Would you consider this band "talented"?

Achilleslastand said:
Boy band?:facepalm:
While their first few albums were mostly pop radio friendly fluff everything from Rubber Soul afterwards was exceptional and showed that the band had grown not only as individuals but as a band. Rubber Soul, Sgt Peppers and Abbey Road all make the "greatest rock albums of all time list and puts them up in stellar company{Pink, Floyd, Zeppelin, Stones} without question.
40 plus years after their demise as a band and they still sell albums and get tremendous airplay. Can we say the same for Muse 40 years down the road.......I think not.:hammer:
Click to expand...

I approve this post. And I gave you a like as well. :)
 
JDSmith said:
Talent takes a back seat to presentation and catchiness almost every time.
Click to expand...

Actually, talent has a lot to do with staying power. One hit wonders get lucky and hit on "a" catchy tune. Talented musicians / singer hit many times because they are talented enough to continue writing catchy tunes. (The Beatles crushed it)

Lady Gaga *is* very talented and I think the proof of that goes back to well before she became a star. I think her real problem is she was always trying to sell herself as a freak show rather than spending her time working on her music. If you're a great muscian, your music will sell itself. You don't need to be a freak show. Another band that did the same thing was KISS. They tried to sell freak show when they really didn't have too. The freak show got them main stream, but once they were there. They didn't need it.

Slipknot does it too, Slipknot usually has a song or two on an album and the rest is garbage. That says that there is a specific person that makes them great and the rest of the band is probably untalented in a creative sense. (probably Corey Taylor, Mick Thompson, or Joey Jordison) Really, Skipknot probably needs to keep the freak show going as I think they fade away soon anyhow. Their ratio of hit and miss is just way to large.
 
They get points in my book for this:



They were forced to do a lip sync/mime routine, so they all switched places to mock the process. Hilarious.
 
CyberB0b said:
They get points in my book for this:



They were forced to do a lip sync/mime routine, so they all switched places to mock the process. Hilarious.
Click to expand...


That was pretty damned funny. The way the lead singer was playing the drums was awesome in its over the top ridiculousness.
 
Future said:
They were creative I guess, but in terms of actual talent, they're nowhere near the top. There are tons of bands, including Muse, who are more technically talented than the Beatles.
Click to expand...

I am not a big Beatles fan, but I can't believe that you would even compare them to Muse. The Beatles are iconic. Muse is just another band that nobody will remember ten years from now.
 
Sam I Am said:
Actually, talent has a lot to do with staying power. One hit wonders get lucky and hit on "a" catchy tune. Talented musicians / singer hit many times because they are talented enough to continue writing catchy tunes. (The Beatles crushed it)

Lady Gaga *is* very talented and I think the proof of that goes back to well before she became a star. I think her real problem is she was always trying to sell herself as a freak show rather than spending her time working on her music. If you're a great muscian, your music will sell itself. You don't need to be a freak show. Another band that did the same thing was KISS. They tried to sell freak show when they really didn't have too. The freak show got them main stream, but once they were there. They didn't need it.

Slipknot does it too, Slipknot usually has a song or two on an album and the rest is garbage. That says that there is a specific person that makes them great and the rest of the band is probably untalented in a creative sense. (probably Corey Taylor, Mick Thompson, or Joey Jordison) Really, Skipknot probably needs to keep the freak show going as I think they fade away soon anyhow. Their ratio of hit and miss is just way to large.
Click to expand...

Kiss had one of the best live shows ever. I paid $250 dollars for five tickets to see Kiss and I left the concert willing to pay $250 for one ticket. They put on a great show. Kid Rock puts on a great concert as well. Very high energy with a wide range of music.
 
lol so of course this shows up at the top of the page

9420923323540875706


they are watching you,people,its not a joke
 
No, I don't consider Muse to be a talented band, especially since I've never heard of them.

I do consider this to be a talented band.





Or this one...



 
I've been to alot of shows, big and small, all genres and there are a bunch of bands that do a great live show, but hands down the best live show I've ever been to was George Clinton and The P-Funk All-Stars. The full Parliament/Funkadelic stage show is surreal, dozens of musicians, dancers, singers, performers, it's spiritual, political, funny, crazy, it's a sensory overload. When the Mothership lands on stage and Dr. Funkenstein emerges and pimp walks down to the stage..... It's a life altering experience.

"Ain't no party like a P-funk party cause a P-Funk party don't stop."
 
I think age has s lot to do with music evaluation. Some of these young guys don't appreciate the true legends of music. Their are many bands with talent at the current time. Only a couple can withstand the test of time and their music will live on forever. Guns and Roses is a band that will condos bin history as one of the greats. How does Muse compare.how do they compare to the King , Elvis. The test of time is the determining factor of great music. The great ones make music that is timeless. It is just as good now as it was 30 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 38 more.
Total: 1,026 (members: 138, guests: 888)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
465,605
Messages
13,885,868
Members
23,791
Latest member
mashburn
Back
Top