"Enjoy what you like, life is too short to care what people on a message board from Worcester Mass, or anywhere else, thinks."

Yup. Pretty much. 

Ok, I'll play.

Maroon 5.... really slick whitebread R&B with decent memorable hooks & grooves, and a charismatic frontman who cannot pull it off live...which kills it for me, but whatever...the whole band is actually quite loose live which is a major fail (i've seen a few on-air performances, and almost bought tickets for the Missus & I until I saw how expensive they were)  My Wife loves them,  I own one of their records, and the two latest singles.  It's not terribly high on my list of "loves" musically, but I can tolerate it when it comes up on the shuffled iPod.

Maroon Five and The Hives? What the...

Both Maroon and Matchbox have the same formula: good-looking, bad-boy lead singer that chicks drool over (my wife, too, likes both groups). Maroon Five is soft-porn, oil-wrestling, sleeze. It's the Hollywood Boulevard version of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. It's a Victoria's Secret catalogue.

And Matchbox comes down to one thing: the lead singer wearing a leather outfit and that leather band around his wrist.

Are both bands tight and well produced with lots of catchy hooks: Yes, but who cares? There's no shortage of that stuff in the marketplace.

Matchbox snuck in the door when The Counting Crows opened it and proved that this type of music could be immensely profitable.

I do not like Matchbox 20.
That being said, I have no problems with them. I do not really care if anyone likes them and think no less of Brendon if he likes them.
They do nothing to hurt or help my life.

from what I hear, isnt your band just like matchbox 20? (de: secretaries dig ya)

maybe you can learn from them how to make soft rock look hard when it's played live.

Both bands are slick and catchy, which is what sells lots of records these days. That's because lots of people like slick and catchy--occasionally I do too.

Bu if you're looking for music that you can listen to for the next twenty years, that will make you think and feel and maybe nourish your soul a little bit . . . I don't find any of that in Matchbox 20 or Maroon 5.

Quote:

Jim wrote:

Bu if you're looking for music that you can listen to for the next twenty years, that will make you think and feel and maybe nourish your soul a little bit . . . I don't find any of that in Matchbox 20 or Maroon 5.

Funny as that was where I was gonna go with this discussion too Duncan...  thanks for the link.

Not saying that Maroon 5 is close to even half the sensation that the Beatles were (and flame wme ALL you want, I'm not making a direct comparison of the two, just saying...in light of of the Beatle's itunes thread that came up today.... no "Maroonmania"I've heard of yet), but as much as I hate to say it for fear of being flamed, the Beatle's first singles I feel are pretty mush as disposable comparative to their later works... 

(and who am I to say whether Maroon 5 will endure or not, or get profoundly better or whatever... I'm certainly not sticking up for them)

 but those songs still endure after all this time.... what I'm saying is I'd take Across the Universe or Eleanor Rigby  or I want to tell you over I wanna hold your Hand or Love me do any day of the week...but others may not...lovely thing about music it speaks to people differently, endures to people differently.... meh. Whatever.  Long live Ned's Atomic Dustbin.

"Musics potential for longevity is a interesting requisite for liking something. In 1988 (twenty years ago) the top 100 songs were mostly made up of stuff I would have told you then would not be popular in twenty years, but I look at this list and it is certainly full of music that still has a life in 2008."

Duncan, I wasn't speaking of whether music will still be played on the radio after twenty years. I meant whether you (or me, or whomever, individually) will still be listening to it in 20 years. In other words, in twenty years, will I still find this music interesting and worth the time it takes me to listen to it? I had a teacher in graduate school tell me once that you could really only tell whether a novel was great until you had read it 20 times and were still finding new and interesting things in it. I've always liked that criteria. So, given the difference of time it takes to read a novel versus the time it takes to listen to a song, let's make it a few hundred times.

After you've listened to a Maroon 5 song a few hundred times, are you still going to be hearing new and interesting things in there? My guess is that you're going to like the Maroon 5 the first few times you hear it--cause it's catchy, and you can bop your head to it--and then you're going to realize it sounds like most of the packaged and slick pop being sold to us these days, and you're going to put your Wilco CDs back on, because many of those songs do stand up to hundreds of listens and more.

Everyone on these boards seems so averse to anyone making any kind of value judgment about music--it's very strange to me. You make a value judgment about music every time you purchase a piece of music, or decide not to purchase something else. It seems to me that one purpose of a board like this is to allow us all to articulate our ideas about what makes great music, and in doing so we can understand our own views and the view of others more clearly. So I'm not sure why every post like this gets three responses in which people jump in and say that "I'm OK, You're OK, and quit judging people, man."

