| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 12:03:41 PM
We all love music. We love music because of the way it makes us feel--it sticks in our heads, we dwell on it, it's inextricably linked to memories and associated with almost everything we experience. Ok i'm starting to sound cheesy, but it's true.
Now onto the point, which if anyone cares, please dispute:
Radiohead sucks.
Yes, they suck a big fat one.
I wish they would go on stage before everyshow and say something like:
"We will now use our limited musical ability to express something trite in a pretentious way"
Yes they have catchy melodies, yes some of their lyrics are provocative, flowing and ironic...Fine. But it still sucks. Why? Someone tell me?
No, they are not 3-4 chord simpletons, yet their complexity escapes me and I am left wondering why they are so worshiped.
I agree subterranian homesick alien is good to smoke pot and chill to.
|
| 100 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/28/2005 : 6:45:40 PM
hahaha. now i feel foolish.
alright. my half hour break is up. |
| AGirlNamedPsycho |
Posted - 09/28/2005 : 12:59:17 PM
Aww c'mon Dan. Just because I don't start and end a post with /sarcasm doesn't mean you're not invited to read between the lines :) |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 11:26:58 PM
yeah, all that stuff is great, except that if you think radiohead is rock and roll, i would suggest that maybe you have no idea what rock and roll is. radiohead is popular music. just because radiohead fans don't like to think they listen to a pop band, it's true. best rock song in the last 15 years. really? since almost 1996? how tight a grip do you have on rock songs written in the last 15 years? it's bands like radiohead that want to kill rock and roll. if you have really deep connections, which i find radiohead fans tend to do more so than other people obsessed with other bands, because of your ex-girlfriend or whatever, fine, but let's not call them something they simply aren't.
yeah, you could name drop, but name dropping is fucking stupid and anyone could sit here and list band after band. and what does it prove? that you can list bands. nothing more.
and i suppose your comment is relevant? haha, a matrix quote from a radiohead. how delightfully insipid. |
| AGirlNamedPsycho |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 10:24:06 PM
This post really does rock.
At least when people were name-dropping I could pretend it was an article on pitchforkmedia.com.
Maybe I could stand up for Radiohead and declare Paranoid Android the best rock song written in the last 15 years; it's lightly experimental while still being accessible to a broad audience which is something that even the tightest bebop players would have difficulty expressing (this is offset of course by the fact that most bebop players probably don't care whether or not you get it). I could turn around and say Radiohead fucking lucked out with their first and last albums and are probably lucky to have retained an audience at all. Pablo Honey was their fledgling effort in the US and it could have killed their career before it began; everyone was shouting one-hit-wonder until The Bends proved everyone wrong. And Hail to the Theif should have been an amazing 10-song disc instead of a meandering 14 tracks, anywhere from 4-6 of those songs probably could have been sacked and the album would embody focus and theme, not the blind reachings of a 5-piece who didn't know whether to sit closer to Kid A or OK.
I suppose I could tell stories of how Radiohead moves me so deeply that I don't generally listen to it with people I don't know in the room. My roommates knew I trusted them when I watched the 7 Television Commercials DVD with them only to break into strange sobs because the imagery and music overfuckingloads me. Or I could conversely talk a lot of shit about how my last girlfriend and I were such Radiohead freaks, how our song was True Love Waits and how we ended so poorly and she is so woven into every track of The Bends that I can't decide whether to burn the disc into a fine powder and scatter it all over her brand new hybrid-electric auto or leave the CD on repeat for 17 years, one year for each month of our relationship.
I suppose I could drop some names and list my off-genre influences so that people know I "really listen to music". Charlie Parker's Donna Lee, Lamb's Gorecki, Frusciante's entire To Record Only Water For 10 Days, Track 1 Side 1 of the 5th Symphony and that shit. I guess that would make for a really, really honest post wouldn't it?
I'm pretty sure that truly engaging conversation has been almost totally avoided within this post. It's quite difficult to argue taste to people with tongues. I'm also pretty sure that whether or not Radiohead actually sucks or not, one would have a hard time dissuading people on either side of the fence of this issue. I'm pretty sure that what's going on is a blatent attempt to piss somebody off, to make someone offer up a 40-ft Fuck You so that one can respond in kind. I don't understand the motivation but I recognize the signs and they all point in roughly this direction. The best part is, much like the Architect pointed out to Neo, the next comment addressing this post may quantify as pertinent, but it is, in fact, irrelevant. |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 09/21/2005 : 11:59:12 AM
Rock and roll...Yes, Radiohead is Rock...Rock with experimental Vaginal Impulses.
I don't know if Radiohead ever spoke of weather modification, but I'm sure it was used when they toured and were at Moscow...I was there on tour and the government Bombed the clouds in order to make the sun shine through. It's freaky but it can be done. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/20/2005 : 9:25:14 PM
radiohead? rock and roll? radiohead is not rock and roll. you want rock? jed whitey. |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 09/20/2005 : 5:24:06 PM
It's obvious to me, that not only does Radiohead's music allude to the mastermind behind the New World Order, Masonic Religion, Skull & Bones Society, Thule Society, but also to the chief architects who planned Washington DC with spiritually conscious numerology/mathematics and symbolism to become the gates through which Lucifer himself with emerge.
Lets face it...there have been no more epic Rock bands since radiohead. No band has gotten the popularity and Praise of them since they came into being...they are the last Major Rock act in History. Now their fading popularity is like a sign that the end times are near...A sign that nothing new is to come--only derivative rehashing in the form of Rock.
As it is prophesied in both radiohead lyrics and the bible: violent storms will occur, great wars will ensue, Jews will Reclaim Israel, A new Rome will Arise with World domination in its eyes. We are clearly lving in these times, and radiohead was our last major artistic indication of this |
| dan p. |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 1:20:18 PM
"cry your pardon" is a phrase of apology. but rather than explaining that, i just told her to explode, instead. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 12:06:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
it means explode.
that still makes no sense to me.
