|
Post by magnoodles on Sept 28, 2008 10:59:41 GMT -5
0007.3
A three-way dance for today:
|
|
|
Post by magnoodles on Sept 28, 2008 11:02:03 GMT -5
33,442
|
|
|
Post by magnoodles on Sept 28, 2008 11:06:02 GMT -5
33,444
(chorus at 0:36)
(chorus at 2:20)
|
|
|
Post by magnoodles on Sept 28, 2008 11:14:18 GMT -5
And just to deviate for a sec., for any Pink Floyd fans... It was the awesome Clare Torry who did the vocals on the "Great Gig in the Sky" song. (And I think I remember hearing she did the vocals in just one or two takes; AND hilariously enough, was apparently apologetic about her performance.)
And this is Bianca Antoinette, who has subbed-in, during various live performances. Pretty freakin' spot-on and amazing, IMO... (And it IS basically a note-for-note repro of the record; though I don't get the sense that she's just doing a karaoke, robot duplication. Despite being identical, she IS putting herself into it too.)
|
|
|
Post by Emanuel Melo on Sept 28, 2008 11:50:04 GMT -5
It's funny you mention R.O.C.K. in the USA and What I Like About You. A good friend of mine would do a mash up of the two songs with his band back in the day which I always enjoyed. Kind of like Kid Rock's latest All Summer Long.
Curious mags, what is your opinion on Kid Rock's All Summer Long?
|
|
|
Post by The Hammer on Sept 28, 2008 11:50:57 GMT -5
Mags, I totally appreciate your knowledge and respect for music and all it entails... BUT, you are so close to it, I think, that you are failing to see the big picture... like Rory said (and I cant believe I am agreeing with a guy who once duct taped me), it HAS all been done... the problem that arises when you get into odd time signatures is that it starts sounding just plain weird...
Music, to me, is supposed to be fun to listen to... and enjoyable... I have total respect for Rush as a band, but listening to them is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me... half the music you've mentioned as being original and revolutionary bothers me and I would much rather turn it off...
Maybe I am just more about lyrics being put to a tune thats not cacophonic to me... Im gonna get a ton of flack for this, but I would much rather listen to a good Heart ballad than Pink Floyd, Rush or Peter Gabriel....
I do not have the extensive musical experience you do, Mags, but I am a former musician myself... and a heck of an air guitarist, too...
|
|
|
Post by magnoodles on Sept 28, 2008 18:41:27 GMT -5
I dig what you be sayin'. There are lots of bands I know of, who DO do amazing things in terms of timing and rhythm; and transitioning from one part into another and stuff... And I appreciate that on a technical level... But often, I don't necessarily dig it, just in terms of straight-up musicality. ...Just because sometimes, I hear bands that seemingly TRY to be time signature wankers. They make things unnecessarily complicated. They lose sight of the MUSICALITY of a song, just because they want to make their buddies in other bands mark out. It's just like trying to come up with the craziest highspot, while not really caring about the basic psychology of a match. So then shit is kinda weak, no matter how "impressive" it is. Know what I'm sayin'? I disagreed with what Rory said about genres. That's one of my biggest... things. In MY opinion, there ARE only TWO kinds of music: Good and bad. Period. And it's not about a preference for a certain tonality over another, or whatever... To ME, good music PROVOKES A STRONG EMOTIONAL RESPONSE in the listener. That's it. That's what it's ALL about. And that can happen whether you're listening to something in 3/4 or 9/8... If it's coming from a "genuine" place (on the part of the musician), odds are it's gonna hit somebody in the gut somewhere. Like, for example... I have no interest in going out of my way to listen to a Dixie Chicks tune. Ever. Just not my cup of tea. But I DO appreciate how someone could like them, and for whatever they do, it IS good music. (BASICALLY, I'm saying I don't necessarily have to LIKE something, in order to be able to APPRECIATE it.) And Hammer man... Probably the most FUN I've ever had listening to music, was the first time me and my friends went to go see Meshuggah. They blasted out of the gate with "Future Breed Machine", and I remember clear as day, looking over and seeing my friend John laughing his ass off. We were/are music nerds, so we like to "challenge" ourselves. (Same like wrestlers... Same reason matches have evolved beyond 15-minute side headlocks, with a crazy "highspot" being a superplex from the second rope.) The beat is MOSTLY just a straight 4/4. (On the high hat at least... The crazy thing is how the bass drums follow the guitar riff, which is melting in and out, and all over the beat.) But the way Meshuggah does it? There IS a natural "groove" to it... Even if it IS pretty fucked-up if you stop and think about what they're playing. As a "music