I really can't be bothered with bands that are "mediocre" or "pleasant enough".
Too many other fun things to do in life to endure late nights in smoky, crowded clubs to see bands that are just "pleasant enough".
I suppose if you're a scenester type, "pleasant enough" bands cut it, but I'm just not THAT into live music to be bothered with seeing bands that are less than very good.
Typically, I'm happy with seeing 15-20 shows a year. Don't think I could take any more than that, so i chose wisely.
Different strokes for different folks...
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I dunno...most local bands suck. There's a reason why they're not recieving national attention (the ones who aren't)...and could that reason in part be mediocrity?
Having seen more than my fair share of local bands...I would say "mediocre" is a better word than "suck". Very few of them have anything unique about them. Which doesn't mean they can't still be pleasant...but if it's been done before, it's a lot harder to stand out. And the local folk thing around here gets extremely repititious and dull. [/b]