Dave Matthews Band : Name Your Reasons Why They Are So Bad & Hated.

Well, my fave all time band ever is pretty obscure in terms of the mainstream -- My Bloody Valentine, an Irish/English group from the mid eighties through the early nineties. Fave album, fave song, fave concert, all them down the line. Second fave band is the Chameleons, a Manchester band from the eighties who recently reunited and are hopefully still together though I've been hearing some odd news. In terms of more famous acts, I'd name all sorts of characters, but I'm a product of my time in many ways, so up near the top would be Depeche Mode, the Cure, New Order (and Joy Division for sure), the Pet Shop Boys, the Smiths, Prince and many others. And definitely the Smashing Pumpkins, much to everyone's annoyance around here. ;-) Then there's other obscure bands like the Walkabouts, Disco Inferno, Marc Almond's solo material (at least in the States), older bands like T. Rex, older singers like Scott Walker and David Bowie, etc. etc. Newer things, I don't have too many bands per se I obsess over as much, but that list can go on too -- very much enjoy Timbaland and Missy Elliott as producers and often performers, though. I sorta more appreciate the Neptunes now as producers but I still think they're astonishingly overrated. Then there's the more obscure drone stuff and random newer electronic acts and unknown goth things and random noise projects from New Zealand and my friends with bands like Celesteville and the Minor Thirds and Lance Lockarm and the International Telepaths and...

Ned, why do I feel like you're our camp counselor all of a sudden? ;)

;-) My friend, think of it this way -- isn't it better to talk than insult? :-)

I'm a Dave Matthews Band fan and I cant stand Hootie. All of you that are dissing Dave and his band, obviously haven't given him a chance. Actually try to listen to them then you may discover that they aren't bad. Dont judge them without knowing what they are all about. They are making millions and usually boring music doesn't do that. The reason for that is because they are great musicians. I love all kinds of music so dont even try judging the fans either. You dont know them or me you have no right to say stuff about us. Sure some of you may be offended about his one line "hike up your skirt a little more and show the world to me" come on its not nearly as bad as half the rap that is played twice or sometimes 3 times as much as what Dave gets played on the radio.

1. As mentioned above, there are many, many different topics on this board, and to imagine this thread as representative of the entire board, and everyone who posts here is, though maybe an easy mistake to make, stil a mistake.

2. This board is populated by many, many different people. Some of them are well-known and well-regarded musicians, and others are w-k and w-r writers. Some people on this board write for nationally-distributed periodicals, and some have even published their own books. Some here are probably preparing to celebrate the purchase of their 10,000th CD, so it is wise to know who you are talking to before making accusations.

3. If you want to convince us to love any band at all, it is better to state what you like about the group, and it helps to be very specific. Name particular songs, particular moments in songs, and why they make you happy.

4. Its good to be aware of the nature of your language. To say a band is "the best" is to implicate other bands as somehow being worse, even ones you have not heard. On the other hand, to say you like a particular band is quite different.

5. Many on this board are open to pop music, even the "fake" stuff. Why? Well, here is an example: I like some Rap, but I am unimpressed by the music of 50 Cent. However, millions do love his music, and I tend to wonder why. Since I am actually curious, I do my best to hear his music, and try to understand why anyone would like it. Sometimes when I go through this process, my mind is changed (as it was in the case of Aaliyah). In other cases, I continue to dislike the particular music (I cant get past 50s monotone, and his mealy-mouthed delivery, and his productions seems uninspired), but I understand why someone else would like it (some of those tracks could be fun to hear in a club, and his image probably plays an important role as well). Coming to terms is an important process of making opionions and expressing them. If you find yourself asking "why would anyone in their right mind listen to this?", you have to do research and answer that question first before dismissing the music.
(id would actually be interested to see some of the prime DMB hatahs on this board do that ;-)
6. Lastly, the idea of a band or musician being "real" or "fake" does not hold much sway here. What makes an artist "fake" or "real"?
- Clothing? But both Britney and DM are aware of what they are wearing, and what image they are trying to project, and that self-awareness makes it hard to say one is more "real" than the other (this goes for Pavement too ya'll). Our culture certainly has definitions about what looking "real" is, but, if you try to fit these definitions self-consciously, couldn't that make you "fake"?
- Is an artist singing his or her own songs more "real" than an artist who doesnt? Before the advent of rock, it was very common for artists to sing or play the songs of others. Is Miles Davis fake? Talentless? Whatever you think of his music, it did impact the DMB. He is one of the inventors of fusion, meaning one of the first to combine jazz, rock and pop, which is what the DMB does, in their own way.
- If it is more "real" to be a great technical player", well, not all of the best artists were or are great technical players. To use Miles Davis as an example again, he is not considered, by many jazz aficionados, to be one of the great technical trumpeters. He could not play very quickly compared to many, and he was weak with higher notes. He used his technique, however, to great adavantage, and some of his best and most innovative music came out of his acceptance of his limitations. He knew he couldnt play fast like Dizzy Gillespie, so he focused on making music suited to his style. So again, technique is not everything, the results are more important. Additionally, not all of the best music is made with intruments. Electronic music, in its various forms, has been around since least the 50s, and electronic instruments have been around since the turn of the century. Many predate the electric guitar, so to say that they are "fake", or that the music made with them is "fake" sounds odd to those who are aware of this history. Each style of electronic music, whether it is Musique Concrete, or Acid House, has its own history, its own reasons for existing, and, most importantly, its own possibility of pleasing ears, of meaing something, of even, dare I say, changing lives, even in the same way that DMB does. Its all a matter of coming to terms. Additionally, every piece of music that has been recorded has been affected by technology. Even if I were to do an album of acoustic guitar and singing (more "real", right?), the sound of the album, and therefore how you perceive it, will be affected by what microphones I use, and what medium the music was placed on (tape, my computer, etc.). Rock bands, for years, have been, for the most part, spending ages in the studio, cutting and splicing, tweaking and filtering, to hone their product, and this part of the process is just as important as the songs and performances. Rock music, in the sudio at least, is usually just as produced and manufactured as pop music. At the end of the process, it sounds like 4 or 5 people were in a room playing music together at the same time, but this is usaully not the case, especially when the band is rich and famous and can afford to take their time.

