Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
There's some talent in this pic
- Thread starter perkele
- Start date
i-Supplements
New member
You kill me! 
i-Supplements
New member
Thanks!
Flah
New member
Perkele, have you heard Dragonforce? I was listening to them last night and I think you'd dig them.
http://www.noiserecords.com/downloads/[email protected]_Spirit_Will_Go_On.mp3
http://www.noiserecords.com/downloads/[email protected]_Winter_Night.mp3
http://www.noiserecords.com/downloads/[email protected]_Spirit_Will_Go_On.mp3
http://www.noiserecords.com/downloads/[email protected]_Winter_Night.mp3
Flah
New member
Ah, I don't have time to stick around. Let me finish off the rest of this argument.
perkele: Then you must not listen to your playlist very much!
Flah: But at least it's not filled with bands that make others question my sexual orientation.
perkele: At least you can hear what mine are singing about.
Flah: Yes, emotionless trash.
perkele: I don't think you have room to talk about trash in music.
Flah: I can't stay angry at you. The girl in your avatar is hot. Whenever I see your name now I associate it with masturbation.
perkele: ...
Alright, see you in about a month when this conversation crops back up again.
perkele: Then you must not listen to your playlist very much!
Flah: But at least it's not filled with bands that make others question my sexual orientation.
perkele: At least you can hear what mine are singing about.
Flah: Yes, emotionless trash.
perkele: I don't think you have room to talk about trash in music.
Flah: I can't stay angry at you. The girl in your avatar is hot. Whenever I see your name now I associate it with masturbation.
perkele: ...
Alright, see you in about a month when this conversation crops back up again.
Flah
New member
Haha, this is going to go on forever.
I think they're corporate whores that would rather squander their talent playing pop fluff that has no artistic worth. That makes them, in my book, horrible music. It obviously doesn't for you.
I think they suck, you can't accept that. We're both obstinate and this will never end.
I think they're corporate whores that would rather squander their talent playing pop fluff that has no artistic worth. That makes them, in my book, horrible music. It obviously doesn't for you.
I think they suck, you can't accept that. We're both obstinate and this will never end.
Flah said:
You think wrong, that's the problem.
I think they're problem has been that they started playing way too early age, and that they were way too gifted, and they studied music way too hard. It's their fault they've been playing together since high school. I also blame their Dads who were already top musicians in L.A studio scene. I also blame them all for getting work as a session player at the very top at the age of 15 when most guys are just starting to play their instruments. Let's blame them for knowing how to get most out of recording studio and not screwing up every fucking take. Let's also blame them for having a record company who didn't give fuck about their opinion which songs should be released as a single. And how dared they be the only band to turn down a change to be in the cover of Rolling Stone mag. Those mother fuckers.
Most of all, let's blame to fuckers who have never seen them play live and witness how they really rock.
Flah said:
Facts!
What to you is "interesting" music? Be precise. There have not been a single band you've listed in your threads and posts that I would have recognized from somewhere, and I do follow what happens in music biz. That's why the China/shovel "joke" I made about the bands you listen. Do they have to sell only 15 copies around the world before their music is interesting? Because I have never heard about them I'm not saying that they can't be good but usually if the shit is good (no matter what music genre) the word will spread, and people will know about it.
Flah said:
Well it kinda is. Sure there are the Good Charlottes and Blink182's selling records but those are clown bands that will have their 15 minutes of fame and then they are gone. But how about serious bands like Beatles, Led Zeppelin, U2, Pink Floyd? They would have not sold as many records if they would have not been good bands. And Beatles was as pop as it gets.
Pop(ular) is not bad, mkay?
Flah
New member
Hahaha! Look how angry you are! You can't even type coherent thoughts anymore. I bet you're in such a rage you won't be able to put on your Steve Lukather mask and masturbate over your plans to kidnap Jennifer Garner tonight.
Am I supposed to be impressed by the range of music you listen to? Oh wow, I listen to everything too. Shocking! The difference is you get your jollies from pop fluff and I do not.
