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

Heyyyyy...I remember you! You were the lady who said that "A Little Less Conversation" was the epitome of everything wrong with British Culture, and said we we're all mooks, hooligans and thugs for liking it.
(I'm paraphrasing, of course. It's been so long since I saw that thread)

- The timbre of Dave's voice is often extraordinarily ugly. He sounds like he's trying to form all of his vowels with the roof of his mouth.

- The fiddle-timbre of the violin grates against the horns, making it nigh-impossible for them to play in tune together.

- Their songs register to my ears as very safe. They never take any extreme or unpredictable turns; in fact, you could probably find the basic chord progressions of most of the songs in a second-semester theory class. I understand that a huge reason for this is to give a solid foundation on which to solo, but the solos don't sparkle or impress.

- I've never heard them let their bass player get seriously ill. Given how great I think their bass player might be, this is criminal.

have you actually read dan's post?

Point me at a song.

They do take risks, just not as much music wise as it is timing and tempo.

Point me at a song.

Clearly I'm not going to take your word for anything because I heard their first two albums and was not impressed enough to pursue them any further, largely because of the reasons I listed.

Dan, no lie, that's a beautiful piece of criticism right there.

Should it require more than a few CDs and singles to form an opinion of this band? If their readily available material (presumably the music the band felt most satisfied with to represent them) fails to create a favorable impression, why do you have such a seemingly damn hard time fathoming how -- for even a nanosecond -- that you may actually indeed be mistaken in your assertion that the DMB's music is anything other than bog-fucking-standard?

If you're not going to stand by statements, might I suggest you reconsider making them in the first place. What else have we to go on other than your own words in this debate?

At the very least, I think we can all safely, heartily and cheerily agree that Linkin Park suck from a big, greasy bag of cock, right?

I don't appreciate the amplification of every statement I make

Understood, but I think this is happening because you're not answering a lot of specific questions in turn. Dan, for instance, has brought up a lot that you're not apparently dealing with. Saying that you're not being understood or that you're being treated too harshly when you're not willing to engage further with what's asked is a bit of a problem -- especially if you're so single-mindedly focused on getting US to engage further with a band you like. It goes both ways.

Criticising the band for technical, lyrical, or any other intangible factors when you aren't entirely informed is a totally different animal

If people are getting annoyed with the band BECAUSE of something technical, lyrical, etc. and say so, what more do you want? It can't be intangible if it is there and they're pointing to it.

I'm not fond of a lot of bands, but if I haven't experienced them in their entirety then I do not pass jugement on them

If you aren't fond of a band you have passed a judgment. It may be a temporary one or may be one that you are wanting to note is something based on only a few things that you've heard, but it's still a judgment.

Your mom's a wall.

Best comeback evah.

I did not say that violins and woodwinds can never be in tune with each other. I sing with the Boston Symphony; I hear violins and woodwinds in tune on a regular basis. What I said was that their violin player's timbre (which more often than not sounds like Irish fiddle) doesn't match well with the saxophone. It's a "unique" sound that never really rings, gels or clicks.

I'd also like to note that you STILL haven't pointed me at any specific songs.