…I don’t have any. He seems like a nice enough guy in interviews but here’s what I don’t like:
1. his sense of melody
2. jam bands
3. the alto sax (you say Coltrane, I say Kenny G)
4. “high performance” basses like the one in the video
5. his voice
6. faux acoustic guitars
7. the Villanova hippie sensibilities of his fans
I always thought he was the alternative for the guys that are the right age group to drool over Guns N Roses that think that band is too heavy. The kinds of guys that wear wicker shoes and think Jimmy Buffet fans are onto something really good.
He doesn’t have any female fans, does he? Man, I bet they smell bad if he does.
There is nothing subversive about Dave Matthews, his jams all sound the same (And are too controlled)I saw him (for free)the week his 2nd CD came out and had 10th row center seats. I was bored out of my mind.
The 3-4 singles he put out when he first started are ok songs at 3:05 but then they jam ’em out for another 10
You couldn’t be more wrong. Back in the day, when I worked at a CD store, whenever a new Dave Matthews Band CD would come out, my male co-workers would get all excited to oggle the LEGIONS of hot babes that would come in to buy his newest release. The female customers were all hot, young college co-eds for the most part. I still remember this quote from my manager: “I don’t like Dave Matthews, but I sure can appreciate his fans.”
“Outside of that you have the following choices…” and jungleland lays down the law on basses. This is what I love most about rock roll — the rules. If there’s anything guaranteed to make rock & roll better it’s more rules. Especially ones that say what you can’t do. Those are golden.
All rock doesn’t have to be subversive, but DMB is nothing if not a glorification of thrift-store records ever-present. David Koechner doing his “Eddie Vedder imitating Johnny Mathis” routine, electric violin, everything cdm laid down, pantalones de Guatemala, the bassist’s orthogonal groovestance, “everybody but me is black,” and at 3:12 I swear they’re threatening to go into the coda of Stairway.
To be sure, I did have a bit of trouble with the whole thrift-store analogy so it comes as little surprise to me that it wound up confusing. Sorry about that. “Use more words,” people might say.
I can only critique DMB based on my tastes and preferences, which generalized can mean that there are rules that are satisfied (or not). Either some kind of music plugs into enough sockets or it doesn’t. When talking about artists such as DMB, we’re talking about a collection of sockets that I would refer to as a taxonomy of rock. I’m not trying to be condescending here, I just know you have had a penchant for methodology in the past.
This is also to say: there’s nothing new in DMB. This also explains his popularity, and so any criticism is going to come off as snobby. It’s like (as an easy example) criticizing white bread because it doesn’t have enough flavor or density or something. “It still holds the meat ‘n cheese in, right?” Well yeah, but it’s still the barest way to put some food together and still call it a sandwich. Granted, it’s still a sandwich!
DMB does indeed have its Prock and Kentonite and Backstory shades (among others, I’m sure), but to my knowledge they exist only in homeopathic quantities. They could be elevated on this basis, but I’ve never seen or heard of such a thing.
To me, the records that you perpetually find in thrift stores, the ones that are in every bin everywhere, the Laura Nyros, the Mantovanis, the Harper’s Bizarres, exist as markers for things that were once popular, that people liked enough to put the albums into the Top 200 in their era. These are tunes which people seem not to need to hear anymore. They’re built-in to the culture now, perhaps also defining their artists as those who have no deep cuts. This is where DMB seems to draw their influences from, and like their thrift store brethren the music does not exceed the sum of its parts.
It’s not that DMB doesn’t follow the rules laid out by any number of tastemakers, it’s that they don’t break any either. In a different combination it might be more interesting even if not subversive, but to my ears they are like the big garbage island that supposedly swirls and coagulates somewhere north of Hawaii.
Then again, DMB music is just “too nice” for me, and the failing of “too nice” music is that it rewards indifference. It could disappear and the world would not change one iota, which is not something that piques my interest and can fully explain DMBs’ confusing relationship between coolness and popularity when the rationales for either are so thin as to be irrelevant. They are just states of the band, like “Is the TV on or off?”
