So we are taking a bad geralization involving footwear and using that to conclude that no generalizations are good? Why don't we just give up?Doubtful. You appear to be too unwilling to accept that opinions are not facts, that blanket generalisations seldom apply and that personal points of view may not necessarily carry weight when passed off as a universal truths.
You can't really be surpised that drawing on personal and subjective experience, whilst applying absolutes like "will always be better" or "but if you have taste then a non-uniform set will be superior" has people all too willing to call you out?
Except that I made no generalisations. Just a question (somewhat rhetorical....weak or otherwise) about footwear.........not to mention reminiscing about a mate who used to think he had taste, but in reality was just a tool.So we are taking a bad geralization involving footwear and using that to conclude that no generalizations are good?
Agreed. Although right after post #25 would have been a better time.Why don't we just give up?
Actually, I would have thought the countless thousands of artists capable of creating fine musical and artistic expression on their bland matching drum kits, would be argument enough.If you don't think an artist can do better than simple bland matching, I would really like to hear this argument.
No. People capable of exercising reason are patiently and politely trying to get you to either support your initial assertion with evidence rather than blithe pronouncements - "because I say so" - or at least stop moving the forensic goalposts.So we are taking a bad geralization involving footwear and using that to conclude that no generalizations are good?
Prove it.The point I was making is that an artist can use the medium more effectively than simple bland matching, if so inclined.
You don't get to avoid supporting your claims by requiring those demanding that support to make counterclaims.If you don't think an artist can do better than simple bland matching, I would really like to hear this argument.
Yeah, I know what you mean, it has to be done well. One time I saw a rockabilly punk duo the drummer singer had mismatching snare and bass that he played standing, a 17" K fast crash and a tiger stripe tom with a fuzzy wrap around the rim. There was something about that tom that was just frickin awesome...Now that's out of the way, I can address the thread topic.
I don't mind "Frankenstein" kits most of the time. I don't care in the slightest when they won't be seen. When you're in the studio, making a kit where each drum is a different make/model can be necessary to get "that sound".
When playing for an audience, provided the instrument presents a uniform appearance to the non-enthusiast witness I think it's acceptable. In other words, if your kit is black with chrome hardware, and you add in some toms from a different manufacturer which are also black with chrome hardware, unless the hardware is vastly different, nobody's going to notice except drummers.
It's one thing to have acrylic drums where each shell is a different color. Similarly, the kit pictured up-thread where each drum is wrapped in a different sparkle can be - and is - aesthetically pleasing. If the sparkle drums were all from different makers, I don't know that I'd still think that way. There's some purely subjective line there. Telling the maker you want the floor tom in red, the bass in green, the rack tom in blue, and the snare in silver is one thing. Cobbling together a kit where your Tama floor tom is red, your Ludwig bass is green, your Rogers rack tom is blue, and your Pearl snare is silver...well, I can't put my finger on why, but that's just ... ew.
Of course, I can't present any justification for these opinions other than that I have them. :-D