CoNtrivedNiHilism

In a world of music, full of opinions and mixed up facts, of music elitists that knock every band that doesn't fit a certain criteria for them, what would everyone's opinion on calling certain members of whatever band, can't hack it wannabe's, exactly be?

I'm asking because sometimes I will go to the websites of whatever music magazine, see that they have put a compilation of 'greatest guitar players of past and present' together, and then go to maybe their facebook page to see what random peoples opinions are on the musicians that made the list and whether they feel they deserve to be on it at all. Most recently would by the lead player of Avenged Sevefold, Synyster Gates being listed as the 6th greatest guitar player of all time. Now, the list was complied by some radio station so I'm sort of like whatever about it. But the comments I read on my facebook about Synyster sounded a bit unfair. I say that because it seemed like those opinions were based around the fact that he's in Avenged Sevenfold. A lot of people love that band, but a lot of people also hate the band too. Me? I'm indifferent for the most part on Avenged Sevenfold.

Is it fair to bash a musician and say he's crap based on the band he's in and the music they have contributed to that band while in it? I don't think it is. There's instances where certain members or just a single member of a band is just on a whole other level musically, technically than their band mates. So they tone down what they can do to accommodate. In the case of Avenged Sevenfold and Synyster Gates. I think that from a technical standpoint or from a musical knowledge, Synyster is more versed than his band mates, to me he doesn't look to be all that challenged being in the band that he is in, I'm certain he's more capable than what people know him for in Avenged Sevenfold.

Anyway. That's not the point of the topic, just an example of what I mean. So, what do all of you think on the matter. Is it fair to judge a musicians capability as a musician by the work they're known for in whatever band they're a part of? I guess I am basing this around bands that are known to have a lot of haters, so basically people saying every band member is garbage just because of the band they're a member of.

Thoughts?

Thelonious Monkey

I think people should just watch them live, and then have a better opinion. Nickelback are the most hated band in the world, but if you watch them live, Chad is really a good singer.

Isbjørn

Alright, I've never heard him live, but to me Chad sounds as if he's really, really constipated.

__________________

Thelonious Monkey

Meh. I don't really like them. They were my first rock band, unfortunately. But I don't think I could listen to them again. But I still respect them. They all have talent, I guess. To some extent, Justin Bieber has talent. .

Pet_Sounds

If a musician truly cares about his music, he won't dumb it down to the level of his band mates. He'll either take the music to another level or leave the band and either find some people on his level or go solo. Brian Wilson ****ed with the formula despite the resistance of the other Beach Boys. Graham Nash left the Hollies for Crosby and Stills.

__________________
Everybody's dying just to get the disease

CoNtrivedNiHilism

hahaha, I think it's just the way his voice is when he sings, makes him sound that way. Don't care about the band he's in, but I also don't think he's the worst singer I've listened to either. I think the band as a whole unit is more capable than the music they make, but they make what they know sells records, they're largely still pretty successful this far in to their career. Whatever thought.

Keep those opinions coming peeps.

@ Pet_Sounds

Yeah man, I get what you're saying. So to some extent, maybe the hash certain members of a band gets is partly on them for not moving on to a band whose musically on their level.

Janszoon

Well, how else are you going to judge them? That said, I do sort of see what you're saying. The band that always comes to mind when I think about this kind of thing is Limp Bizkit. I generally think they're a pretty terrible band, but also have always been convinced that Wes Borland and John Otto are both fairly talented guys who could possibly make some good music under different musical circumstances.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Urban Hat€monger ?

Musical 'talent' isn't the be all and end all of everything.
You could have all the musical chops in the world but if you have nothing worth saying and you're playing in a faceless boring generic rock band liked by nobody over the age of 15 then you kind of deserve to be there and you deserve to get criticism.

__________________

Pet_Sounds

I also think that some musicians are meant to be solo artists and others are meant to be in a group. Take Bob Dylan. I doubt very much whether his music would be as good if he wasn't in complete control of it. On the other hand, the two halves of the Lennon-McCartney partnership didn't produce as well solo as when they were working together in a group.

__________________
Everybody's dying just to get the disease

CoNtrivedNiHilism

On the regard of Limb Bizkit. I have had the same opinion of Wes Borland and John Otto since I first started listening to them back when I was a wee young lad in middle school. Wes Borland is a fairly above average guitar player, but I wouldn't go much more past that. John Otto has a keen understand of good rhythm...other things too that I can't name, forgetful.

Eh, I don't know about that. Criticism will be given irregardless of having something to say, or having nothing to say, whether you've any musical aptitude, or none at all.