Unoriginal I can understand, and unoriginal in a way that’s nothing more than a grab bag of undigested random influences makes some sense. At least it has to do with the music. (Though it seems to me that the rhythm section + sax+ violin deserves at least some credit for originality if only in terms of line-up.)
It was the rest of it — some comedy routine I’ve never heard of, pantalones (?), orthogonal (=perpendicular right?) groovestance (?). the e-violin in and of itself is and black mark, and, speaking of black marks, I think two people in the band are black.
It just seems like much of this is peripheral to the music, man. Like blaming deadheads for not liking the Dead’s music.
[And let me admit here that we all like lots of bands, and so our dislike for all the other bands is often based on intangibles, and I do understand that.]
OK, I do use some terminology that is idiosyncratic at best, and you’re absolutely right that these criticisms are peripheral, but not only is there a level in which these things do matter but I think DMB and its crowd exist in a self-consuming race to mediocrity.
It’s not that the influence here is undigested, but overdigested. DMB is musical vomit not that it’s worthless or disgusting or invalid, but in that it is no longer food.
Here, let’s reverse the tables here and get back to the title of the post: why would anybody like DMB? Why choose them over any other band, and from what source does a potential love of DMB flow? I can’t find one, and I think that’s my point.
…I don’t have any. He seems like a nice enough guy in interviews but here’s what I don’t like:
1. his sense of melody
2. jam bands
3. the alto sax (you say Coltrane, I say Kenny G)
4. “high performance” basses like the one in the video
5. his voice
6. faux acoustic guitars
7. the Villanova hippie sensibilities of his fans
Pince nez: Coltrane played mostly tenor, sometimes soprano. Kenny G plays soprano. This guy plays alto.
Never heard the term “Villanova hippie” before. Googling brought up cdm’s post first.
I’m neutral on this thread. I’m equally mystified by this band’s popularity and their uncoolness.
Dave Matthews band are the Family Guy of rock. Just kidding, we covered that ground.
I always thought he was the alternative for the guys that are the right age group to drool over Guns N Roses that think that band is too heavy. The kinds of guys that wear wicker shoes and think Jimmy Buffet fans are onto something really good.
He doesn’t have any female fans, does he? Man, I bet they smell bad if he does.
Well played, Big Steve. Let me revise my post to say “most saxes in post 1950’s rock and roll”.
“high performance basses” !!!! QUOTE OF THE DECADE cdm!
If that isn’t the visual proof that I will hate a band before they play a note.
I give McCartney and Geddy Lee a pass for the Wal bass use 1988-1991
Outside of that you have the following choices
Fender
Gibson / Epiphone
Danelectro
Music Man / G&L
Dan Armstrong
Stand Up Bass
5 String.. you are on thin ice
6 Strings+.. get the hell out of here
There is nothing subversive about Dave Matthews, his jams all sound the same (And are too controlled)I saw him (for free)the week his 2nd CD came out and had 10th row center seats. I was bored out of my mind.
The 3-4 singles he put out when he first started are ok songs at 3:05 but then they jam ’em out for another 10
Hey 2000 Man:
You couldn’t be more wrong. Back in the day, when I worked at a CD store, whenever a new Dave Matthews Band CD would come out, my male co-workers would get all excited to oggle the LEGIONS of hot babes that would come in to buy his newest release. The female customers were all hot, young college co-eds for the most part. I still remember this quote from my manager: “I don’t like Dave Matthews, but I sure can appreciate his fans.”
jeangray, you have no idea how bummed out that makes me. then again, The Cramps did warn us that all women are bad!
“Outside of that you have the following choices…” and jungleland lays down the law on basses. This is what I love most about rock roll — the rules. If there’s anything guaranteed to make rock & roll better it’s more rules. Especially ones that say what you can’t do. Those are golden.