I'm not judging anyone--we're just talking! And I don't see any of the criteria that I have mentioned here or on other threads as set in stone. Like everything else in this world, my criteria are provisional, and always subject to change, and imperfect.

But I still find them interesting to discuss. If no one else does, let's put this thread to bed--and all others like it--and move on.

The Beatles' popularity is obviously more than just the manufactured teen mania that initially fueled it, and admittedly, it's not all valid, either (at least according to stringent artistic ideas).

This must be said, though: While their early music may be dispensible and though it only vaguely foreshadows what folowed, at its time it was revolutionary in the fact that they were one of only a few bands composing their own hits.

Maroon Five and Matchbox Twenty aren't on the leading edge of anything. They simply fit a broad demographic of aldult contemporary listeners.

I didn't think that I needed to clarify with every comment that people amused by them should follow their own bliss. This seems obvious and not worth mentioning.

As for your comments about the Counting Crows, Duncan, I disagree. While they too have an appeal with the adult contemporary circuit and have produced their share of overproduced cheesy stuff, at the heart of it is a rare talent in Adam Duritz, a challenging and literary figure who uses his vocal improv to push the band into some exciting areas. Matchbox and Maroon don't offer an equivalent element to separate them from the teeming masses of bland, milque toast rockers.

Yetitibs, These are, of course, only my opinions. You don't need to continually chastise me for my rants. I bash all kinds of things on this site, and so do others (Joe bro yelled at Jordan's furniture, for Christ's sake! Duncan repeatedly called the Grateful Dead "wallpaper." Scott said he'd shoot himself in the head if he resorted to playing Dead covers.). It seems only certain targets get everybody in a huff around here.

Maybe someone should post a list of all the bands and topics that are not to be criticized, so I don't embarrass myself anymore.

Quote:

Matt wrote:

As for your comments about the Counting Crows, Duncan, I disagree. While they too have an appeal with the adult contemporary circuit and have produced their share of overproduced cheesy stuff, at the heart of it is a rare talent in Adam Duritz, a challenging and literary figure who uses his vocal improv to push the band into some exciting areas. Matchbox and Maroon don't offer an equivalent element to separate them from the teeming masses of bland, milque toast rockers.

Haha .. oh Duncan.... twist the knife into Matt why dont you.

Jim-
While I disagree with you, you still got me to smile:)

I really don't care what people listen to and I am going to be hard pressed to be changed. I used to care, but I learned that it was a not really something that matters. People who want to listen to the Bee's Knees or HODW or TCS will find us if we put ourselves out there. It has nothing to do with whether people like Maroon 5 or not. I think we all need to realize that most people do not care about music as much as we all do and they have the right to listen to whatever they want to that gives them joy. That's all it is really about, isn't it? Why not let people who really don't care be happy listening to WXLO? It is like people who like Bud. If they like Bud, let them; it doesn't hurt me at all if they don't like Left Hand Milk Stout. Hell, I bet you guys eat McDonald's or some form of fast food at some point. I would say that this bad for the soul and I would never eat at a fast food place, as I would much rather cook for myself. I don't think you are a bad person for it nor would I feel it is my place to badger you into agreeing with.

And I like the Dead, as long as it is not a live show. Garcia and Hunter wrote some great songs, as did Phil Lesh. They made a few killer records, but I do not like their live noodling at all.

I have to go teach now--stupid job--but I will respond to this later, because I think your post gets to the very heart of this question.

I should note that the course I am going to teach right now, and that I always love to teach, is called Argument and Persuasion. That might help to explain the general nature of my posts around here . . .

Alert! Duncan trashed a band! Get him, Yeti!

Wait! I checked, and The Dead aren't on the VB restricted bands list.

Duncan, You say that as though it's fact - like you worked out the J. Evan's Pritchard eaquation of musical greatness and it finds them lacking. I'll alert the media.

I think Matt, Duncan and I should bring this discussion to Jim's class. I bet we could keep the kids attention for an hour.

PS-
Matt, just remember, Duncan thinks that REM are great, so I think his equation is a little off.

Oh, Duncan. Schooled? I have much yet to teach you, my young friend. Much.

Here's the thing about the fast food analogy. I don't eat fast food, and you shouldn't either. This is not a moral judgment on people who eat fast food. But eating fast food does not just affect you. It supports the major agribusinesses, who are absolutely destroying the environment. So while I don't care personally what you put into your body, I do care that you are engaging in an activity that affects the country in which I live--and therefore, I feel I have an obligation to try and convince you to change your behavior.