Nobody is perfect, and it is a challenge to discuss any topic with the ideals listed above constantly in mind...

I am going to rest and then get on to my feelings RE DMB...

Then I remember that DeRogatis likes DMB and I'm torn between two taste gestures.

One of these days I'll get around to listening to the music again so I can decide if I like them based on something other than indirect considerations but meanwhile Ned and Aaron need to lighten the fuck up and *listen* for a change to the points that foax are making.

I'm talking about the actual EQ/mixing/micing of the drum. Listening closely is the exact opposite of what needs to be done in order to hear what I'd like to hear. I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong w/the drumming (or any other aspect of DMB), just that it doesn't appeal to me.

Not all music requires in your face parts. The drums don't need to "kick" on all the songs, just as the bass doesn't need to "thump" on all the songs. It's called balance...give one instrument the lead part and everything else just helps them out.

True, although you kind of derided your point: I don't think something is balanced if one instrument has the lead. I listen to tons of mellow stuff--I don't need something to be loud and aggressive to affect me. What I'm saying is that the drums NEVER kicks, the bass NEVER thumps. There's no funk, no heavy rhythm, no swinging groove, no woozy psychedelia, no sublime harmonies, no nothin' that I like. It all just seems very watered-down.

Pretty much EVERY band's fans has negative stereotypes

Amen! And just to prove it, I shall name some of my absolute favorite musical artists and give you the stereotypes (all false, mind you) that come along with them:

Duran Duran, Scritti Politti, Tears for Fears:  I am some former teenybopper who's also a holdover from the '80s. I wear lots of pink, frilly things, like to read old issues of Smash Hits, and talk like a Valley Girl IRL.

The Cure, Depeche Mode, Belfegore, Siouxsie & the Banshees:  I am a goth (as opposed to a Visigoth, which is something completely different) who is nothing but sour and darkness. I wear nothing but black, look like the undead, write bad, melodramatic poetry, and spend my days moping about.

David Sylvian, Bryan Ferry:  I am nothing but creaking bones. I cannot handle "real rock & roll" (obviously wrong as I'm also a huge Nirvana fan), but rather listen to soft, mellow songs instead.

And yes, I love U2 as well. I'm in the minority here, obviously, but I do quite like U2's songs. But that doesn't mean I'm going to follow every little thing Bono says and agree with it. I mean, he's sung the praises of Destiny's Child, for Pete's sake, and I'm absolutely in no way even remotely inclined to try them out.

Oh yes, and to all the Dave Matthews Band fans who might still be reading this thread: You think YOU'VE gotten grief over being fans of the band. Huh. At least many music critics and most of the mainstream music press seem to take your favorite band seriously. One of my biggest obsessions has been with Duran Duran -- they've never gotten a single positive review ever, as far as I know. Not only that, they get lampooned by pretty much everyone in the music press (save for the ones who happen to post here). I've taken a lot of shit for being a Duran fan, but that hasn't stopped me from being a fan. In fact, it's strengthened my fanhood tremendously.