Cry you pardon, jamie and hkg, explode? whaa??
 |
| dan p. |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 10:30:31 AM
it means explode. |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 10:11:06 AM
Dan, the more you ignore me, the closer I get. |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 07/07/2005 : 10:31:30 AM
Dan, what are you talking about? Pardon my ignorance. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 07/06/2005 : 1:39:59 PM
cry your pardon, jamie and hkg. i have forgotten the face of my father. |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 07/06/2005 : 1:16:37 PM
Indeed Mr. Dan, A wise man is one who knows he is not open minded. I wish I could be more open minded, and then sometimes I am purely happy being as closed-minded as I am about certain things...doesn't mean I'm right or lacking motivation to think otherwise...
The whole act of infalliably maintaining strong opinions verges on the Masturbatory. It's annoying when someone sits deep in their own cesspool of pretentious ejaculatory reasonings, and refuses to entertain others viewpoints for the pure sake of experiencing something new.
Case in point--Blazin the Chronic. You are not wrong to stay off drugs, and I am not more right to use them. They just help me free up closed connections in my mind as I know they do for others...lets face it--our minds fill up with what we know like homogenious shitheaps. Perceiving life the same way all the time is boring, no matter how creative and insightful you are.
The subtext of this post is not to hard-sell you on weed, Dan--it's simply to shed light on the ordinariness of life which I know Radiohead speaks about quite well, and gain respect in my eyes as they encourage people to break free of it. They don't mention drug use, but drugs can be a way of breaking free. It's not my purest idea of breaking free, but it sure as hell is fun and too bad that anyone wouldn't want to at least try. |
| Jamie M |
Posted - 07/01/2005 : 01:18:10 AM
Yes I drew that conclusion from the leading question you finished your post with.
I'd just like to point out that I don't use drugs anymore with the exception of drinking. So what you think is my way is actually not. And I already said I don't think either is right or wrong. I was trying to show you that both can be right ways. Open minded doesn't necessarily mean believing in everything, it means understanding that others believe in something even though you don't.
And by getting more I meant as an individual. No relation to others.
Happy Canada Day to all. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/30/2005 : 10:36:27 PM
i didn't say my way was the only right way. you drew that conclusion yourself, and you're welcome to it. i don't particularly care. but, judging from you saying "you shouldn't harrass people who can get more out of music from drugs" it would seem that perhaps you feel that your way is the right way. "get more out of music." give me a fucking break, would you? "getting more" implies it's better. i'd be more inclined to agree with "different" as guitarispimp suggested. i know i sound arrogant, but you telling me you get more than me when you listen to something high is equally arrogant. i'll get over this when you get over yourself. you have forgotten the face of your father.
guitaris, i say that perhaps you're right, and that it's just different. but it goes against my desire to precieve things on my own, not filtered through a drug. if i ever claimed to be truly open minded, i take the comment back. i'm not open minded, and i have yet to meet the person who is "truly open minded." i believe that there is no "open minded." we believe things because we believe they are right, and because we believe they are right we don't accept other beliefs that are in discord with our own. for instance, no one is open minded about their political views. i would suggest that no one here is open minded about bush, because the things he does go against their belief in the way things should be, which you are also not open minded about. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 06/30/2005 : 8:12:21 PM
whether you choose to accept it or not, drugs provide an alternate viewpoint on perception, in this case in perception of music. It's argueable as to which is better as sober perception is more true to "reality," but on drugs it is much more vivid, personal, warm, emotional, distinguishable, indistinguishable, fuzzy, whatever you'd like to describe it as. But regardless, it is an alternate way of looking at things and if you're one who says he truly does keep an open mind, you would probably consider at least trying it to merely hear things from a different angle. It's not a better angle, not a worse angle, just a different angle and it should be respected as just that.
The effects of drugs on music can vary anyways, in my opinion. I've played guitar high countless times, and on most occasions i feel like i can be brilliant and creative and smooth, and on others i feel like it's all too pleasing to keep my interest and i end up uninspired in a fluttery fuzz of almost equally pretty noises that just numb my musical desire at the moment. I've recorded myself and listened back on high recordings all the time, and it certainly does change my style, but i can't judge as to whether or not it is better, it's just different, like i've said before.
and dan, you read way too much into that spice analogy. the point was to view spices not as spices literally, but merely as an enhancing element to the product. you can overanalyze any analogy into oblivion. |
| Jamie M |
Posted - 06/30/2005 : 6:48:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
but i don't wish to change the music. it isn't mine to change, unless i have written it. i want to hear and understand the music as the artist intended it. i want to be moved by it in the way the artist intended it to move me. and if the artist intended me to hear it, feel it, and understand it in my own way, then fine. my way is without drugs. your way may be different. who's is right?
I would say neither or both are right, depending how you look at it. But I hope you're not suggesting you are absolutely right. Because, beside the fact that you don't know how the artist wants you to experience the music, I don't think drugs automatically mean you are not experiencing it the right way. Should I not do school work and listen to music at the same time because I'm not giving it my full attention? Though.. I'm not always doing school work when I listen to music, so maybe it's OK then. I'm also not always high when I listen to music. But I can be sometimes. Isn't that OK as well? Do you think the artist would really feel down if I told them that one time I listened to their CD after smoking weed?
If me doing school work really enhanced music for me, would we still be having this argument Dan?
Please get over this, and accept that it's not such a bad thing to put drugs and music together. And that you shouldn't harrass people who can get more out of music from drugs.
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/30/2005 : 5:58:32 PM
"There is no sound unless it is perceived. Drugs change that perception--thus changing the music."
but i don't wish to change the music. it isn't mine to change, unless i have written it. i want to hear and understand the music as the artist intended it. i want to be moved by it in the way the artist intended it to move me. and if the artist intended me to hear it, feel it, and understand it in my own way, then fine. my way is without drugs. your way may be different. who's is right? |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/30/2005 : 2:23:10 PM
Dan sometimes you seem like one in the know, and sometimes you just seem like a very stubborn person (like my best friend) who makes overly confident claims about knowing the truth about things he has never experienced.
Look, perhaps you owe your thinking to an organized worldview--maybe Christian, maybe another religion, or just a code of personal ethics that prevents you from doing certain things. But trust me on this one.
