maddash wrote:If you don't know BOTH bands well enough, I think you should abstain.
While parts of your argument have some validity, I don't think it applies very well to me and to this matchup. I was the one (along with Popeye) who argued ZZ Top into this competition. I'm very familiar with their music, the genre they represent, and the impact that they have had on musical culture.
From what I've heard of the Clash (before I voted I knew London Calling, listened to every song on the matchup page, and heard anything they might have been played on the radio or MTV in the 80's), there's no way I would change my vote, even if I listened to every song on every album that they've produced.
Unless the Clash is a serious blues/rock band featuring one of the best guitarists of the 80's they aren't going to top ZZ.
At least not for me. But, understand. I'm a blues/rock electric guitarist. Who would you expect me to vote for?
There have been other matchups where I wasn't familiar with either band or one of the bands and I abstained from voting. This one doesn't fit the mold.
I think that's pretty fair. I'm just a little miffed that some people will vote because they know one band, but haven't heard anything more than a snippet or two of the other band.
And Popeye is right about the samples, but I get the feeling the most people aren't even bothering to watch them.
I don't want to make a big stink about it, because it doesn't mean that much to me. But I just think it's unfair to judge someone without even knowing them, and that's what's taking place on occasion here.
Grammar_Police wrote:
its still at 0. they both started there. otherwise, they both start at N/A.
So you start out judging a band, team, person, food... without having any knowledge of them? If you're saying 0 has some value as a number (good or bad), you've just giving an entity a value without any knowledge of it.
Do you really start out liking or hating something, and then wait to be proven wrong?
I think that's pretty fair. I'm just a little miffed that some people will vote because they know one band, but haven't heard anything more than a snippet or two of the other band.
And Popeye is right about the samples, but I get the feeling the most people aren't even bothering to watch them.
I don't want to make a big stink about it, because it doesn't mean that much to me. But I just think it's unfair to judge someone without even knowing them, and that's what's taking place on occasion here.
It's a bigger deal on close matchups like this. I can get just as miffed at people that think ZZ Top is all about big beards and tush. They're much more than that.
That's what makes this competition fun and not really all that serious.
planet pujolsian wrote:I think it's worse when someone's exposed to a band's few "air play friendly" songs and decides that's what they're all about.
Or worse, when they form a negative opinion based on overplay of a particular song. One could form a fairly negative opinion of AC/DC because of an overplay trifecta of songs off of the Back in Black album (Hell's Bells, Back in Black, You Shook Me). One could get a negative opinion of Zeppelin based on seeing too many Cadillac commercials with Rock and Roll (IMO, one of their most boring songs).
docellis wrote:maddash, just curious...do you think people don't 'know' the Clash, or people don't 'know' ZZ Top? Just being nosy.
I would say many more people "know" ZZ Top, more than The Clash. And that's largely because of the lack of radio air time on the part of The Clash. There are a couple of bands that I really like (Air for example) that I only started listening to because a friend turned me onto them (they received little to no TV/Radio air play at all). Had someone asked me if I like ZZ Top or Air better before I heard anything by Air, I might say ZZ Top - but that would be unfair to Air, and it would also be false. Because I like Air a heck of a lot more than ZZ Top... I just didn't know it at the time.
Whether or not a basic knowledge of both band's body of work would change any votes is really beside the point, it's simply a matter of being fair.
Grammar_Police wrote:
its still at 0. they both started there. otherwise, they both start at N/A.
So you start out judging a band, team, person, food... without having any knowledge of them? If you're saying 0 has some value as a number (good or bad), you've just giving an entity a value without any knowledge of it.
Do you really start out liking or hating something, and then wait to be proven wrong?
Way to totally twist my words.
0 is not negative or positive. it just is. positive numbers are greater (more) than 0. Negative numbers are less than 0. it's a neutral starting point.
