The Band - Myth or Reality?

Yes.

There are standards applied to most artistic displines: classical music, jazz, and pop;fiction, poetry, drama and journalism; theatre and film; and, my favorite, architecture.

Doesn't mean you have to agree. But the "I know art when I see it" doesn't qualify as one of those objective standards.

As far as critics go, you might start with Aristotle. He was, you know, kinda important.

 

How about this as a quanitative criteria: we measure the heart rate and adrenolin level in small group first after they have listened to Mississippi Queen and then after listening to "The Weight".

 

I like Mountain, but in the Mountain-vs.the Band debate, I've got to back the Band.

 

It goes on. Boom vs. the Voices In His Head That Are Musical Snobs.

 

Why the snide comments asshole?

Why not just particpate in an interesting discussion that seems to have captured the interest of many.

You like the Band better - fine. No need to to turn it into a personal attack.

 

Boom, there are two issues here. Personal appeal and actual musical talent. Don't confuse one with the other.

As proof that there are some sort of objective standards, go browse through the "Writing Workshop" over at the Journalism Board.

Now, maybe everyone doesn't agree to whether a certain piece of art achieves certain standards, it's pretty much evident they exist.

I happen to like The Doors but that's more because they take me back to my university days. I wouldn't make the argument that my memories of them make then anything more than a bubblegum pop group with a seriously pretentious lead singer.

 

Touchy today, are we?
Jesus. Boom, this all started because you determined that, and I quote:
"I've honestly never got the whole Band thing since The Last Waltz Came out and the musical snobs were lactating over the movie."
It wasn't about the relative musical ability or artistic validity of The Band. It was about you and your goddamn phony proletarian outrage about people who you believe are trying to make you intellectually insecure. Again.
And calling someone an "asshole" while appealing for civility is a meta-moment, I do admit.

 

the Kinks are the most underrated band ever. I would say Kinks > Zep & Kinks > the Who and you can definitely make a case for Kinks > Stones

the Stones' shit period was shit. the Kinks' shit period was great

 

What I can't figure out is whether Boom truly doesn't like The Band, or just doesn't like the critics who like The Band.
If it's the former, he's got company with, among other people, Bob Christgau. And even I admit that their best post-Stage Fright work was on live versions of pre-Stage Fright material. If it's the latter, then he's being silly.
And how can you possibly spend two days defending Mountain without mentioning "Theme For An Imaginary Western"?
And The Kinks are, of course, great.

 

I think Boom is just trying to be perversely contrarian by posting opinions that are prima facie nonsensical and then accusing people of being elitist snobs when they disagree with him.

Or maybe he just doesn't like The Band.

And there probably isn't a more talented keyboard player in the history of rock than Garth Hudson--a classically trained musician who played the Lowry organ as a kid.

 

I'm fine with The Band. Like their music as much as I like a lot of music. What I just never understood was all the hand wringing and tears that seem to go with their break up.

I guess I've never thought they were as great as the music critics have told us they were.

I decided to pose the question to the board. Based on the responses it seems like their are others with same questions.

If it does prove one thing its that those who love The Band are very emotionaly attached.

 

Boom, no hand-wringing or tears here. They were great while they lasted.

I was more upset when the Leafs traded Mahovlich.