For heaven sakes, twist up a fatty and observe how it CHANGES the music. It goes right along with your view of a tree falling in the woods. There is no sound unless it is perceived. Drugs change that perception--thus changing the music. Music exists in time--it is there and then vanishes, unlike a movie or painting that you can look at over and over. It's the world's most difficult artform. Expriencing it with drugs can change the artform in real time...An absolute must for listening to Radiohead. I suggest you do it with Floyd too...you might get into that.
Like Salt, drugs will open up sounds (flavors) that your mind was closed to before. |
| Jamie M |
Posted - 06/27/2005 : 9:11:44 PM
Of course food and spice don't parallel perfectly with music and drugs. But on the level that it applies to my point, I think it is completely adequate. That level is perception. Spices change the way that we perceive a food tastes. Drugs change the way that we perceive music sounds. For most, the right spices make food taste better. Similarly for most, as far as I've encountered, the right drugs make music sound better. I don't believe the manner in which the two effectors change the perception is at all relevant.
By the way I'm not trying to argue that you have to try drugs and music, I just think you need to accept that for people who want to, there's no reason to put them down. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/27/2005 : 7:29:54 PM
your analogy is flawed. spices change the way the food actually taste. drugs don't change the way the music actually sounds. also, spices are food themselves. you wouldn't eat a spice all by itself, granted, but it is a food. drugs aren't music. spices' relation to food is too different from drug's relationship to music to make for a good analogy. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 06/22/2005 : 07:57:12 AM
Tell a non-smoker to smoke pot to try it out? AHAHAHA What is this, 7th grade? That certainly won't fly with Dan. Nice try though. And I am pretty sure Thom never said that.
He did write this tho.
A Reminder
If I get old, I will not give in
But if I do, remind me of this.
Remind me that, once I was free,
Once I was cool, once I was me.
And if I sat down, and crossed my arms,
Hold me to this song.
Knock me out, smash out my brains,
If I take a chair, start to talk shit...
If I get old, remind me of this:
That night we kissed, and I really meant it.
Whatever happens, if we're still speaking.
Pick up the phone, play me this song. |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/21/2005 : 10:42:48 AM
Great food analogy Jamie--Yes, to continue what Jamie was saying in my own words, I think of Salt and what it does for foods.
A female friend of mine loves to make elaborate flavorful food, but she never adds salt, or salty ingredients, so for all the complexity she is creating, most of the flavors never come out the way they should, and I am always asking her for the salt. Personally, I'd rather the food was seasoned properly enough so I wouldn't have to add salt. When I cook, I try to add just enough salt that the food isn't salty, but enough that it's real tasty.
Much the same with Music Dan, I feel like maybe you could stand to add some drugs into the mix--not because you need to, but just maybe to try it and see how it feels. It certainly can help certain music seem less bland--one band in particular as you know...but seriously--you should spice it up!
|
| Jamie M |
Posted - 06/19/2005 : 10:50:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
from the way you put it, it sounds like drugs don't "enhance" anything at all, but just make you think they're better than they really are.
Drugs enhance the euphoria you would normally obtain from something. Therefore, in most cases, makes you often perceive things as better than they are.
I don't understand your absolute defiance of drugs in this matter.
If spices make your food taste better, why wouldn't you add them? Or at least try. I see it the same way for music and drugs. |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/16/2005 : 5:35:45 PM
I'm in agreement...playing on drugs never seems to work that great for me...alcohol especially--really messes things up. Listening on drugs can do wonders. But not cool if it's what's required to make music good.
My 13 year old nephew just got into pot and radiohead--big coincidence. Another soul affixed like a barnacle to radiohead's enormous fan base of pot smoking puberty boys. (and girls).
"I am so SAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDD and I want to DIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEE!"
--thom yorke |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 10:54:03 PM
I used to play high a lot while I was just playing solo and acoustic and I mean really high. It didn't really hinder my playing much in that situation and I actually enjoyed it, but I rarely play in that situation now. I'm always playing with a group and mostly jazz stuff that's modulating like crazy and if I'm more than just a little high I have a hard time keeping up because I just enjoy my sound too much and I usually play more atonal and piss everyone off. So I don't play high much anymore, but if I do I make sure to not get too high.
The last time I played drunk we had to record and although I probably was swinging harder I didn't feel very into the music. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 7:36:46 PM
Agreed Zach. I don't play while drunk ever. But to be honest, sometimes when I smoke, I am brilliant. I only say this because I have recorded myself, and have recieved many compliments on my improv. It just inspires me sometimes; I can't explain it.
Dan P. : We have to meet at some point in our lives. You kill me daily. Maybe at my personal TR concert I am trying to throw. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 5:41:57 PM
Miles has stated that although heroin was popular on the scene back then and especially amongst up and commers that saw people like bird and miles himself using it and thought to themselves that if they did heroin it would somehow help them play... Well Miles said Heroin didn't do anything but destroy people. It's simply amazing that they were able to make the music they did while in that lifestyle. They made good music in spite of it and not because of it.
Most Jazz musicians I know or have read about today are all trying to be as healthy as possible, and while once the scene used to be to see how fucked up you can get it's now about playing at your highest level and seeing how long you can do it and be in perfect shape. I know there are still a lot of alcoholic musicians and such and ones that use marijuana and such, and it's higher than most proffesions, but I think that has to do more with people tyring to find a way to cope with the vicous fucking cycle of performing and analyzing your playing and always feeling like you need to get better and such. It's a fucking trip.
Me personally I've played drunk and high and all fucked up and it doesn't really help my playing. The only thing I think you can say that drugs do is put you in a different state of mind for a period of time which is a kind of cool thing because it's like an instantly different perception. It's a different way to feel music as your brain is in a different chemical state. I wouldn't say better, but just different. I won't play fucked up though now, because I think it has a negitive effect on my playing. That's just me though.
A sign that you are addicted to something is when you feel you need it, to be creative or whatever, and that's problematic. Drugs are fun to mess around with, but they don't take you to a higher level musically. They may however alter your perspective on things which is kind of cool. |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 2:38:27 PM
Yes it's true--Miles Davis slammed Heroin, Mozart was a lush, The beatles (though they'd have you believe they stopped it later in their careers) puffed the magic dragon and did other stuff, I need not name all contemporary rockers using and abusing them. Face it, throughout history much music and art was influenced by drug use. But oddly, most of it doesn't require drug use to appreciate. Yet some does, namely Radiohead, in my opinion. Dan P., we need to get high one of these days...then I think some of your conceptions may shift--even slightly. Hey, we might also find Radiohead amazing.
