Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Music Junkies...Stone Temple Pilots

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #1

    Music Junkies...Stone Temple Pilots

    A few of my friends and i are having a discussion regarding the relative "greatness" of STP.

    My friends all refer to STP as a "great" band. I view them as a solid if unspectacular band. They have their share of really good songs, but the moniker of 'great" cannot be put upon them.

    Also, what constitutes "great" when referring to musical bands or artists?

    Thoughts?
    "I lingered round them, under that benign sky: watched the moths fluttering among the heath and harebells, listened to the soft wind breathing through the grass, and wondered how any one could ever imagine unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth."
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Beatles are great, work down from here.

    Comment

    • #3
      Your personal taste dictates what is great and what is not. You can never be wrong about your opinion. If your friends think STP is great, good for them. A love for a band can bring up happy memories (or sad ones for that matter) and that can influence your opinion on what is great or not.

      How's that for what is probably the most unexpected response by me on this site? I'm sure some were expecting me to say something along the lines of "All the bands I like are great and you are dumb for not agreeing with me."
      I'm unconsoled I'm lonely, I am so much better than I used to be.

      The Weakerthans Aside

      Comment

      • #4
        I tend to agree with your assessment of STP - good, solid, not great.

        Great requires creating music that is special for its time, over an extended period of time.
        It certainly feels that way. But I'm distrustful of that feeling and am curious about evidence.

        Comment

        • #5
          Originally posted by BuckyBuckner View Post
          Your personal taste dictates what is great and what is not. You can never be wrong about your opinion. If your friends think STP is great, good for them. A love for a band can bring up happy memories (or sad ones for that matter) and that can influence your opinion on what is great or not.

          How's that for what is probably the most unexpected response by me on this site? I'm sure some were expecting me to say something along the lines of "All the bands I like are great and you are dumb for not agreeing with me."
          I agree for sure BB. Objectively every band you like is great to you. But subjectively are STP great?
          "I lingered round them, under that benign sky: watched the moths fluttering among the heath and harebells, listened to the soft wind breathing through the grass, and wondered how any one could ever imagine unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth."

          Comment

          • #6
            Underrated band IMO. Not great, but 2 of their albums really stand up. They got a lot of criticism in the 90's for being hangers on ... fake grunge. Unwarranted criticism.

            Bush on the other hand ...

            Comment

            • #7
              I prefer to define worst bands
              And it is a formula
              Amount of crappyness multiplied by years of successful career
              So a lousy band for a few years gets beaten by a long term mediocre band
              And STP is neither great not junk (if that is what you really want to know)

              Comment

              • #8
                Originally posted by swampdragon View Post
                I prefer to define worst bands
                And it is a formula
                Amount of crappyness multiplied by years of successful career
                So a lousy band for a few years gets beaten by a long term mediocre band
                Eagles for the win!
                If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
                - Terence McKenna

                Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)

                How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige

                Comment

                • #9
                  Originally posted by DMT View Post
                  Eagles for the win!
                  How about Steve Miller? Or Chicago after first 3 albums?
                  Battling for second place

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DMT View Post
                    Eagles for the win!
                    Bullshit. The Eagles were solid.
                    "I lingered round them, under that benign sky: watched the moths fluttering among the heath and harebells, listened to the soft wind breathing through the grass, and wondered how any one could ever imagine unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth."

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by swampdragon View Post
                      How about Steve Miller? Or Chicago after first 3 albums?
                      Battling for second place
                      More bullshit. Chicago made some really good albums after the first three. They became a different type of band, sure. More pop leanings, but they still had the talent to make good songs.
                      "I lingered round them, under that benign sky: watched the moths fluttering among the heath and harebells, listened to the soft wind breathing through the grass, and wondered how any one could ever imagine unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth."

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mithrandir View Post
                        Bullshit. The Eagles were solid.
                        yes - but how many years WERE they solid and how many more years ARE they mediocre?

                        and who do you pick for my silly formula?

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by swampdragon View Post
                          yes - but how many years WERE they solid and how many more years ARE they mediocre?

                          and who do you pick for my silly formula?
                          I don't think the Eagles hit mediocrity. The Long Run was their worst album, but it had some bright spots. Ok compared to their other albums it was mediocre.

                          Gotta think on my answers.
                          "I lingered round them, under that benign sky: watched the moths fluttering among the heath and harebells, listened to the soft wind breathing through the grass, and wondered how any one could ever imagine unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth."

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by swampdragon View Post
                            yes - but how many years WERE they solid and how many more years ARE they mediocre?

                            and who do you pick for my silly formula?
                            Sorry if my bullshit comment was harsh. I didn't mean it that way as i forgot the little smiley face.
                            "I lingered round them, under that benign sky: watched the moths fluttering among the heath and harebells, listened to the soft wind breathing through the grass, and wondered how any one could ever imagine unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth."

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              I was all ready to support the Eagles for the win meme, but after looking it up I realize that they only put out 7 studio albums as The Eagles, and only one after 1979. So I don't think that they fit the criteria for worst band.

                              By contrast, Chicago put out 24 studio albums, and have been active as a band since 1969 (they had an 8 year pause from 1998-2006, but otherwise put albums out every couple of years or so). And really, has their music had any relevance at all since 1971???

                              Even if you want to include some of their mushy pop stuff as tolerable, If You Leave Me Now was recorded in 1976 - 40 years ago!!!

                              My vote goes to Chicago.

                              edit: seriously, Chicago XXV: The Christmas Album was put out in 1998. How much more evidence do we need? I suppose it should be listened to after watching A Very Brady Christmas.
                              It certainly feels that way. But I'm distrustful of that feeling and am curious about evidence.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                              Working...
                              X