Oh yeah, and ‘all rock must be subversive’ is one of my favorite rules too.
All rock doesn’t have to be subversive, but DMB is nothing if not a glorification of thrift-store records ever-present. David Koechner doing his “Eddie Vedder imitating Johnny Mathis” routine, electric violin, everything cdm laid down, pantalones de Guatemala, the bassist’s orthogonal groovestance, “everybody but me is black,” and at 3:12 I swear they’re threatening to go into the coda of Stairway.
Wow, as I said, the objections are as incomprehensible as the popularity.
To be sure, I did have a bit of trouble with the whole thrift-store analogy so it comes as little surprise to me that it wound up confusing. Sorry about that. “Use more words,” people might say.
I can only critique DMB based on my tastes and preferences, which generalized can mean that there are rules that are satisfied (or not). Either some kind of music plugs into enough sockets or it doesn’t. When talking about artists such as DMB, we’re talking about a collection of sockets that I would refer to as a taxonomy of rock. I’m not trying to be condescending here, I just know you have had a penchant for methodology in the past.
This is also to say: there’s nothing new in DMB. This also explains his popularity, and so any criticism is going to come off as snobby. It’s like (as an easy example) criticizing white bread because it doesn’t have enough flavor or density or something. “It still holds the meat ‘n cheese in, right?” Well yeah, but it’s still the barest way to put some food together and still call it a sandwich. Granted, it’s still a sandwich!
DMB does indeed have its Prock and Kentonite and Backstory shades (among others, I’m sure), but to my knowledge they exist only in homeopathic quantities. They could be elevated on this basis, but I’ve never seen or heard of such a thing.
To me, the records that you perpetually find in thrift stores, the ones that are in every bin everywhere, the Laura Nyros, the Mantovanis, the Harper’s Bizarres, exist as markers for things that were once popular, that people liked enough to put the albums into the Top 200 in their era. These are tunes which people seem not to need to hear anymore. They’re built-in to the culture now, perhaps also defining their artists as those who have no deep cuts. This is where DMB seems to draw their influences from, and like their thrift store brethren the music does not exceed the sum of its parts.
It’s not that DMB doesn’t follow the rules laid out by any number of tastemakers, it’s that they don’t break any either. In a different combination it might be more interesting even if not subversive, but to my ears they are like the big garbage island that supposedly swirls and coagulates somewhere north of Hawaii.
Then again, DMB music is just “too nice” for me, and the failing of “too nice” music is that it rewards indifference. It could disappear and the world would not change one iota, which is not something that piques my interest and can fully explain DMBs’ confusing relationship between coolness and popularity when the rationales for either are so thin as to be irrelevant. They are just states of the band, like “Is the TV on or off?”
Unoriginal I can understand, and unoriginal in a way that’s nothing more than a grab bag of undigested random influences makes some sense. At least it has to do with the music. (Though it seems to me that the rhythm section + sax+ violin deserves at least some credit for originality if only in terms of line-up.)
It was the rest of it — some comedy routine I’ve never heard of, pantalones (?), orthogonal (=perpendicular right?) groovestance (?). the e-violin in and of itself is and black mark, and, speaking of black marks, I think two people in the band are black.
It just seems like much of this is peripheral to the music, man. Like blaming deadheads for not liking the Dead’s music.
[And let me admit here that we all like lots of bands, and so our dislike for all the other bands is often based on intangibles, and I do understand that.]
OK, I do use some terminology that is idiosyncratic at best, and you’re absolutely right that these criticisms are peripheral, but not only is there a level in which these things do matter but I think DMB and its crowd exist in a self-consuming race to mediocrity.
It’s not that the influence here is undigested, but overdigested. DMB is musical vomit not that it’s worthless or disgusting or invalid, but in that it is no longer food.
Here, let’s reverse the tables here and get back to the title of the post: why would anybody like DMB? Why choose them over any other band, and from what source does a potential love of DMB flow? I can’t find one, and I think that’s my point.