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 11:23:20 AM
i'll allow that i don't know the personal habits of many composers, and it's entirely possible that they had opium habits or some shit.
as for bands i listen to, i know a good deal of them make a point of not doing drugs, leastways not while writing and performing music. i'm taking a look through my cds and mp3s right now. i see 6 or 7 bands i know for sure mix drugs and music. for example, to say that the black crowes didn't mix drugs and music would be an out and out lie. i see around twice that that i know for sure don't. the rest i'm not all that sure of. i don't know where you grabbed 25% from, but it's probably not acurate. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 07:56:12 AM
Yah, talking about nuance...the face Buscemi makes when Goodman whips out the gun in the bowling alley is priceless. You have to be paying attention, but it's a screen gem.
HKG: I just think your press to dishonor Radiohead's music is lame. You hear influence in all spectrums of music. As in life, you see shades of other people in yourself and others...same idea musically. We all are feeding and building off of each other, that is what makes it so beautiful...it's concious and subconcious, whether you like it or not.
Radiohead are a great band, with fantastic sense of rhythm and movement, great lyrical abilites, as well as fine instrumentation and a penchant for absolutely sick guitar noise. The fact that you've put so much time trying to knock them makes me wonder about you...hence, a fucking idiot. I am not Captain Sensitivity, so your multiple tirades have concluded me this; not necessarily your entire persona is fucking stupid, just the drivel you've posted on this thread.
Again, this is all my worthless opinion, but why don't you just smoke a fattie, put on something YOU like, and write about that for a while.
Dan, you are clearly of the opinion that drugs can do nothing for you, and in fact, dumb you down a good deal. The truth is, probably at least 25% of all the shit you listen to has been in someway manipulated by a mind-altering substance. Don't think some of those composers weren't getting hosed on some medieval shit. And if you listen to a modicum of rock music '66-'73, you are hearing altered states. Working on a another plane of thought never hurt anybody.
I certainly wouldn't tell Miles to lay off the heroin, if that's his bag (pun intended), who's to tell him what level he works best on. And, as said before, there's no right/wrong here, all gray. My point is music in general has been greatly affected by "drugs" over the course of centuries...and to be brutally honest, I'd hate to think how fucking boring it would be without it. Good day. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 11:49:52 AM
from the way you put it, it sounds like drugs don't "enhance" anything at all, but just make you think they're better than they really are. |
| Kenneth |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 10:55:22 AM
The Big Lebowski.... now that's a good movie. By far John Goodman's best performance of all time.
|
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 10:10:41 AM
so I take it dan p doesn't like the movie and Hopeful Rolling waves does. I'd like to know why you think I'm a fucking idiot. Or is it just simply because I'm not at all into radiohead? That's shallow, if that's the case. Dan p, if you don't like lebowski, well, that's ok but too bad. I'm interested in what wisdom you have to offer about people who like the movie...perhaps it's similar to me with Radiohead. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 07:36:26 AM
It astounds me that someone who likes The Big Lebowski so much could still be such a fucking idiot. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 12:19:47 AM
"I had this experience recently watching The Big Lebowski."
and really, that's everything we need to know about you right there. |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 1:53:33 PM
Hi Jamie M, I just want to apologize for some statements of mine which if taken literally are a bit too much--the ones about social underdevelopment leading to radiohead's popularity. Obviously, this is being way too simplistic and harsh...I am sorry if you indirectly took offense. Bear in mind, I really don't mean any of what I say to be taken too personally--I sense you aren't taking it too much that way, but I just wanted to say sorry in case anything was grating on you. Peace :).
Anyway I hear what you say about analyzing music taking passion out of it. I also hear what Zach says about analzying music adding to the ability to appreciate it. Some people take the analysis too far, and some of the music they end up appreciating is ridiculous...12 tone classical stuff which they can speak volumes about but I don't care for because it sounds like someone pooped on my ears. Then sometimes you can get really into something and not be able to break it down in theory terms, or notice influences--but you think it kicks ass and that's all that matters.
I think it goes to the drug argument as well:
Some people like to experience their music with drugs and some don't.
Drugs can expand your mind to levels of sensitivity you didn't realize and then sometimes ordinary music becomes extraordinary, and brilliant music becomes just too much to handle.
I had this experience recently watching The Big Lebowski. First of all, I love that movie, and have seen it countless times. But for the first time last week I experienced it while high and drunk. In the middle of one of scenes with Steve buschemi, John Goodman, and the dude talking with each other I had to close my eyes and look away, because it was simply too overwealmingly brilliant for me to experience with both my eyes and ears at the same time. I've never had that happen with anything before.
So my verdict is drugs enhance anything...average becomes great and brilliant becomes sometimes too brilliant. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/11/2005 : 3:03:45 PM
yeah, i mean if you want to listen to music stoned or whatever, fine. i'm not saying you can't or shouldn't do it. it's really not any of my business, and i'm not all that interested in who does drugs and why. it's just a choice. make it and move on. that's why i don't care for many sXe kids. you think making a choice not to drink and smoke or whatever makes you a part of some club? please. it means nothing. wipe those stupid x's off your hands and grow up a little, please. it's a choice, not a fashion.
but saying music is "better" or that you listen "better," on drugs, then i'm going to have take exception, because that implies that being on a drug and listening to music somehow puts you at an advantage musically over someone who doesn't. which is, of course, simply not true. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 10:12:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jamie M
3. As I do not have a trained musical ear, here we're once again on a different page. Different perception of the music. Although I'm glad I don't have a trained ear, as I find over-analyzing music takes the passion out of it.
Overanalyzing is one thing, but being able to analyze is another. I really can't believe how much better I've understood music since training my ear more and it hasn't taken the passion away. It's merely added to my abilty to appreciate it. |
| Jamie M |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 9:44:47 PM
HKG, had I known you were capable of such a reasonable and logical post, I wouldn't have gone after you like I did. It actually looks like you got someone else to write it, judging by coherence, punctuation, even some ideas. But I don't wanna get into that.
