No point in arguing further.....

Agreed. Daycare doesn't like LB, that's alright. To each his own.

sorry...like I said, I may learn to like it in the future when music is further dumbed down.

Well, you know, at least Lightning Bolt are better than The Vaselines. (were)

not

It's more of a post-noise take on prog rock if anything, but to accuse them of "dumbing things down," even as a non-fan, is absolutely ridiculous.

I mean, I loathe the music that Bjork or Joanna Newsom make, but I don't deny their talent.

I question your objective listening skills.

You must have missed my comment above when I likened them to heavy metal guitar virtuosos with technical ability but no real substance. Obviously, they are good musicians--I just think they are not doing anything worthwhile.

I hope I never acquire "objective listening skills." That sounds about as fun as algebra.

algebra can be fun...

Does algebra ever involve taking off your clothes?

No, I hate algebra. "Keep 'em on" written all over it

I did see that, and I disagree with that assessment as well. They definitely display musical prowess, but I see what they have done (and the attitude they have done it with) as taking the slickness and sterility OUT of that style of playing, keeping it visceral and raw. To compare them to the likes of Satriani or Vai only shows how much you missed the point. So does lumping them in with "noise" bands, for that matter.

By "objective listening skills," I meant having the presence of mind to give people their due. They have shown discipline and determination well beyond most of their peers, and have been lauded by a fanbase that normally shuns pure displays of virtuosity. Whether you care for the music or not, it IS valid and it IS worthwhile. In this regard, "sucky" is hardly the right adjective. I hate a lot of peoples' music, but they do not all "suck" and they are not all doing music that is "not worthwhile."

Yeesh.

As I said before, the thread is asking a question, not making as statement: sucky??? You decide. I'm just sharing my opinion.

A lot of people agree that Britney Spears makes great music, but that doesn't mean it's valid.

And I'm not sure I want to "get" the point of this music. Yes, it is more raw than Vai or Satriani...I heard that when I listened to the music....and?

i dont think they have much musical ability, anyone can play annoying rock drums...

Why are you even making reference to a washed up pop singer? You can't possibly compare the two, talent aside. Your question was obviously answered by the responses opposing your opinion.

I never said it wasn't OK not to like it. I can definitely see how they could be pretty annoying to some people. I just found your dismissive attitude to be unfounded.

Britney Spears is not a musician.

I think I spelled out pretty clearly that Lightning Bolt deserve some credit, even from non-fans. Their effort and their vision are a valid form of expression, and to compare a sincere and dedicated effort (with very little financial payout) to a hollow media lipsync fabrication like Britney Spears is so ludicrous that I question whether you can give any credit to anything you don't personally like.

I think Jeff Buckley is unlistenable, caterwauling, sentimental tripe, but I have to admit the guy had some pipes. Whether or not I liked him at all, his music is VALID.
That is all I was trying to say.

This is funny. Right up there with "Anyone can rap. All those guys do is talk."

My point was that in some circles people think Britney is valid. I'm not comparing the artists. You brought up the fact that people consider this band "valid" as some sort of interesting tidbit. Do you want to debate what is valid and what is not?

No, I want to debate whether or not you have the capacity to admit something you don't like has validity.
You have shown precious little in this regard.

I said that the musicians display technical ability. Isn't that the same?

its all about jazz, man...