student" ( ), I find stuff like this fun as hell. It's doing something QUITE out of the box; yet it doesn't kamakazie itself by being too "pretentious", or too smart for its own good: Seeing them play live? As a metalhead, my first gut-reaction was "FUCK YEAH!!!". Then my second reaction was "I can't believe these guys aren't aliens or robots". (So they succeed in hitting me on a primal, instinct level... As well as impressing the hell out of the clinical, music mark part of my brain.) Studio version (if you're interested in getting a better sense of what's actually going on): And again, as a music nerd, I get all giddy (no, not Geddy) with glee when I see/hear stuff like this. It's just FUN (for me): P.S.: I'm not a fan of Rush either.
|
|
Rory
Full Member
Posts: 125
|
Post by Rory on Sept 28, 2008 19:48:32 GMT -5
Hey Hammer, the ducting was an incident I had chosen to forget, as was the shaving your back at a show for Chuck Simpson, I believe. Hope you're doin well mate, miss you and the rest of the boys up there!
Mags I was trying to be p.c before but what I was saying wasn't my opinion it's musical science. Since 1972 no new music has been created. It's like a very well known musical fact. I do however love the passion you have for music, very cool bro!
|
|
|
Post by gordo on Sept 28, 2008 20:49:03 GMT -5
I can't claim to know much of anything about musical theory, techniques or history. Maybe there hasn't been any original music since the 70s or whenever but there's all kinds of music that's new to me and I love finding "new" stuff. I know what I like and it has nothing to do wih types or styles or whatever. (and the same applies for what I don't like.) Anyway, kinda off topic of this thread's theme maybe but I thought I'd share this little gem. The guy who wrote this piece had a pretty famous dad who is perhaps more well known than he. www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrSyig7rZlI
|
|
|
Post by magnoodles on Sept 28, 2008 22:27:25 GMT -5
Mags I was trying to be p.c before but what I was saying wasn't my opinion it's musical science. Since 1972 no new music has been created. It's like a very well known musical fact. I do however love the passion you have for music, very cool bro! So who exactly is it, then? WHO gets the credit for writing the last new song in the history of mankind (in 1972)? And what's the song? And why didn't it happen until 1972? Okay... The gramophone was invented in 1887, I believe. So let's just arbitrarily round that up to the turn of the last century: I'd say more, and more interesting things have been done between 1972 and 2008, than were done from 1900 to 1972. Yes, some great, revolutionary things happened in the '60s... But it's only been in the past decade and a half, where guys have really started experimenting with atonality, and odd meters & polyrhythms... Seriously, be honest... You're trying to work me here, right? Rory... DUDE! There are instruments (and playing styles) now that didn't even exist in 1972! They hadn't been invented yet! Saying that there's no new music anymore is exactly the same as saying no one's painted an original picture since... whenever! With all due respect, that suggestion is absolutely silly! Considering the "ingredients" we have to work with, in the form of tone and meter/rhythm--not to mention the dozens of different instrument families; and hundreds of different, individual instruments to play those tones on (in whatever dang time signature you please; you're only limited by what your brain can handle, in terms of "complexity")--the sonic potential IS legitimately infinite. That's not hyperbole. I have a friend/mentor--Chan Ka Nin--who is a music professor at the University of Toronto. (He teaches music theory & composition.) I sent him a message, quoting your assertion about 1972. (Since "it's like a very well known musical fact", I though he'd be the man to know & verify that.) When I hear back from him, I'll post his reply here, FWIW... What I THINK is really going on here, is that you're getting your "fact" confused with the Simpsons. (No big deal... Happens to me all the time, lol!) Remember what Homer said? "Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact!" ;D
I agree with Gordo, on how much of a thrill it is to find new stuff. You've just got to have the patience & perseverance to go and dig for it. 'Cause you SURE AS HELL ain't gonna hear it on the radio! And for ME? Rock attained perfection in & around 1992, lol. SO many bands that were/are important to me "broke" right around then: Pantera, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, Rage Against the Machine, Faith No More, Tool, Rollins Band, Sepultura... It was an intense couple of years. P.S.: Post up a link to info relating to the "no new music since 1972" FACT for me, if you don't mind. (If it's " very well known", then citing a source should be no problem at all, right?)
