RSS - Posts
I happened to catch Modest Mouse on the tube late last night, during their appearance on “Late Show with David Letterman”.
They sucked. No surprise.
But that’s neither here nor there. What stood out for me was the number of members in this band: Six, count ‘em, six. (Which was actually a little difficult for me to confirm, as I count seven on that “Late Show” performance, and neither their official site nor their record label site bothers to include basic “About Us” information; I had to go to their MySpace page to get the official headcount of six.)
Isn’t the half-dozen mark a little oversized for modern-day rock bands? It’s like a throwback to a typical ’70s band-slash-commune, where half the members played the actual music, while the other half provided tambourine back-ups and scored weed.
I recall some mention from last decade, probably regarding Nirvana, that three guys/girls is really all you need to produce a rockin’ collaborative sound; any more than that and you’ve basically got unnecessary passengers along for the ride. I’m not saying that’s why Modest Mouse sucks, but I imagine a little downsizing couldn’t hurt.
UPDATE: Hmmm. Seems that Modest Mouse and/or their webmaster didn’t appreciate my critique. Take a look at the embarrassingly self-serving hatchet job they did to the trackback sent from this post to their site:
I took the above screenshot just in case they later decide to delete it. In similar vein, here’s the text, just for further posterity; compare and contrast:
By Fun in Numbers on March 19, 2009 at 12:42 pm
SIX-HEADED MOUSE BAND…
I happened to catch Modest Mouse on the tube late last night, during their appearance on “Late Show with David Letterman”.
They ruled. No surprise.
But that’s neither here nor there. What stood out for me was the number of members 7, what a great idea.
I mean, how insecure can you be? Note that this involved more effort than simply unapproving the trackback and thus keeping it off their site altogether. For a band with “modest” in its name, it screams vanity.
If you can’t tell, I’m more amused than offended. I’m wondering if the “Fun in Numbers” rewrite is supposed to be a play on “Population Statistic”, or more in reference to the post topic of band-member size…
I think you’re looking too much into that… it’s a joke dude. They’re having a bit of fun. Chill out.
Comment by Cheesegod — 03/22/2009 @ 10:58 AM
No, I was the one having a bit of fun. Modest Mouse is being a bit uptight. Like I said, if the criticism bothered them so much, they should have simply deleted it — not altered it to their liking.
Comment by CT — 03/22/2009 @ 11:34 AM
If youre so pig headed as to believe that Issac had ANYTHING to do with the mentioned alteration, or would even encourage such an act, you lose all credibility.
Comment by Taylor — 03/23/2009 @ 5:54 PM
Isaac? Who?
Thanks for that inane contribution. Figured I’d get at least one fanboy/girl chiming in.
Comment by CT — 03/23/2009 @ 7:23 PM
Actually, it seems like it was a joke, and you are certainly taking it way too seriously.
Comment by Mike — 03/25/2009 @ 1:24 AM
Actually, I’m not going to bother arguing with fanboys… Modest Mouse was just on national TV, and the real joke is that they would take a blog comment seriously enough to go through the trouble of altering it.
Comment by CT — 03/25/2009 @ 10:20 AM
hahahahaha this is ridiculous.
Comment by Bob — 03/25/2009 @ 11:34 PM