I guess this piece goes back to the determining the difference between what is good, art/music wise, as opposed to what we like.
To a degree, I will buy into Steve’s notion that once the “Average Joe’s” are hep to a band or performer, I am usually done with them.
That said, his comment on the Rubettes piece, that Dave Evans could not pick up a Jimmy Page lick is kind of specious to me.
I did think of the great Jimi Hendrix in this sense, for though he was indeed a tremendous and innovative player, as much of his performance was rooted in the volume and feedback he employed. And, I don’t mean that as a slam. I LOVE Hendrix, and was lucky enough to see him four times.
But, if you doubt this, check out Randy Hansen, who does his Hendrix tribute.
I actually saw Hansen in action, maybe 35 years ago, and no question he had the Hendrix chops and sound down as you can see. Does that mean it is good? Does that mean Bono sucks because he cannot sing Come on Feel the Noise a la Noddy?
Does it mean Hendrix sucks because Dylan wrote All Along the Watchtower? Or that Joan Jett sucks because she made a hit out of Bad Reputation, even though Freedy Johnson wrote it? Despite the fact that both deconstructed the songs and essentially made them their own?
Does it mean the the movie Clueless sucks because it is based upon Jane Austen’s Emma, which was given a truer representation to the original with Gwyneth Paltrow?
Is there a difference between “this sucks,” and, “I don’t like it?”