instead brought the art from down to the gutter where we people are, and have the right to judge it on its own or with our own palette. and in doing so, that's why folks sometimes fail to appreciate what might have been good -- ahead of its time -- in its day, or over-rated by failing to stand the test of time. the mona lisa has withstood that, and no one's going to accuse it of being over-rated -- ok, not no one, because the minute i push the "post" button, someone's going to respond with a post accusing the Mona Lisa as being over-rated. like it or not, though, it has to be appreciated for what it stands for. a classic. it's a little bit more difficult with rock and roll, because it's a genre that's still in it's relative infancy. and yet, the stones stand as a pillar of that foundation, in my opinion, while others have whithered you continue to suggest that you like all forms of music, and yet, you persist in providing us reasons as to why you don't like to get your hands dirty in the true stew of rock and roll. somehow, i'd suggest, that you just might not get what rock and roll was, is or continues to have the potential to be, an imperfect form of expression in a very imperfect world. jw Edited June 4, 2013 by john wawrow
Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 and that is precisely the reason i DON'T gravitate towards classical, i enjoy the variations, the slight nuances, the mistakes, the grit, the experimentation...listen to the counting crows do 'mr. jones' live....almost unrecognizeable, at first, from the record version...that's what i like, also what i love about the jam bands...always something new to listen for I love Jam bands too as you know. Every show, set and song is a bit different that's not what I'm talking about. But for me the musicianship has to be spot on. We're all agreeing that we like the grit and raw improvisation but for god sakes guys be in tune and in the same key.
The Poojer Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 oh absolutely...i am certainly not in favor of that, unless of course it is a musical style that lends itself towards that, punk etc...but i know and expect that going in I love Jam bands too as you know. Every show, set and song is a bit different that's not what I'm talking about. But for me the musicianship has to be spot on. We're all agreeing that we like the grit and raw improvisation but for god sakes guys be in tune and in the same key.
Gugny Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 and that is precisely the reason i DON'T gravitate towards classical, i enjoy the variations, the slight nuances, the mistakes, the grit, the experimentation...listen to the counting crows do 'mr. jones' live....almost unrecognizeable, at first, from the record version...that's what i like, also what i love about the jam bands...always something new to listen for You make a good point - going back to the "sloppy" comment - I was interpreting it more as a separation from the album track. Not necessarily riddled with mistakes; but just different than the album. Counting Crows are a great example. Another is Jane's Addiction (I'll throw them on my underrated list) ... I've seen them 7 times and no tune has been the same from show-to-show. Yet every time, each version was clean.
Delete This Account Posted June 4, 2013 Author Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) You make a good point - going back to the "sloppy" comment - I was interpreting it more as a separation from the album track. Not necessarily riddled with mistakes; but just different than the album. Counting Crows are a great example. Another is Jane's Addiction (I'll throw them on my underrated list) ... I've seen them 7 times and no tune has been the same from show-to-show. Yet every time, each version was clean. and yet by Chef's definition, when drawing upon Itzak Pearlman, Jane's Addiction sucks. ... not sure if they're under-rated. they're certainly not over-rated. they're good. And that's a major difference in music between us. I can't stand sloppiness. What you consider raw I consider lazy and disrespectful. We're not talking 18 year olds in a garage. We're talking people who have "perfected" their craft for years and if they can't bother to try to be perfect then I can't be bothered to be a fan. Once again our differences. That's why I love classical music. Listen to Itzhak Perlman play a Mozart Violin concerto and be 100% note for note perfect. Played the way it was writting over 200 years ago. Rock and Roll ain't that hard. oh, and by the way, forgot to mention this. you might not be talking about 18 year olds in a garage, but don't take words out of my mouth. i was. jw Edited June 4, 2013 by john wawrow
Recommended Posts