|
|
|
Post by magnoodles on Sept 28, 2008 23:08:37 GMT -5
Neat stuff Gordo! And like I was mentioning before, I can appreciate stuff like that... in terms of composition & theory. But it just doesn't "grab" me in the gut, you know? Most "classical" dudes I mark out for, came along quite a bit later:
|
|
Rory
Full Member
Posts: 125
|
Post by Rory on Sept 29, 2008 9:55:32 GMT -5
Hey Mags I didn't have time today to search thru the internet due to the fact I am dealing with my agents and bookers BUT I did call Professor Michael Fiday at Tthe Universtiy of Cincinnati. His # is 513-556-9499. He is the professor of compositional music. I could talk about this for hours on here but if you'd rather call me about it message me and I'll send you my number. He likened music to mathamatics. It's all numbers, as you know being a musician. If you take, for example, functional tonality, I'm sure you'd agree there is only a set number you can work with on that. Then you take your tempos, rythems and what not and there is only a certain amount of numbers on that correct? Then go A tonal ( Man I hope I worte all this down right...lol) and do the same. Take everything you have all your numbers and guess what? It's not infantesimal. Now lets go on the conitation that music has been recoreded in one way or another for nearly 350 years, thousands upon thousands of songs, in different tones, different tempos, different pitches etc over 530 years! You don't believe that all adds up? You don't think that no matter what you are saying it comes down to numbers? I had my year wrong and I apologise. I was given the information I had before today by my old music professor who was somewhat of a drunk:) but still a very smart man. NOW What professor Fiday said was although new music is being written and always will be, a 100% original piece is something that right now is the holy grail in music, BUT someone did apparently do it although according to the professor it was contested by some scholars. A man named John Case (I believe) went on stage, opened the lid to his piano and sat there and did nothing. The music to him was the noises from the audience. He recorded this and stands by it's musicality. The piece is called four minutes and thirty three seconds. Obviously because this is exactly how long he sat in front of the audience for. Brother, I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm not trying to fight. And music like everything else is purely subjective. But math is definitive mate. I haven't tried to change anything this man said to get myself over, if I was wrong I would admit being wrong. You just seem so convinced of your rightness that it frustrates me. Now I'm sure you can go out there and find something to make yourself appear right but I'm going with math on this one and the word of a man who, and these are his words, loves music and theorises with it, plays it and plays with it everyday and hates to admit it is so.
|
|
|
Post by buryme on Sept 29, 2008 10:53:24 GMT -5
You two are kinda both debating two different sides of music. Sound and math. You both are right. Mathamaticly there is nothing new because there's only so many sequences but sequences can be used in differently in different styles which I believe is what Mags is saying. Music is always envolving and new styles are always coming out and people are always trying new things. Like Good Charlotte of all people have a song with Grammy Winning Hip Hop Group Three 6 Mafia. Remember Thrash Metal Spawned Death Metal, Black Metal, Speed Metal, Power Metal and Etc. Music will never stop being original but there are bands that rip off other bands which Mags is pointing out. Maybe I'm trying to be the voice of reason maybe I'm right maybe I'm wrong but I figure I'd stab this.
