>>Rule #1 of good musicianship is to serve the song, not
>>masturbate all over it so that invisible messageboard cats
>can
>>give props to your "chops".
>>
>
>No shit. I never said don't serve the song, your confusing
>and twisting the issue, calm the fuck down. All I did was
>respond to your video - to me, that video isn't an example of
>*excellent* musicianship, although good nonetheless - they're
>a little overrated to me as musicans. But I agree with you,
>they can play. If you read on, all these issues have already
>been resolved. If you just read the rest of the posts and
>weren't so overeager and defensive, we wouldn't have to run
>circles over this shit.


I'm not confusing the issue, you are. The OP named Radiohead as a band that hides poor musicianship behind good songwriting. I responded saying they can play.

Now you're looking for "excellent musicianship", lol. All I said was they can play. That video more than showed that. They weren't playing like Weather Report because they're a rock band. They're not supposed to!

Buddy, we're cool. I'm calm. Don't get upset over a little snark. Let's hug it out. :)



>>>Are you a musician yourself?
>>
>>*sigh* Yes.
>>
>
>What do you mean *sigh*? That's a completely relevant
>question. People that don't play an instrument don't really
>have clear insight to how talented a musician is, because they
>lack context.

It tends to be the go to question for douchey musicians (not calling you one) to try to flaunt their self perceived superiority over other cats on this board, as if its the end all/be all for being able to talk music.

Yes, it's relevant but what a lot of musicians that harp on chops & the like fail to understand is most artists aren't making music for musicians. I mean, would you rather Paranoid Android sounded like a Victor Wooten record? :/