I believe the basis for mainly all opinions is two things; perception and perspective. On the issue of Radiohead, we are not on the same page. But that's OK now.. you have at this point clearly stated your opinion reasonably, so I won't go any further against you. But really all of this makes me wonder why you would ask us to answer a question you already had an answer for. I'm also still confused as to why you started this thread here of all places.
At any rate, you've indirectly accused me of being psychologically and socially underdeveloped. In defense of myself:
1. You made it clear that's your point of view. Your perspective is very much different than mine. What more can I say, than that I disagree that you could label Radiohead's music as being appreciable to such a limited group and then try to make that group come across as so inferior and pathetic.
2. Again, you can substitute that about any band or artist, and it's still an irrelevent paragraph.
3. As I do not have a trained musical ear, here we're once again on a different page. Different perception of the music. Although I'm glad I don't have a trained ear, as I find over-analyzing music takes the passion out of it.
To me, you're still blaming a band for what their fans are responsible for.
Whether you add the other points is entirely up to you, you may want to redeem yourself with those more reasonable arguments. But I've more or less exhausted myself in here. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 6:36:38 PM
Well it's basically not a winable arguement either way. Some people say people use drugs because they can't deal with reality, and some people say that they use reality because they can't deal with drugs.
As to whether the music becomes better I would say it's not the changing of the music, but the change in the perception of the person. If people enjoy how music sounds more when their brain is in a changed chemical state that results in a euphoric feeling I really don't think you can argue with that. Unless you're prepared to explain the nature of reality, and that is some comlex mathmatical shit. I just know I like Euphoric feelings, but I don't try to get into that state constantly because it's like two different points of view and I enjoy both, but one seems to be more challenging and I like a good challenge so I don't get high all the time. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 2:20:23 PM
"makes the music seem better." not "makes the music better." the music remains exactly the same. and not all music is better when you're high. go ahead and listen to bach's mass in b minor high. you think you'll appreciate that better high? understand it better? if anything, i'd be willing to bet you miss more than you gain from that. |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 2:04:21 PM
Jamie M, I have given it more thought, and worked on the things you said...here's what I have come up with:
1. Most people start purchasing/developing tastes in music in early teenage years. Most of us had parents who played us music as children which influenced us later, or had no effect. Much of radiohead's character--their melodies and plaintive vocals appeal so strongly to lonely teenagers in bedrooms. The music relishes inside a juvenile atmosphere of thoughts, and emotions..like heavy metal bands. Most people experience these things and then grow out of them. It seems the most ardent radiohead fans that I have encountered are in their early teens--they are the ones who become very defensive if you say something negative about radiohead. And then there are those who have grown up, but have not matured in certain psychological/social areas--they are still asking the same questions, and still getting the same answers, or no answers. My view is that Radiohead helps provide a musical connection to life for these people and their perpetual juvenile Q&A. If that's how you want to live life, that's cool--it's just not for me, and I argue that society is much more wonderful then radiohead would have you believe. Get over it--things are not so bleak. (A big shout to Charles Dickens and his Bleak House--fuck you too, although that's better than radiohead) So Therefore, I believe a great deal of radiohead's success is due to millions of people's social underdevelopment. And I have said this before much more simply and crass(ly) by saying: "I need to be 14 or be growing fresh pubes to appreciate it.
2. I’m sure Radiohead doesn’t support drugs, but fact remains, the drugs certainly help the music. I feel certain drugs turn up emotional sensitivity levels to beyond natural, or cause you to perceive things which are not actually there. They can also help a person become more agreeable with whatever is going on. Put these things together and Radiohead’s cheesy/excessively borrowed melodies become hyper appealing and original sounding, very agreeable, and start convincing yourself that better music is hitting your ears. With drugs, Thom Yorke ceases to be a martin-short goblin like man with a lazy quasimoto eye, and becomes nothing short of a mythological hero—like Persius, turning trite verbiage into an articulate proverbial sword of righteousness—cutting through to deep understanding of humanity which in this state of mind you are convinced that no one has yet done.
3. The trickery is evident when you realize just how many bands radiohead has “borrowed” from. A trained musical ear will discover them as some sort of unholy alliance of ELP, John Coltrain, The Police, The pixies, and later Richard D. James. Perhaps it’s a redeemable quality more than an a negative one they have in that if a listener hears some of these other great musicians, they will identify with something in the songs by virtue of Radiohead. But for someone who has a broader musical background, this sort of thing, for me at least and others, can be bothersome. Bothersome because people actually believe they are so different and original when they are simply a bastardized conglomeration of a lot of good music that they have never heard before. Which brings me back to my point about being an early teen. You’re young, impressionable, inexperienced…something like radiohead must strike as different and amazing, but only because you haven’t experienced much other truly GOOD music. So therefore, many of you have been tricked by your own ignorance into thinking radiohead is so original and good.
Lets start with those three for now, this is becoming a fucking long post. Am I making any more sense here? A tad perhaps?
|
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 12:45:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
"2. All music is better with drugs."
merh. wrong. try again.
Strong Euphoric feelings make pretty much everything seem better. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 7:48:44 PM
"2. All music is better with drugs."
merh. wrong. try again. |
| Jamie M |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 7:45:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by HotKoreanGirl
Blah. Blah. Blah.
I'll give you good marks for effort, but here's some things you might wanna work on..
1. Trying to blame their success on teenage nostalgia? That is your weakest point yet.
2. All music is better with drugs. Radiohead don't support drugs at all and sure as hell don't promote their music being associated with drugs.
3. They're not trying to trick anyone. You're listening to media interpretation. Why not pay attention to what the band is doing and not what the media and even their fans say about them. It seems you should change your argument to "The way Radiohead is portrayed to me sucks".
Music is borrowed in this case, not stolen. It's done all the time, you said so yourself it's acceptable. They do what all bands do. If it opens someone's mind to a different style or whatever, that person has the right to credit Radiohead with exposing them to new music. Your arguments are so driven by spite that you're just not seeing things logically.