That's what argument is for. It's not a jousting match or a duel. It's about two or more people who are trying to figure out the best way to live on this planet, and when we argue with each other, we clarify our own positions, and sometimes we change them. I was on another listserv a while back with a strident vegetarian. I argued against him. Then I thought long and hard about what he said, and I stopped eating meat from the big agribusinesses. So you CAN change people's minds, and there's nothing wrong with trying to do so. Plus it's fun!

Argument is one of the healthiest things we can do in a democratic society--it helps us all understand ourselves and our world better. That's why it drives me bonkers when everyone just says "To each his own, man." You can do what you want, but when your actions affect me, then I'm going to argue with you about it. That doesn't mean I'm going to judge you, or think you're going to hell. It means we're all in this together, searching for the right way to live.

Queue the inspirational music; Duncan, acknowledge that you have been schooled; Matt and Yeti, have a hug. Ed, make a joke.

Now I have to sit through five more presentations on global warming.

Green Street Music Series Presents,

The hits of: Matchbox 20, Goo Goo Dolls, Counting Crows, Third Eye Blind, Hootie and the Blowfish and Maroon 5.

The Lucky Dog Music Hall 

Three sets 9pm sharp. $15.00 in advance, sponsored by WXLO.

Duncan I forgot to mention that I thought you were right about the soul thing. There's no way to defend that. Would that have stopped this thread a long time ago?

I was arguing more about whether or not it's legitimate to argue about music, and what makes it great--or whether it's all just personal opinion, and not worth arguing about--which is what I sometimes hear on here.

And "young" was a joke. You're what, like 50 or 55? Tom Petty's age, maybe?

But no boxing analogies! We're not fighting! We're seeking understanding!

It's only music...I used to get pissed at the "mainstream" but you know who really gives a fuck. My band has been nominated and even won for best indie band, but you know what, I can't stand half of what is considered "indie".

Pop music can be quite facinating from a songwriting and production level.
Pale, noisy,tuneless songs are aren't tough to write, but anyone here try writing something like "This Love"? As a musician, you should be able to step back and grasp what it's all about. Leave the hipster snob shit for the 20 year olds...

Quote:

zippyzero wrote:
Pale, noisy,tuneless songs are aren't tough to write, but anyone here try writing something like "This Love"? As a musician, you should be able to step back and grasp what it's all about.

I think that this thread was going merrily along its way, with various opinions being expressed, until I weighed in and all hell broke loose. So, I'll try to end it.

To clarify, I never said that middle-aged, tattooed mothers (or anyone else) shouldn't keep on listening to MB20 and dreaming of Rob Thomas in his skin-tight leather outfit, with the wide leather wristbands and his carefully tousled hair. I only said that I thought that it was like cheesy soft porn, which is to say that I think that it utilizes his position as a sex symbol to sell the music. I don't really care for that. If the topic came up, I'd say the same thing about Elvis and Jim Morisson. Call me a snob, say that I don't "get" music. Whatever. I get that MB20 and M5 are cheesy.

Yeti and Duncan,

Convincing you the The Dead have merit would take longer than convincing George Bush to use English correctly, but hear this one point: Yeti, you spoke of the noodling. Others speak of glaring mistakes. Some say they don't have the groove like Little Feat. Some say they they aren't tight like the Allman Brothers. Each analysis is correct, but forgets that the essense of The Dead doesn't stem from these ambitions. The looseness, the sheer chaos is not only incidental, it is the point. When the band is operating smoothly, the members move the one or try to upset the band in other ways. The sound man, Dan Healy, would add crazy delays to Bob Weir's mic anytime he tried to make a speech or get political. It was a group of guys completely fucking with everything all the time. And it all derived from their unique beginnings as the house band for Ken Kesey's acid tests. They mic'd Harley Davidsons as part of the drum duet section. They used Motion Sound Leslies arranged across the stage and ran the house mix through them during live sets. They intentionally tried to segue songs from an active repertoire of about 130 songs in new and interesting way - sometimes with disastrous results, sometimes uniquely.

To go to a rave and then say that the DJ wasn't tight is to miss the point.

And they were the last to pat themselves on the back. Garcia claimed that the music could sometimes reach excellence for seconds on end. 

The chaos was the point!

So, you can still hate them, but at least recognize that what they sought isn't what you are expecting. MMW does this sort of thing all the time. Abandon the time signature and the musical key, sometimes one, sometimes the other, sometimes both at once.

At least hate them for what they are.

