Myths

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fletcher
  • Start date Start date
mrT said:
I always thought KISS dressed way too hardcore for their music. That and they made (I think) the most cliche rock songs. Not to say they didn't have a decent song or two but I wouldn't say they changed the way people thought of music. More about how they marketed it. I guess there is a line in music. The people that are in it for love and the people that are in it for money. I don't think KISS did it for love.
Click to expand...


hehe...yeah...they are the #1 example of fluff over substance. And people just ate it up. :confused:
 
ez_willis said:
Clay Aiken isn't as talented as you think he is.
Click to expand...


No, but if he were invisible, he would make you his tonight.
 
Zed10R said:
EDAN said:
Vai is certainly a far "better" guitarist than was/is Page, but come on, Page had more talent in his pinky and it shows, it all comes down to the song, Angus and Jimmy P as well as Eddie and Jimmy H as well as Eric C and Keith R etc etc have something that is far more important. No t sure wha you mean "some level of mediocrity" concering me, you've never heard a thing of mine, but here's where we completely disagree, there is nothing mediocre about ACDC or Led Zep or VH music, yet that word, mediocrity decribes a musician like Vai perfectly, being technically perfect means nothing,QUOTE]




Clapton and Van Halen are GREAT musicians. They are both in a different class beyond Angus and Keith. I'm suprised you even like them. Wait....I see a pattern here....all the examples you give of great music and musicianship are "vintage".....are you one of those guys that thinks music has already achieved it's zenith? Maybe you aren't able to see the steps of progress, let alone take any.
Click to expand...


Eddie Van Halen is not near the technician many think, what makes these guitarists so notable is their great songwriting chops, Eddie and Eric are both riff and rhythm playing masters. The are both technically better solo players than Angus and Keith, but again so what? What's better the riff in "Ain't Talking bout Love" "Layla" "Back in Black" or "Satisfaction" ? None are "better," they are all great, all have resonated with the public for a reason. It doesn't matter who is the technically better guitarist, it's not about that to them or to the fans of their music, it's only seems to be about that to the "theory" and the like type people .. and all that is insignificant in the big picture, the proof is in the pudding.

I do like the "vintage" players more, I like the raw sound, the bands playing live in the studio for the most part, the less than perfect production, timing, the mistakes (think Stones, big time), the realness. I've heard nothing in the last few years that gets me excited, The songs don't move me, the coperate production leave me flat, it all sounds like huge layers of guitars, over the top proccessed vocals, compression etc. However, it will come around again, so no, I don't think music has reached it Nenith.
Click to expand...
 
brendandwyer said:
i would think that in the course of a lifetime of music theory would be learned.

But i think of it this way. If you are going to be a hired studio musician working with larger studios, it would be essential to learn how to read music.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

brendandwyer said:
If you are a songwriter who wants to sell songs to labels, you should probably learn how to read music for transcription purposes.
Click to expand...

Not even close, First of all You don't "sell" songs, that hasn't been done since the 40s and 50s. The publisher issues a license to the artists to use your song. Songs are pitched by playing a demo for the people you are pitching to (producers, A&R people, Artists, etc.), if they like your song and want to record it, believe me the last thing they need is for it to be transcribed by the songwriter.

brendandwyer said:
If you are a home recordist playing songs you write, it's not necessary, but like i said, theory will be learned along the way.
Click to expand...

No more than cooking at home makes you a master chef.


brendandwyer said:
I definatley wouldn't avoid it for fear that it would ruin your creativity, that just seems ignorant.
Click to expand...

Fear? It's not needed, just ask Angus and Eric.
 
ez_willis said:
Clay Aiken isn't as talented as you think he is.
Click to expand...

Really? And just how do you know how talented I think Clay Aiken is? Hmm?? I could have lived out my entire life never having thought of him even once.
 
EDAN said:
technically better.../snip/....but again so what?
Click to expand...

That's all you needed to say. You just admitted that technical knowledge and skill DOES NOT ruin talent. I am now done with this thread. Thank you very much. :D :cool:
 
this thread is weak. It was a great idea fletcher. I'm kind of sorry i even gave edan the time of day.

