about.

Like I said before, Rock has a con-game thing, and that can be analyzed a lot of ways. One of the traditional ways is the members of the band might not be great musically individually but they jam so much together that they "lock in", "become tight" then their lack of individual chops gets "masked" by the fact that they now sound good/groove together.

Or......One of the band members (or they all together) write good songs, so some producer can combine together a lot of takes in a studio and make it seem on the recordings that they're a good band but it is just (a) good song(s) represented by a stitched together recording(i.e. the band isn't good or the members).

Then there is the "beginner" stage and authenticity. There is the possibility that a starting musician or band is literally at the level where playing very basically and simply is where they are at, and the music honestly reflects that. So there would not seem to be anything thing con-game about that....until it is taken into account that, even for Rock, a band is thought to "need" to be at a certain "standard" of musicianship and anything less than the "standard" seems to be "poser-ish" or "fake": i.e. a band "putting themselves out there to the public" without being "truly ready/deserving" to be out there. Then, it has to be realized that band after band, from Pink Floyd to U2 have "begun" at levels where they admitted they were "not good" until now people generally agree those bands have eventually improved to an above-average level.

Then, there is the obvious con-game fakery of a band being very "skilled" yet they play simple things because they know they can "get over" playing stuff like punk that they are skilled enough to go past that level, but they know they can seem "above average" if they play some "below their level" music.

See how fun rock is?