and Mags I can't believe you missed this one
Finger Eleven
1:10
Franz Ferdinand
1:50 ish
|
|
|
Post by magnoodles on Sept 29, 2008 15:56:10 GMT -5
Brother, I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm not trying to fight. And music like everything else is purely subjective. But math is definitive mate. No, silly! No fighting, lol! I'm just as frustrated (and strangely fascinated), as you are. Just standing on the other side of the fence, I guess. You COULD apply math to art, or painting too, then... if you were to ascribe numerical values to various colours, right? (Well, that IS how digital colour, through PhotoShop or whatever, is rendered...) In theory, everything has been painted, I guess. *shrugs* (If you want to add up the all the colours, and possible combinations of colours and shades.) But the reality is, I'm still seeing new things all the time. And I'm still hearing new things all the time. (Both from stuff other people have done, and in my own head.) Like you said, lots have songs have come along in the past 530 years... And if I spent 18 hours a day, for the rest of my life trying to listen to as much stuff as possible? When I die, I'll have maybe gotten through 0.000000000003% of it. So unless I'm a five billion terrabyte computer that can catalog and reference every song ever written, I'm fairly sure I'm still gonna be hearing "new" stuff until I'm a grumpy, old man. (I mean, even more of one.) SO... To run WAY back to the beginning of my whole tirade... Even IF, for argument's sake, "everything" has been done (mathematically speaking), there's NO FREAKIN' EXCUSE to be regurgitating that same, lame D-A-B-G progression (a la U2's "With or Without You"), when YOU KNOW FULL WELL that's already been done 87 gazillion times before!!! Sometimes when I'm goofing around on the guitar, I'll come up with something and think "hmmm, okay, I kinda like that...". But if I notice--whoops!--that sounds like so-and-so song? I'll immediately hit the brakes and trash the idea. Even if there IS nothing "new" left to do, I can at least have the self-respect, as a "musician" to NOT consciously duplicate something that's been freakin' done to death already. And I guess I just can't believe some of these so called "musicians" don't realize (or care) how blatantly they're recycling other peoples' ideas. In my opinion, a big part of someone's credibility as a musician comes from their inherent creativity. You can be the most technically proficient player on the planet; but if you don't have an original idea in your head, then you're not really a true musician. But like I said... that's just MY own little point of view. And Rory, what you said about the John Case guy is interesting... HOW does one define the distinction between "music" and "noise"? Is it a subjective thing? I'm gonna shut up before I open yet another can of worms; but I find THAT question really fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by magnoodles on Sept 29, 2008 16:01:43 GMT -5
You two are kinda both debating two different sides of music. Sound and math. You both are right. Mathamaticly there is nothing new because there's only so many sequences but sequences can be used in differently in different styles which I believe is what Mags is saying. Music is always envolving and new styles are always coming out and people are always trying new things. Like Good Charlotte of all people have a song with Grammy Winning Hip Hop Group Three 6 Mafia. Remember Thrash Metal Spawned Death Metal, Black Metal, Speed Metal, Power Metal and Etc. Music will never stop being original but there are bands that rip off other bands which Mags is pointing out. Maybe I'm trying to be the voice of reason maybe I'm right maybe I'm wrong but I figure I'd stab this. Thanks yeah, lol. That's basically it: The difference between "accidently" duplicating something that's mathematically likely to have already been done at some point... And being too freakin' lazy to try to come up with something truely original to you. PUSH yourself as a musician! Don't just re-hash what that trendy, flavour-of-the-month band is doing, just 'cause you want to be popular/cool too... That's just lame.
|
|