Presently, seeing as though I've matured a bit, someone can tell me they don't like any one of the artists I adore and I wouldn't have a problem with that. So long as the individual's not saying anything bad about ME, PERSONALLY (which I have not seen in this thread), I don't mind.

That's a bit rich, Sterling.

Heaven forbid some people think "DAVE" is shit! They obviously haven't heard him, or or or are jealous, or or or are arrogant and mean, they couldn't possibly just think his music is total fucking wank, oh no, there must be some outrageous ulterior motive, maybe a big corporation or nike shoes or george w or a foetus or heres whatever yeah dave matthews band rocks.

I'm sure I've said this here before, but whatever. Any zealous declarations of fandom (i.e. "Killing Joke Uber Alles!" or "DMB RULES!") will immediately render any opinion you could submit moot, as you're subtracted any semblance of objectivity from your argument. Moreover, statements like "DMB play REAL music and you're just jealous" is as effective an approach as "my Dad can beat up YOUR Dad!" It's pointless and devoid of any real merit in the course of a debate.

Yes, taste is indeed all relative, but you still have to be able to back up your arguments with more than that. Convince me that you've listened to a myriad other artists and still come back to DMB and you'll be waging a stronger campaign to win me over.

A rare occasion when I would urge you to listen to Bono, Dee.

*bongo solo*

You seems to be hedging your bets. Which is it: do the drums kick? or is it unnecessary for them to do so?
I still think you're misunderstanding me--I'm speaking purely from a engineering/producing perspective. And it's not just the drums; everything seems so tame. There's no sonic distinctiveness to anything. Again, there's nothing inherently wrong w/that, it's just not my--and I'm guessing many others'--cup of tea.

Millar OTM

And should bands be liked by everybody? I dont see how. Bands should be an acquired taste. They shouldnt be like Coca Cola where its marketed for everyone to like. I find the appeal of DMB is that its not marketed like that, it is out of the mainstream.
Most fans arent buying the albums and going to concerts because of mtv/radio hits. And also the fact the music is great and is different to anything else out there.

http://www.mtv.com/news/photos/l/limp_bizkit01/flipbooks/images/flip3.jpg

keep rollin', baby!

I will the the first to admit that I do not meet some of the ideals listed above, but I think some of them are worth striving for. Additionally, I think some of the problems faced in music criticism also apply to other artisitc and social arenas. The unwillngness to come to terms with a different type (of whatever sort), to rely on assumptions and stereotypes, and not understanding or experience, is, to me, a flawed process, one that goes on not only in music but also in interpersonal relationships, and social ones. Sterling, your fervent defence of antiracism over the span of many threads, for instance, creates the expectation, for me, that you are familiar with the process of the willful misunderstanding of others, which is certainly at least part, though not all, of the problem of racism. Again, though the context is different, the underlying logic is similar. The logic itself is problematic, and any views stemming from it are automatically flawed.

Lastly, I spent a lot of time on my post last night, which is maybe why it sounds pedantic, but it is also why I may seem to be missing the point. After a while, I figured it would be better to cover gaffes that may not have been specifically made, just because I happened to think of them while I was writing.

Limp Bizkit > Linkin Park > Foreigner > Smashing Pumpkins > Matchbox 20 > Nickelback > DMB > REO Speedwagon > Creed > Styx > Staind

No MP3's, we're in the process. It's (I know I said it wasn't a jam band, but it is a teeny bit "jammy")jam/jazz/rock/hard to explain type of music with a lot of freaky keys and meters. You'd have to hear it to understand what I'm saying. And no, it doesn't sound like DMB in the least bit.

Says you.

Killing Joke is perfect.

http://www.an-irrational-domain.net/images/band79-82/band81bed.jpg

yes all right Alex, you don't have to be snippy about it though :(

Alex, apart from Killing Joke. What other bands do you like?

Killing Joke will always be my absolute faves, but other than they....in no particular order: Cop Shoot Cop/Firewater, the Misfits, XTC, Devo, the Stranglers, Buzzcocks, the Ramones, Iggy & the Stooges, the Modern Lovers, Kiss, the Birthday Party, Julian Cope, Black Flag, The Wedding Present, Talk Talk, Joy Division/New Order, the Circle Jerks, Gang of Four, the Pop Group, Gavin Friday, Queen, Massive Attack, Motorhead, Anthrax, the Sisters of Mercy, Discipline-era King Crimson, the Velvet Underground, This Mortal Coil, the Smiths, Talking Heads, Bowie, the Cure, the Cult, Theatre of Hate, Kraut, Ch3, Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, the Damned......and a bunch more.