4. Their latest album was good. Not my favourite, but still good. Too bad you failed to mention any of the lows on the album, now I have no way to nullify this point.
5. Now you're just trying to distract your own flaw with some kind of ridiculous insult. Look at it however you want, you're still the idiot here.
If you've got a problem with their success, blame the fans, blame the media, don't blame the band.
Sorry for feeding the troll, this thread will bore me soon enough, there's just some things that need to be said. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 7:37:23 PM
i don't do drugs, so, you know, anything i enjoy i do all by myself. i guess it could be the listener's weakness for not being "open minded enough" whatever that means, to like them. but that assumes the only possible problem is with this vauge concept of "open mindedness" and not preference. i don't like them, but it's not because i'm not open minded. i don't like them because i don't feel like any of their music does anything. yeah, it's vast and atmospheric or whatever that asian guy said, and if that's the intent of the music, to be vast and atmospheric, then fine. the music succeeds, in its own right. it's just not what i look for in music. |
| Erich |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 6:13:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
we've had this argument before. it's the one where i say "being high doesn't make the music better, and it doesn't make you listen better and notice things people who aren't high don't notice. it makes you think more about yourself and think more about how the music effects you." then you say "shut up because you've never been high so you don't even know." now that i've saved everyone the trouble of going through that conversation again, i'd like to add that it seems to me that if you "need" to be high to really "understand it/get it" or whatever, that is a weakness in the songwriting, and not anything remarkable. if the song's so good, how come it relies on a drug to let the listener enjoy it?
funny, i see that as more of a weakness in the person than in the song. If someone can't understand the musical genius of floyd without drugs, that doesnt mean that the songs are flawed, just means the persons mind is too closed without drugs.
note: this has nothing to do with subjectivity, so if you dont ilke floyd regardless of drugs, thats fine too. Shame on you. But its still fine. |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 5:47:42 PM
wow, you must really like radiohead. |
| therippa |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 5:11:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by HotKoreanGirl
i don't think saying something is gay is homophobic. Why do you think it is? Remember the whole "gay in jest" discussion we had ages ago?
Look, obviously Radiohead doesn't suck like something trully sucky--like a disease or something, but they do suck for just being not good and so popular. Like some cheesy movie or something, you get it? Thank you for saying I am not wrong for thinking they are not good. I am just taking it a step further.
Seriously:
1. the music takes you back to early teen years and before--I guess people who are over 14 and still like them still long for those times, or who just can't get over them.
2. the music ought to be enjoyed with drugs for best results.
3. Having unoriginal subject matter isn't a problem, in fact nearly nothing is new these days--but they make it worse by TRYING to be different, and convincing people that they are so different when in fact they are totally not. People like to say it opens up vistas to other music...that's giving them way too much credit. If they actually open doors to other music, it's because they've stolen so much other music and finding new music through them is mearly discovering the music they stole from.
4. You can't tell me you like their latest album--they are stepping to new lows with that one, and probably put a few brown notes in it, just to get some response...hey if they won't like it, we might as well make them shit themselves, huh?
5. I wish I could get over people liking them, but I can't. It's like standing around watching grandmothers give their savings away to televangalists. Obviously in this analogy, fans of radiohead are the gradnmothers.
You are a fucking idiot. I'm done with this thread.
Please, fellow members of the task force, please don't feed this troll anymore. |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 3:24:27 PM
i don't think saying something is gay is homophobic. Why do you think it is? Remember the whole "gay in jest" discussion we had ages ago?
Look, obviously Radiohead doesn't suck like something trully sucky--like a disease or something, but they do suck for just being not good and so popular. Like some cheesy movie or something, you get it? Thank you for saying I am not wrong for thinking they are not good. I am just taking it a step further.
Seriously:
1. the music takes you back to early teen years and before--I guess people who are over 14 and still like them still long for those times, or who just can't get over them.
2. the music ought to be enjoyed with drugs for best results.
3. Having unoriginal subject matter isn't a problem, in fact nearly nothing is new these days--but they make it worse by TRYING to be different, and convincing people that they are so different when in fact they are totally not. People like to say it opens up vistas to other music...that's giving them way too much credit. If they actually open doors to other music, it's because they've stolen so much other music and finding new music through them is mearly discovering the music they stole from.
4. You can't tell me you like their latest album--they are stepping to new lows with that one, and probably put a few brown notes in it, just to get some response...hey if they won't like it, we might as well make them shit themselves, huh?
5. I wish I could get over people liking them, but I can't. It's like standing around watching grandmothers give their savings away to televangalists. Obviously in this analogy, fans of radiohead are the gradnmothers.
|
| therippa |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 2:24:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by HotKoreanGirl
"They suck!" I say. They suck for tricking people into liking them. Doing whatever they did to do it. Maybe it's like the "brown note". They play a certain note and everyone poops all over themselves...in their case it's like boyband ferver translated into moping, mysterical ponderings, bright light of hope gayness, helpless lonliness...all collectively experienced, and all so...GAY! So freaking GAY. Dance music played at gay clubs is less gay then radiohead. God, what a bunch of fucking slut bags Radiohead is. How can you not agree with me?
Why is it almost every one of your idiotic diatribes segues into a homophobic rant? |
| GuitarGuy305 |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 2:10:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by HotKoreanGirl
"They suck!" I say. They suck for tricking people into liking them. Doing whatever they did to do it. Maybe it's like the "brown note". They play a certain note and everyone poops all over themselves...in their case it's like boyband ferver translated into moping, mysterical ponderings, bright light of hope gayness, helpless lonliness...all collectively experienced, and all so...GAY! So freaking GAY. Dance music played at gay clubs is less gay then radiohead. God, what a bunch of fucking slut bags Radiohead is. How can you not agree with me?
Because this is the wrong place to post this, as many here like Radiohead. If you want people to agree with you, find some anti-radiohead website, I'm sure they'd love you there and they'd all agree. There are probably more guys pretending to be hot asian chicks there too.