Am I supposed to be impressed by the range of music you listen to? Oh wow, I listen to everything too. Shocking! The difference is you get your jollies from pop fluff and I do not.
Flah
New member
Do I really even need to explain it Mr. "I've Been Listening to Music for THIRTY YEARS!"? You know if something interests you when you hear it, there's no more to say than that. Sure, people will try and narrow it down to certain elements, but that's pointless.
And I love your feeble rebuttals. It’s cute in that way that people with Down syndrome can be endearing. No. Really.
Might I add that you're still losing? Yes, I believe I shall. You're still losing.
And I love your feeble rebuttals. It’s cute in that way that people with Down syndrome can be endearing. No. Really.
Might I add that you're still losing? Yes, I believe I shall. You're still losing.
Flah
New member
Life primarily.perkele said:
Oh man this thread is fun. Alright, I need to head out for a few. Thanks for the sparring session, 'twas a good time. You put up a more interesting fight than most people. It's been a long time since I've had a good Internet dick measuring contest.
Catch you later dude, have a good one.
majutsu
Well-known member
Sorry, perk, but I am forced to intervene here:
Music has four basic elements:
1)Melody
2)Harmony
3)Lyricism i.e. message - this can be verbal like in punk or non-verbal as in classical music, where a philosophy or world-view is set in sound, like Beethoven.
4)Production i.e. tone in classical parlance. In modern parlance, or rock music, particularly enriching aspects of production.
Good music, or important music, is judged to be so because it is particularly excellent in one or more of these aspects of music.
Looking at melody, a particularly interesting sense of melodic innovation would be required to be excellent. Playing major and minor scales, and major and minor pentatonics, as Toto did, is hardly innovative, as any child who can pick up a Hal Leonard book can do this in New York, DC, Chicago, etc. Smooth playing robots are a dime-a-dozen in any major city, or school of the arts, like Duke Ellington School of the Arts. Especially given the family background of Toto, this is really no feat. Even the bands you mention as great (and some you leave off) are truly innovative melodically in specific ways. For example, Led Zeppelin pioneered the use of modal scales (particularly the Dorian and Phrygian) in rock, to great melodic effect. Jimmy Hendrix, although accused of playing minor pentatonics, even on the solo to "Hey Joe" exhibits a more arpeggiated style than is customarily assumed at first glance, and his flatted thirds and fifths borrowed from be-bop and free-form jazz are quite striking. The Edge of U2 was especially melodically innovative. In fact, the only band lacking in melodic innovation you mention is the Beatles, and they make up for it elsewhere. In fact, what made the Beatles pop was the use of tired, old, non-suprising melodic sequences. That is what makes "pop" in general: popular, i.e. used, sequences. So characterizing Toto as "pop" as you do, Perkele, essentially indicates that you find the majority of their melodic sequences to be borrowed, which is not creative.
As for harmony, bands like Rush, Hendrix, and Led Zeppelin lead the way. In some ways, for the same reason as melodic innovativeness. More unusual melodies played by some players in a band will imply that there are 9th and 13th chords being played by the whole band. Toto using nothing more elaborate than major and minor sevenths, PERIOD. Prove me wrong, but since I've seen many of their sheets, I doubt you will . . .
Message or lyricism comes next. Led Zeppelin brought the mystical subject matter of what would be heavy metal to music. Rush brought a plethora of philosophy meanderings to music. Beethoven brought the stormy Romantic age world-view to his sweeping, symphonic music. Punk brought all the discontent and dissatisfaction being covered over in the 70s to the forefront. The Beatles (and here they first distinguish themselves) were the philosophy of an age, a generation. In fact, since pop music is by definition melodically and harmonically pedantic, without message, a pop band is doomed to insignificance without a striking message. Toto had nothing to say of depth, just generic pop love-songs, and therefore they are doomed to the same insignificance as all the bands just like them (Journey, REO, etc).