THE END

i just read this whole thread, and man, are my lips tired.

anyway, the first MB20 song i ever heard was that one that went something like, "i want to push you around", and i thought then that i might like that band. i was very wrong.

You are correct. Can we make out now? I'm sick of arguing. 

Duncan when Matt comes over for the Tom Petty DVD can I come over with some Counting Crows live DVD's? Its only fair!

See this is why I love music. I was at that show and it blew me away. To each his own... what a perfect end to this thread. (i hope)

I thought the first single was good and it proved to be easy enough to quickly learn to play to fill set times to play a local bar.  The CD ended up having a couple other catchy and good songs on it.  

The second cd left me underwhelmed until I had heard the song "If You're Gone" enough times for the vague lyrics to really mesh with some personal stuff I was dealing with at the time (I had a second job where a seventy-plus co-worker insisted on WSRS)

I saw them live, drank a bunch of beer and had a great time.  The band and stage show/ pyro / pacing of the night was very good and I was afforded the extra unintentional comedy of soooo many young ladies dressing soooo hot but getting offended and creeped out when guys would check them out.

Saw them live again on the next tour, and though the show was still pretty good, it wasn't quite the same.  Second or third song in I could have sworn I heard a skip, as if the entire band was playing to a tape.  My girlfriend was the ONLY OTHER PERSON TO NOTICE.

I recently played 2 + of the albums for my one year old son, just kind of experimenting to see what styles of music he responds to, and to be honest, only half of the songs still speak to me anyway near they way they did.



When asked on  VH1 Storytellers whose career they planned to emulate, Rob Thomas gave the line about not setting out to copy anyone  yadayada but would strive for the career of...




Tom Petty, what with the longevity and consistency, letting the fans count on them coming through town with a solid live show and a batch of solid new songs every couple of years.


I've never hid my appreciation for them either.  I've always been fully prepared to take my lumps for liking them.  Fuel, Tantric, Hall and Oates, Rush, Huey Lewis, Korn, and especially Tesla.

Those aren't even my guilty pleasures (Trixter anyone?)

I don't understand the appeal of the Deftones or Tool.
I enjoyed Wilco's "Being There" but haven't "got" anything since.  
The Dead are OK.  
Oversaturation has ruined anything Nirvana for me.  
Linkin Park make me cringe.  
I have fallen far out of love with the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Sevendust.
I was looking forward to the latest Maroon 5 album, 'specially when I read that they were newly inspired by Stevie Wonder.  To that : OOps and Yecchh.

It's been a long time since I've been turned on to a new (or new to me) musical artist that has 'nourished my soul.'

Not so, Duncan. As much as I'd love to watch several hours of Tom Petty concert footage, I just have a hard time getting away. I'm really busy being morally superior and acting as self-appointed tastemaker for all things cultural. Besides, it's tough to say, "Honey, I'm going over to Duncan's house to watch several hours of Tom Petty concert footage and drink heavy beer. Have the kids washed and put to bed and dinner on the table when I get back."

Could it be that the concert at the Worcester Aud. suffered because of The Aud and not the band? No sound engineer on Earth equipped with state-of-the-art gear could make a decent mix in that room. I saw many shows there, though I'm not sure I heard any of them. The opening strains of the show would still be echoing around the room as the band was finishing up its encore. 

That said, I remember some friends at the time of that show (which I think was Counting Crows and Black Crowes), saying that CC were too mellow. That's often the gripe. Personally, I'm not looking for a workout/locker room soundtrack, something that will pump me up and let me "ROCK!" I like mellow. When Ed and I saw CC years back in Lowell, they opened with "Goodnight Elizabeth," a painful, and painfully slow, ballad, instead of the typical, lights-out rocker. I thought it was brilliant!

08/18/94 Worcester Mass Worcester Auditorium, MA (+Paula Cole + Cox Family)

The show does seem to come at the end of a long list of dates streching back about a year.

Ed? A little help here?

Duncan, I would never have accused you of thinking something is too mellow. If you coached a football team, you'd try to inspire them with This Mortal Coil.

Yes that is correct -Paula Cole- pre Dawson's Creek.

So Its a no? Ok. I'm going to go watch Friends in my Jetta.

Saw this in the providence journal today. Thought I'd a beat a dead horse.

Matchbox Twenty conquers the comeback trail

01:00 AM EDT on Monday, March 17, 2008

By Ernest A. Jasmin

McClatchy Newspapers

Rob Thomas, left, and Brian Yale of Matchbox Twenty perform in Los Angeles last summer.


AP / Chris Polk
Matchbox Twenty is a record executive