View Single Post
Old 2nd March 2012
Lives for gear

I would hardly call it a garage studio have you seen it?
anyway foofighters are pathetically dated now. It's like when Jethro Tull won
a grammy in 1988 or whatever 15 years after they were good
I think the main issue then was the category they won in...

One thing is for sure Dave could play that crash cymbal like a ride cymbal better than anyone except Alex Van Halen
The difference is that Alex actually plays ride cymbals...he just hits them really hard with thick marching sticks, so they sound like crashes.

His music is dated and OLD but yet he is still popular? it's bizarre and people who think he is "truly" relevant are clueless
It may sound dated to you (and even to him), but the fact that people are buying his music makes him relevant.

they are so out of touch. hence why the award is basically pointless
I don't disagree about the award...and the awards in general...being pointless, but again, the fact that their music is resonating with so many people means they're not so out of touch.

No matter what zeppelin did or didn't do. whether they suck or they are great, at the end of the day they still had the greatest drummer of all time their band and that's something no other band can claim.
Well, sure, other bands can claim that. Ringo Starr has claimed that about the Beatles. Rush, Tool, AC/DC, Dream Theater (with either drummer)...pretty much any band can claim that, as can their fans.

Also I have also had the pleasure of meeting Tony Iommi, Eddie Van Halen, Kerry King from Slayer, I met Cliff from Metallica, Scott from Anthrax, Pete from UFO and Lemmy from moterhead... and I even met Paula Cole and Tracy Bonham. so I think I'm qualified to at least know who deserves the rock award!
Well, if you'd have stated that earlier this thread could have been a lot shorter.

Van Halen should have won or Chickenfoot
I don't disagree on Chickenfoot...but Van Halen's album came out too late to qualify. Maybe next year...

I'm happy that they are happy making records, but perhaps Dave could give all of us in the studio business a bit of a break...haven't we had to deal with enough crap for the last ten it OK if we are aloud to do "our" thing as well...does nodoby else see this as a bit standing on the backs of studio owner's just to sell more records...
I think you're taking this way more personally than anyone else, and I don't think that that's the point Dave was trying to's much more about how the record is made than where. And if some up-and-coming band wants to do what he did and record to tape...these days they're much more likely to have to go to a studio to record to tape than they are to have to record to Pro Tools. It's much easier for the "average" musician to put together a computer-based home recording studio than it is a tape-based one.

And besides...he owns or has an interest in several large commercial facilities, does he not?

The thing is, he recorded his first few records 100% on analog so why
start a marketing campaign?
Perhaps because the way records are made has changed dramatically in the time that has gone by since he made those first few records?

what fun would it be if everyone agreed with each other?
It wouldn't be much fun. But there's a difference between disagreeing with other people and trying to prove that everyone is wrong on something so subjective. I'm not a huge Foo Fighters fan by any means, and I'm even less of a Nirvana fan...I didn't find them to be particularly original, perhaps because I grew up listening to so much of the same music that they did, and while I'm part of the "Generation X" demographic that Cobain was supposed to be the spokesperson for, I didn't feel like he spoke for me...but I am a fan of Grohl as a drummer, and I think that his stuff with QOTSA and Them Crooked Vultures is some of the best drumming of the past decade. Having said that I don't feel a particular need to show anyone the error of their ways and convince them that the Foo Fighters and Nirvana aren't that great, nor do I feel the need to convince anyone that he's a good drummer. Because like you said, it wouldn't be much fun if everyone agreed with each other.

all other bands still playing his age are considered dated, Dave however has written the same song over and over and over and over and over and over and over for 17 years.
AC/DC has been doing the same thing for longer, and it's working for them, isn't it?

dave is an average drummer, he is sloppy and has no feel

regardless, should Steven tyler win a grammy because he is also a great drummer?

dave plays drums...
(just for the sake of non argument) lets assume you are correct he is a good drummer what exactly is your point? what does that have to do with anything in the context of this thread?

anyway there are millions of drummers better than him, he is below average
Which is it? Is he an "average" drummer, as you said at the beginning of your post, or "below average" as you said at the end of that same post?

that 11 year old drummer is better than Dave. Guaranteed Dave couln't play yyz now nevermind when he was 11
Of course he couldn't play "Nevermind" when he was was recorded when he was much older.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Having said that, I'm sure he could play YYZ if he wanted to. That's one of those tunes that many drummers learn "growing up"...but how many of them can come up with a part like that on their own?

I'm saying it was a Dooshy move to thumb his nose at guys that have helped him make huge sounding pop records in the past.
How did thumb his nose at those hiring them to produce and engineer this album?

when someone has an opposite point of view than you it is not trolling or hijacking like some would like to believe, it's called disagreement

looking back on the all posts here, right or wrong...... it stayed right on topic.
Really? Wasn't the topic of the thread how the album was recorded? Not whether they deserved a Grammy, whether they're dated, whether Dave or some eleven-year-old kid is a good drummer, the politics of the Grammies, or how relevant U2 and Altar Bridge are?

You seem to be missing the point that when a big name says/does/encourages a certain type of can be far Radio Head giving away their music for free...that single handily triggered the industry into free soon as Radio Head "enabled" folks to freely rob the record industry...all hell broke loose...a ton of people lost their jobs...
Radiohead hardly triggered anything. The industry was in a freefall for a decade before they offered up "In Rainbows" the way they did (which was not, by the way, for was to pay as you saw fit, which many people apparently did), and it didn't cause all hell to break loose. How many bands followed suit?

If anything, they disabled folks from robbing the recording industry. By letting people choose what they wanted to pay for their album they effectively took away their ability to steal it. People had been freely stealing music for years before Radiohead did what they did, and they've continued to do it since.

Radio Head really hurt the situation by making it cool to do...and yeah I said that...because if the best band in the world was giving away music, how could any other band charge for it?
The only reason they were able to do that was because they were the biggest band in the world. Like I said, it didn't become a trend...even they didn't do it with their next album.

And what happened when they officially released "In Rainbows"? Did nobody buy it because they'd given people the ability to download it for free? No, it debuted at #1 in the US and the UK, and went on to sell more than three million copies.

If his garage studio is what I saw on TV then I think it's kind of lame to act as if it isn't a pro set up.
Did they ever claim it wasn't a pro setup?

The difference NOT that they recorded in the's that DG is using the "garage" to **** on all the studios he ever worked wasn;t necessary to go that far...he didn't have to suggest...strongly...that it's that studios with ProTools that are ruining music....esp when those same studios saved his ass for about 6 records...and those same engineers made highly effective recordings/mixes with protools.
He didn't suggest that studios with Pro Tools are ruining music. Again, he owns several of those studios. He didn't **** on anything. It was more about how the album was recorded than where.

You think that someone that uses BD an AT relentlessly for over a decade, has success with the practice, then turns around and preaches to everyone that they don;t need studios with Protools to make saying something that needed to be said for a while?
Are you saying that studios with Pro Tools are necessary to make records?