You're not wrong for thinking they are not good. You ARE wrong for saying they suck. "Sucking" is relative. I say if a band cant play live, they suck. Everyone thinks bands suck for different reasons. This is true with many things. Look at something like food. If I say I don't like pizza, does that mean pizza sucks? Tons of people on this planet love pizza and think it's great. If I don't like it, that doesn't mean that pizza is disgusting and no one should eat it.
I can't stand when someone says "*band/artist* sucks!". Who is that person to say that this band or artist has no business being popular, selling albums, or making music? One of my best friends is a huge Prince fan. I don't get Prince, and I probably never will. I don't like his music. But I don't go up to her and say "Prince sucks!" I just say "I haven't heard much of his stuff, but I really can't get into what I've heard" She understands that, just as I can understand when someone says they find Tim Reynolds acoustic intrumental music boring. Some people like different things. TR's music may be boring for those who like to have lyrics to sing along to or whatever. It's whatever floats your goddamn boat. But just because you don't like a band, that doesn't mean they suck. Going back to the Prince thing, I can admit he's a good musician, and a good artist, I am just not into him. That doesn't mean he sucks. I just don't like him. I'm not so conceited that I think if I don't like a band, they suck, and therefore no one should like them.
Radiohead did not "trick" anyone. Thom didn't organize this meeting of the band years ago to figure out how they can trick people into liking their music.
People fucking like them. Get over it. |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 11:16:48 AM
Jamie M, You have a point about jealousy of people all liking a band...I have thought that to myself at times. If you couldn't tell that I am an "independent thinker" when it comes to music already I'm surprised. I fancy myself as one who typically likes music just for the sake of good music--no matter what kind it is, noor where it comes from. Huge following or not, if Radiohead was a good band and I liked them, it wouldn't bother me if tons of people loved them. I like shit that millions of people like--really popular stuff too.
I just hate it when a band with much less talent, and much less of anything than anyone claims they have gets immensely popular. I get jealous of people's attention, even though I don't know a fraction of the masses--I just get plain jealous and bothered by all the attention people give to a band that doesn't deserve it. It's like wtf, why do all these people love this average band? Why don't the like something great? It fuels such a detest for the band, having tricked all these people into liking them.
"They suck!" I say. They suck for tricking people into liking them. Doing whatever they did to do it. Maybe it's like the "brown note". They play a certain note and everyone poops all over themselves...in their case it's like boyband ferver translated into moping, mysterical ponderings, bright light of hope gayness, helpless lonliness...all collectively experienced, and all so...GAY! So freaking GAY. Dance music played at gay clubs is less gay then radiohead. God, what a bunch of fucking slut bags Radiohead is. How can you not agree with me? |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 10:21:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Zachmozach
quote:
Originally posted by guitarisPIMP
What do local guys have anything to do with the fact that John Mayer is a good guitarist?
Good. Yes. Incredible. No. If he was incredible I would expect him to not get his ass totally worked musically by people that no one knows about in a town with a good, but somewhat small jazz scene and music scene in general. All I'm saying is I can go get lessons from people that can out technique, out improvise, and generally outplay Mayer and they are not big time like him. Incredible is just too over the top for him.
i see...well i wasn't the one who said "incredible," so, oh well. And yes, I'd have to agree with you. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 9:19:04 PM
this is all a moot point. let's, for argument's sake, say that john mayer is an incredible guitarist. it doesn't matter, because the music he writes, plays, and performs couldn't be more pedestrian if it walked down the street. what he can do doesn't matter. what he does do matters. i can save people drowning, but i just walk away. am i a good person for my ability to save people? |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 8:37:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by guitarisPIMP
What do local guys have anything to do with the fact that John Mayer is a good guitarist?
Good. Yes. Incredible. No. If he was incredible I would expect him to not get his ass totally worked musically by people that no one knows about in a town with a good, but somewhat small jazz scene and music scene in general. All I'm saying is I can go get lessons from people that can out technique, out improvise, and generally outplay Mayer and they are not big time like him. Incredible is just too over the top for him. |
| Jamie M |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 7:26:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by HotKoreanGirl
But what bothers me, is when you have a band like radiohead, who appears to think a little outside the regular top-40 box, and gets shitstorms of followers. A big issue I have is that they do not deserve to have the following they do, based on the music they produce. I can understand why bands like Coldplay or U2 have millions of followers, as their music is pretty much "in the box." But when a band like radiohead, who are a bit outside the box get tons of followers, it makes me sick because I know of so many other bands like them whose languages are just as accessible, yet much more powerful--and yet many of these bands are just undiscovered and the ones who like them are labeled "hipsters" or whatever bullshit name you give them.
I had a friend who tried this reasoning on me when he was explaining why he didn't like Radiohead very much. It wasn't until long after that I realized what a terrible argument it is.
Think about what you did. You just started a massive thread about how Radiohead sucks, when the sum of your reasoning is that you don't like them because too many other people like them. Why don't you forget about what other people think and have an independent view on music. Regardless of what popular mentality is. That's what music is all about anyway. This basically brings me back to my point that you're jealous of how other people love it and you just don't get it.
One of the reasons I think Radiohead is so brilliant is they were able to maintain so many fans when they started going, as you say, out of the box. They single-handedly changed and widened people's musical style and preference. How many bands have done that?
That's great if there's many other bands just as good as Radiohead out there that are undiscovered. But to use that as an argument that they suck is just ignorant, and just shows your frustration that the bands you like aren't considered as "cool" as Radiohead.
So please, rather than harrassing good bands, spend your time promoting these other bands that are apparently more powerful.
Radiohead does not suck. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 7:02:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by HotKoreanGirl
yes I think we did...that discussion also involved beer. I think it was about how guys think they can get girls in the sack by playing dave matthews, and how lame that is. Producing music in order to procure vagina is noble because it is trading power for power. Just like money. Sex is power, music is power, thus making music to get vagina is merely an exchange of power. Now, music specifically designed to get vagina probably won't work, because most vaginas can see through that shit. But men who play music in order to get vagina is lame (if it's dave matthews, that's super lame.) Certain Musicians are just using their skills to move up in the biological world. People who use others music for sex are lame. People who create music that gets them sex is noble.
they should be using their skills to create art, or to entertain. i guess if sex is a by-product, a secondary consequence of the music, then fine. but if you're just playing to get laid, stop playing. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 2:45:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Zachmozach
Mayer is an incredible guitarist? When the fuck did this happen? Am I missing something here. I know local guys that kick his ass all over the place. Guys that can burn on charts that are modulating like crazy and still be fucking stretching the harmony out on their lines and not even grabbing the pick till they're well past 200 bpm. Then they turn around and play the most intricate beutiful ballad shit on the face of the earth. Mayer is less then incredible.