To spend 20 pages of posts backing up an argument that basically is "Knowledge is weakness" is laughable.

good try though fletcher.
 
Zed10R said:
That's all you needed to say. You just admitted that technical knowledge and skill DOES NOT ruin talent. I am now done with this thread. Thank you very much. :D :cool:
Click to expand...

Technical "abilty" does not ruin talent. Everyone that plays an instrument has some. Studying theory is a whole different ball game and it's not at all going to help make you into the next Eddie Van Halen or Clapton or BB, it may make you into the next Vai, but who in the world would want that!!!
 
In reality, a decent thread. Got people talking, and arguing a bit. Might be bullshit, but sometimes, even that is good. :D
 
Fletcher said:
Very.

Sorry I started it.

Oh well.
Click to expand...
The start of the thread was actually pretty good.

The thing that interests me about the ribbon mic thing is that I think there's actually some el-cheap-o Chineese mics on the market that tell you to never, ever hook the thing up to phantom power in the owners literature. Nady RSM-2 comes to mind, as I've just read the PDF document. Could it be that these things would pass DC to the ribbon? Any health concerns?


sl
 
I was going to post something defending Vai, but I think that argument has become more of a pissing match than anything else.

What the hell, I'll say it anyway. A lot of people didn't appreciate Mozart either, saying that he played too many notes. Now, I'm not saying that Steve Vai is the next Mozart, I'm just saying that you have to understand his (and others') music before you can appreciate it. AC/DC and the Stones are popular because their music is easy and requires very little thought on the listener's part. Guys like Vai (and going back, even someone like Gilmour) take a bit more effort, but the payoff is much more rewarding.

I'm not insulting AC/DC and the Stones, etc... That music is fine if you're in the right mood.
 
It's a little known fact, but it's been proven that Mozart didn't know theory.
 
ez_willis said:
It's a little known fact, but it's been proven that Mozart didn't know theory.
Click to expand...

I heard Mozart's technique was to get really high and just fuck around with 16 violins, 14 violas, 14 cellos, 10 doubles basses, 2 flutes, a piccolo, 2 oboes, an english horn, 2 clarinets, a bass clarinet, 2 bassoons, a double bassoon, 2 trumpets, 3 trombones, 4 french horns and a tuba in his bedroom until he had a cool sound going, and go with 'it', you know, from the gut, whateve's.... :D
 
Dr Biscuits said:
I heard Mozart's technique was to get really high and just fuck around with 16 violins, 14 violas, 14 cellos, 10 doubles basses, 2 flutes, a piccolo, 2 oboes, an english horn, 2 clarinets, a bass clarinet, 2 bassoons, a double bassoon, 2 trumpets, 3 trombones, 4 french horns and a tuba in his bedroom until he had a cool sound going, and go with 'it', you know, from the gut, whateve's.... :D
Click to expand...

Bwahahaaaahaaa!!!!!! :D
 
I saw the movie Amedaus, so I think I know about everything with Mozart.
I actually watched the movie several times...and he was quite a funny little pervy..and had a crazy laugh!!

I still don't get the wigs and panty hose the dudes wore back then? whats up with that?


and the movie didn't say anything about him doing drugs and being a whore tho. he was a huge,huge party animal drunk in that one scene tho.

there was alot of white powder floating around in those days ...they put in their wigs, on their faces...geez must have been a mess to cleanup.

he laughed like a wierdo.

He didn't really do that many songs according to the movie,les than 1.5 hrs worth. And was apparently a short little guy much smaller than Slim Whitman.

Personally, I don't think Mozart would sell these days. For two main reasons.

1) he doesn't grab his crotch every thirty seconds...no crotch grabbing means..no monkey money....means no BIG TIME!!!

2) oh and he never said FUCK in his operas....thats another requirement to sell BIG these days...in the PopRap #1 areana. you have to say FUCK often.
 
COOLCAT said:
I still don't get the wigs and panty hose the dudes wore back then? whats up with that?


there was alot of white powder floating around in those days ...they put in their wigs, on their faces...geez must have been a mess to cleanup.
Click to expand...

We did the same things in the 1980's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top