XPost: rec.sport.football.college   
      
   In rec.sport.football.college Jon Enslin  wrote:   
   > On Sep 11, 1:03 pm,  wrote:   
   >> In rec.sport.football.college Jon Enslin  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > On Sep 11, 11:40 am,  wrote:   
   >> >> In rec.sport.football.college Jon Enslin  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> > On Sep 11, 10:14 am,  wrote:   
   >> >> >> In rec.sport.football.college Archie Leach  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >> > "DokterZ"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >>Steely Dan.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >>In my list of most-overrated bands of the 70's, along with the   
   Eagles,  Sex   
   >> >> >> >>Pistols (duh) and Allman Brothers.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >>Kiss were more over-exposed, but everyone knew they sucked.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> > Please give a good explanation as to why you think Steely Dan is   
   >> >> >> > "overrated", besides "Well I don't like them" or "I don't understand   
   >> >> >> > their lyrics".   
   >>   
   >> >> >> 1) Almost absolute refusal to play live due to overly anal perfection   
   >> >> >> obsession.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> 2) Inability to craft an album without using 27 session guitarists,   
   >> >> >> 14 session bassists, 22 session drummers... hell, on one song on   
   >> >> >> Aja (I don't recall which) they used the snare track from one session   
   >> >> >> drummer, and the rest of the playing from another - not because one   
   >> >> >> was wrong, but they liked the snare hits better on the other... and   
   >> >> >> then they didn't even use the entire snare track, but a single snare   
   >> >> >> hit the copied and grafted with overly anal precision onto the track.   
   >>   
   >> >> > Why would either of the two above classify them as "overrated?"   
   >>   
   >> >> I think being able to play live, and well, is the true mark of great   
   >> >> musicians. If you can't do it live, and you're highly rated - you're   
   >> >> overrated.   
   >>   
   >> >> Live performance is the pinnacle.   
   >>   
   >> > While I would agree that duplicating studio performance live is   
   >> > important,   
   >>   
   >> Nope - in fact duplicating studio perfromances live is the worst   
   >> performance. Rote memorization at its worst. I want different,   
   >> interesting, and equally as competent as in the studio.   
   >   
   >   
   > I meant duplicating the quality of their music...not an exact copy of   
   > what they recorded.  I was thinking about the number of bands that   
   > sound considerably worse live than they do in studio.   
      
   ...and those are bands I think suck... All my favorite bands sound   
   better live than in studio recordings mostly (everyone has an   
   occassional off night).   
      
   --   
   Aaron   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)