Lastly, novel production. The Beatles made a living on this, especially S.Pepper. A new sound, a new world, a new experience to immerse oneself in, this can be something important, for sure. I would argue that Toto, while having excellent professionalism, "tightness" and production values, really never set a new experience with their production work. It just submerged into that very glossed-over, slick, 70s feel. I would argue that Dire Straits or Steely Dan had more elaborate and meaningful production than Toto, and did it in a way that managed to say more about the love and care they had for musical craft than Toto's production said, which was, "we want to sell lame records". But even if I recant and say Toto had excellent production, I don't feel this is enough to deem a band excellent. In the absence of melodic or harmonic innovation, both message AND production are required for potential greatness, like the Beatles had. Quite frankly, as a musician, seeing music as the art of saying something with sound, I don't think you can be called great unless you say something new (lyrical innovation) in a new way (melodic and harmonic innovation). But, whether or not you have such demanding standards in music, I think everyone agrees good production makes you definitely professional, but hardly GREAT on its own.
Yes, Flah is young. I am old, probably older than you Perkele. The truth is Flah has a very intuitive sense of the above elements of music. Perkele, I actually listen to all kinds of music: jazz, classical, punk, classic rock, gothic, country, .... you name it!, but I even listen to new, young bands, like Flah likes. Of that group of artists, Flah has at least a 70-80% match rate with what I think good music of those genres entails. His musical taste is quite solid, and I've found musical taste to have much more to do with character than with age.
In summary, what makes memorable music is melodic, harmonic, lyrical, and tonal innovation. Toto has none of these qualities. Therefore, Toto is a forgetable pop band. I actually think you bring up Toto and Michael Jackson just to needle people.
Lastly, just because a majority holds an opinion does not make it right. When Copernicus thought the Earth went around the sun, most people thought the sun went around the earth. He was right, they were all wrong. Most people do not like art, whether in literature, painting, or music. They read books or see pop movies for empty action stories. Most people don't want to be challenged by a work of art. As for music, they see it as background for dinner or fucking. Toto is fine for that, and that's why it sells. Because it is NOT art. Most people don't like artful music. In fact, it's funny you bring up Led Zeppelin. Do you know how they got their name? A famous artist (find out who . . . ) heard them before their first album and said, "Wow, that's going to go over like a lead baloon!" Most people can only approach art in music long after it's dead, when it's safe to approach after 30 years, and there is no chance of being challenged, and all their friends have told them it's safe . . .
Music has four basic elements:
1)Melody
2)Harmony
3)Lyricism i.e. message - this can be verbal like in punk or non-verbal as in classical music, where a philosophy or world-view is set in sound, like Beethoven.
4)Production i.e. tone in classical parlance. In modern parlance, or rock music, particularly enriching aspects of production.
Good music, or important music, is judged to be so because it is particularly excellent in one or more of these aspects of music.
Looking at melody, a particularly interesting sense of melodic innovation would be required to be excellent. Playing major and minor scales, and major and minor pentatonics, as Toto did, is hardly innovative, as any child who can pick up a Hal Leonard book can do this in New York, DC, Chicago, etc. Smooth playing robots are a dime-a-dozen in any major city, or school of the arts, like Duke Ellington School of the Arts. Especially given the family background of Toto, this is really no feat. Even the bands you mention as great (and some you leave off) are truly innovative melodically in specific ways. For example, Led Zeppelin pioneered the use of modal scales (particularly the Dorian and Phrygian) in rock, to great melodic effect. Jimmy Hendrix, although accused of playing minor pentatonics, even on the solo to "Hey Joe" exhibits a more arpeggiated style than is customarily assumed at first glance, and his flatted thirds and fifths borrowed from be-bop and free-form jazz are quite striking. The Edge of U2 was especially melodically innovative. In fact, the only band lacking in melodic innovation you mention is the Beatles, and they make up for it elsewhere. In fact, what made the Beatles pop was the use of tired, old, non-suprising melodic sequences. That is what makes "pop" in general: popular, i.e. used, sequences. So characterizing Toto as "pop" as you do, Perkele, essentially indicates that you find the majority of their melodic sequences to be borrowed, which is not creative.
