On November 06 2009 06:43 sumi wrote: I'm actually the same way with lyrics. I don't really pay attention to them at all, and don't consider them that important in general until later when I know that I like the music. The stuff that always appeals to me most is how dynamic/inventive a band can make a song while keeping it still pleasing to the ear and staying catchy. That and just sheer technical skill of the musicians, like guitar/bass/drum complexity in solos and stuff. I don't mind screaming/growling vocals at all because just like you I also consider it just another layer of the music, and if it fits well, then that's fine with me.
Actually it's not so much that I don't consider lyrics important, I just can't stand bad ones. Rock and metal in general have such shitty lyrics that I've pretty much stopped caring. I have MUCH respect for bands that have good or great lyrics, but just try to let it go when a band doesn't.
On November 05 2009 01:39 koreasilver wrote: lol Opeth is overrated as fuck.
I hear its popular to say this these days, but I dont really understand why, a lot of their compositions are insane, and before someone starts talking about John Petrucci and Dream Theater, sure the guy knows how to play, but the music sounds like an endless stream of piss to me.
Its all personal opinions though.
Oh god by all means Opeth is much better than Dream Theater, but I really don't think Opeth is some kind of band from the heavens like a lot of Opeth fans seem to think.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that...then again, I don't really get why people put so much personal stock into their musical tastes that they get offended when one of their favorite bands is offended...
I listen to it awesomely. Also, at first I'm drawn in by how good the actual music is put together. After that lyrics are important to me, but I can listen to shitty lyrics if the music is put together really well.
On November 07 2009 11:16 JohnColtrane wrote: listening to classical music is like watching a bus crash
bach had no swing
Can you explain your analogy? I totally don't get it... O.O
swing, its a jazz/blues whatever rhythm. the first note is augmented whilst the 2nd is diminished. its got a bouncy kind of sound, youll know it when you hear it, just listen to any jazz (real jazz, not fusion) and youll know what it is
this is huge disrespect these are the forefathers of music as we know it without them, there is no jazz or ...anything (besides world music)
"one of the better at harmony"? that is a very ignorant statement bach is known for polyphony and contrapuntal complexity (as well as structural concerns among other many things)..certainly harmony wasn't one of his main concerns; his music is more concerned about, to put it in words you will understand, "horizontal lines" as opposed to the "vertical fabric"
looking for those who are "one of the better at harmony"? look into bruckner, mahler, schoenberg etc (much of the late romantics) they will make your most complex jazz harmonic concoctions look like child's play
overall, i must say i am thoroughly disappointed by someone who so proudly dons the name of a good jazz musician
classical musicians will earn johncoltrane's respect when he hears nice altered harmony and tritone subs. oh also, when classical learns how to be emotive. contrapuntal and structural complexity does not make grooving music
overall i must say, i dont really care what you think of me or john coltrane
few fatal flaws there you say classical music will earn your respect when you hear these specific techniques (altered harmony, tritone subs.) and then you follow it up by pointing out that techniques used by the classical medium -- which happen to be even more general than the ones you mentioned -- do not "make grooving music" a pretty ridiculous bias is present
addendum: i will provide you with classical counterparts of your aforementioned technqiues that is, oh so, unique to jazz altered chords: LOL this shit has been done way back in the 18th century augmented 6ths, neopolitan chord, german sixth, french sixth, italian sixth etc all used to sublime effect, in music of classical and, more prominently, romantic era
tritone subs: this is just the italian sixth loll
all of these techniques have been used to great effect by none other than wolfie mozart (talking 18th century here); in no way, however, was he the pioneer of harmonic language -- this implies it was in use even earlier
of course, the context in which these techniques are used may be different in jazz, but.... i think i dismantled your argument pretty bad
because it is superior and ultimate (so far) music
are you looking for musical titillation without any substance? then you are better off with the top 40 rubbish that is on the radio
of course, i also believe classical trumps other music even in the purely aesthetic sense listen to the rachmaninoff concerto 3 with some concentration (in full) and tell me you did not feel anything
On November 10 2009 19:49 phosphorylation wrote: because it is superior and ultimate (so far) music
are you looking for musical titillation without any substance? then you are better off with the top 40 rubbish that is on the radio
of course, i also believe classical trumps other music even in the purely aesthetic sense listen to the rachmaninoff concerto 3 with some concentration (in full) and tell me you did not feel anything
i felt like suicide
superior lol? give me blues all day before you give me sleep inducing classical
i dont see how you think classical trumps the blues. the blues is all about emotion. classical music is unfeeling and lame
EPT
.
