Bands named after geographic areas

[Gary L Dare]

In article <16...@dcatla.UUCP> Mark Gardner wrote:
>Why is it that bands named solely for geographic areas are bland, lousy,
>or both?
>
> Kansas

How dare you!! This music is some of the most complex that one can do
with a normal repertoire of rock instruments (there is a violin).
It's a different sort of excitement from, say, the Sex Pistols but far
from bland. Sure, music that is hard to play can be lousy but I don't
think this is the case with Kansas.

Try Chilliwack, from British Columbia, if you're ever up north.

One of the worst bands I've ever heard is Toronto from . . . guess where?

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare > g...@eevlsi.ee.columbia.EDU
> g...@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU
Edmonton: The City of Champions > g...@cunixc.BITNET

[Mark Gardner]

Why is it that bands named solely for geographic areas are bland, lousy,
or both?

Chicago
Kansas
Boston
Alabama
Flint (city in Michigan; 1 album)
New England (1 album in the 70's)
U.K.

If these aren't enough, consider the worst and blandest of all, named
after an entire continent:

America

You may want to include Manhattan Transfer, but a geographic area is only
PART of their name.

- Mark Gardner

[Dan Schmidt]

In article <16...@dcatla.UUCP>, eqmdg@dcatla (Mark Gardner) writes:
| Why is it that bands named solely for geographic areas are bland, lousy,
| or both?
|

| [good examples]

|
| If these aren't enough, consider the worst and blandest of all, named
| after an entire continent:
|
| America

Worse and blander than Asia and Europe?

[Richard Shapiro]

Another partial is Mission of Burma, who nobody would call bland or
lousy (I hope). And around here at least (their home base) they were
often referred to as simply "Burma".

I'd have to agree with you in the strict place-name cases, though.
Maybe the same lack of imagination in choosing a name as in playing
music?

And say: what about Japan?? There's a REAL exception, wouldn't you
say?

[John Kawakami]

In article <16...@dcatla.UUCP> eq...@dcatla.UUCP () writes:

>Why is it that bands named solely for geographic areas are bland, lousy,
>or both?
>
> Chicago

[others deleted]
> America
>
> - Mark Gardner

Actually, material from both bands' first albums are much better than later
efforts. Not groundbreaking but listenable.

More bands:
Asia
Champaign
Pasadena (some small group making the rounds in the SF Bay Area)

More bland.
There was an Oingo Boingo splinter band called ZUMA 2 (Zuma is a beach
in So. Cal). More bland than OB, less poppy, less popular; they didn't have
elfman (not that I like OB).
There's London, a boring metal band. But just good enough to keep
them off the slagheap.
And Japan, featuring David Sylvian before he became a neo-age type
synth chap. They did good pre-Duran Duran stuff. And there are people on
the net who will argue up and down that Japan is not bland.
Speaking of Japan, there's the jazz group Hiroshima, from L.A. They
are very popular, and I'd say they are not bland. I prefer my jazz played
fast, but I can "handle" Hiroshima's mellower sounds.
I suspect there are bands called Hollywood, Phoenix, Malibu, New
Jersey, New York, Memphis, Los Angeles, Mexico, Paris, Zimbabwe, Soweto,
Liverpool, Africa, China, Canada, Tokyo, Clevland, and Moscow. But I haven't
heard of them yet.

( ( John Kawakami ) )
) ) c60c...@web.berkeley.edu ( (

[Richard Shapiro]

In article <22...@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> c60c...@web-1b.berkeley.edu (John Kawakami) writes:
> And Japan, featuring David Sylvian before he became a neo-age type
>synth chap. They did good pre-Duran Duran stuff. And there are people on
>the net who will argue up and down that Japan is not bland.

And those people would be right :-).

What does "good pre-Duran Duran" mean, anyway? I don't think I
understand.