As for harmony, bands like Rush, Hendrix, and Led Zeppelin lead the way. In some ways, for the same reason as melodic innovativeness. More unusual melodies played by some players in a band will imply that there are 9th and 13th chords being played by the whole band. Toto using nothing more elaborate than major and minor sevenths, PERIOD. Prove me wrong, but since I've seen many of their sheets, I doubt you will . . .
Message or lyricism comes next. Led Zeppelin brought the mystical subject matter of what would be heavy metal to music. Rush brought a plethora of philosophy meanderings to music. Beethoven brought the stormy Romantic age world-view to his sweeping, symphonic music. Punk brought all the discontent and dissatisfaction being covered over in the 70s to the forefront. The Beatles (and here they first distinguish themselves) were the philosophy of an age, a generation. In fact, since pop music is by definition melodically and harmonically pedantic, without message, a pop band is doomed to insignificance without a striking message. Toto had nothing to say of depth, just generic pop love-songs, and therefore they are doomed to the same insignificance as all the bands just like them (Journey, REO, etc).
Lastly, novel production. The Beatles made a living on this, especially S.Pepper. A new sound, a new world, a new experience to immerse oneself in, this can be something important, for sure. I would argue that Toto, while having excellent professionalism, "tightness" and production values, really never set a new experience with their production work. It just submerged into that very glossed-over, slick, 70s feel. I would argue that Dire Straits or Steely Dan had more elaborate and meaningful production than Toto, and did it in a way that managed to say more about the love and care they had for musical craft than Toto's production said, which was, "we want to sell lame records". But even if I recant and say Toto had excellent production, I don't feel this is enough to deem a band excellent. In the absence of melodic or harmonic innovation, both message AND production are required for potential greatness, like the Beatles had. Quite frankly, as a musician, seeing music as the art of saying something with sound, I don't think you can be called great unless you say something new (lyrical innovation) in a new way (melodic and harmonic innovation). But, whether or not you have such demanding standards in music, I think everyone agrees good production makes you definitely professional, but hardly GREAT on its own.
Yes, Flah is young. I am old, probably older than you Perkele. The truth is Flah has a very intuitive sense of the above elements of music. Perkele, I actually listen to all kinds of music: jazz, classical, punk, classic rock, gothic, country, .... you name it!, but I even listen to new, young bands, like Flah likes. Of that group of artists, Flah has at least a 70-80% match rate with what I think good music of those genres entails. His musical taste is quite solid, and I've found musical taste to have much more to do with character than with age.
In summary, what makes memorable music is melodic, harmonic, lyrical, and tonal innovation. Toto has none of these qualities. Therefore, Toto is a forgetable pop band. I actually think you bring up Toto and Michael Jackson just to needle people.
Lastly, just because a majority holds an opinion does not make it right. When Copernicus thought the Earth went around the sun, most people thought the sun went around the earth. He was right, they were all wrong. Most people do not like art, whether in literature, painting, or music. They read books or see pop movies for empty action stories. Most people don't want to be challenged by a work of art. As for music, they see it as background for dinner or fucking. Toto is fine for that, and that's why it sells. Because it is NOT art. Most people don't like artful music. In fact, it's funny you bring up Led Zeppelin. Do you know how they got their name? A famous artist (find out who . . . ) heard them before their first album and said, "Wow, that's going to go over like a lead baloon!" Most people can only approach art in music long after it's dead, when it's safe to approach after 30 years, and there is no chance of being challenged, and all their friends have told them it's safe . . .
lol at this thread
majutsu said:
Did you answer on behalf of Flah? That's what I kinda wanted him to write, or at least close. Not that I agree with everything you wrote. There's facts, there's missing facts, there's your personal opinions, good stuff and bit of BS too. If you want me to answer this, I'll give my response but cause I have lot to say, and because English ain't my first language you'll probably have to wait it a day or two. One liners are not enough for this.
rogerbee
New member
Shit, my brain hurts!! Not to mention my eyes, that's got to be the most words anyone's ever typed in one posting session. There was a point in there somewhere but I lost it. I guess it's a fact of life that not everybody will like the same things as someone else.
GOODNIGHT!!
GOODNIGHT!!
Similar threads