What do local guys have anything to do with the fact that John Mayer is a good guitarist? |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 12:37:39 PM
yes I think we did...that discussion also involved beer. I think it was about how guys think they can get girls in the sack by playing dave matthews, and how lame that is. Producing music in order to procure vagina is noble because it is trading power for power. Just like money. Sex is power, music is power, thus making music to get vagina is merely an exchange of power. Now, music specifically designed to get vagina probably won't work, because most vaginas can see through that shit. But men who play music in order to get vagina is lame (if it's dave matthews, that's super lame.) Certain Musicians are just using their skills to move up in the biological world. People who use others music for sex are lame. People who create music that gets them sex is noble. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 11:47:23 AM
writing songs to get pussy is not noble. in fact, it's the exact opposite of noble. i think we've had this discussion before. |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 11:14:07 AM
Cock rock (guitarists): Joe Satriani, Steve Via, Eddie Van Halen
Frathouse Rock: Hootie and the blowfish, Dave Matthews band
Vagina Rock: Coldplay, U2, John Mayer, Keane
Puberty Rock: Radiohead
Homo Rock: The Killers, Keane
Think any of these guys belong in different catagories?
|
| GuitarGuy305 |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 08:43:07 AM
quote:
Originally posted by HotKoreanGirl
it can be noble to write for vaginas--but it doesn't get me wet.
Don't you mean it doesn't get you hard? SomeMaybeOrMaybeNotKoreanPersonThatIsMostLikelyNotFemale |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/07/2005 : 3:26:40 PM
it can be noble to write for vaginas--but it doesn't get me wet.
It's too pussy for me, even though I'm a pretty girlie girl. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 06/07/2005 : 3:22:12 PM
Mayer is an incredible guitarist? When the fuck did this happen? Am I missing something here. I know local guys that kick his ass all over the place. Guys that can burn on charts that are modulating like crazy and still be fucking stretching the harmony out on their lines and not even grabbing the pick till they're well past 200 bpm. Then they turn around and play the most intricate beutiful ballad shit on the face of the earth. Mayer is less then incredible. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 06/07/2005 : 3:11:26 PM
I respect him alot, because despite the following he gets, he still maintains a strong blues/jazz influence in his playing and doesn't try to fall in line in order to keep his following. Like in ACL, he played with Buddy Guy, I thought that was great. The only problem I have is that his subject matter in all of his songs' lyrics are still complete bullshit, and probably the only reason most girls gush over him. And Your Body is a Wonderland was written for only one purpose: vaginas. |
| Mave Datthews |
Posted - 06/07/2005 : 3:09:55 PM
i like mayer. yea he's a little poppy but he's an incredible guitarist. just to bad that doesn't show too much w/his sappy love songs. |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/07/2005 : 2:26:49 PM
God John Meyer, I hate that guy. Another one who doesn't deserve to get the following, except for his looks and his ability to do a couple things with a guitar. A dave matthews voice knock off. A "Sweet piece of man candy" to be thrust up a dirty colon. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 06/06/2005 : 5:50:49 PM
HKG, I totally disagree with your thoughts on virtuoso playing to the masses. I remember back when I had an untrained ear, a sparse musical background, and I would hear things like Steve Vai, Vic, any kind of jazz or blues or classical or any instrumental music, and I wouldn't appreciate it nearly as much as I do now. The masses of close-minded listeners don't respect music with any kind of "color" to it; they may recognize that it's difficult to play, but they don't see the point in all of it, as it doesn't sound "good" to them. Not catchy, not groovy, whatever their reason, they don't appreciate that kind of playing nearly as much as a music lover does.
This is a rather large generalization, but it's VERY on the spot. Consider this: hip-hop sells millions of records to millions of people. I can guarantee you without even looking at statistics that at least 98% of those people who buy those albums couldn't bear to sit and listen to "Classical Gas" or "Stella By Starlight."
I can also guarantee you that if at a concert John Mayer played Covered in Rain, Who Knows, and an assortment of SRV and jimi hendrix covers and blues and jazz jams, thousands of fans would be disappointed. Most of that audience may enjoy that for a short while, but only because they think John Mayer is a sweet piece of man-candy and he's playing the fuck out of his instrument and that's more hot, not because they like the music. |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/06/2005 : 10:13:52 AM
I won't attempt to argue music theory with anyone here, I was never much good at it, but it does make a useful tool for analyzing things. ZachmoZach makes an interesting point about music speaking different languages and people being able to understand the language or not.
It depends what you're into--for most people, that's pretty much it. Which is the same as all this objective subjective talk that's been goingon.
You can hear Victor Wooten's bass playing, or Steve Vai's ultra cock-rock virtuoso guitar playing and appreciate it as basically anyone who loves music. But that's as far as it goes for most people--they will safely return to be around the musical language that's most pertinent to them--possibly top 40 crap, or somethin gangsta--because that's just what they like.
I also agree that with musical training--or by listening to lots of different music with an open mind, you become aware of many languages present and can appreciate them. Perhaps the more you are familiar with, the more simpleminded oridinary ones (like top 40) become retarded-sounding. But most people will never get beyond the music they like, and the languages they are comfortable listening to. So alas, much music in this world will not be appreciated by the masses.
But what bothers me, is when you have a band like radiohead, who appears to think a little outside the regular top-40 box, and gets shitstorms of followers. A big issue I have is that they do not deserve to have the following they do, based on the music they produce. I can understand why bands like Coldplay or U2 have millions of followers, as their music is pretty much "in the box." But when a band like radiohead, who are a bit outside the box get tons of followers, it makes me sick because I know of so many other bands like them whose languages are just as accessible, yet much more powerful--and yet many of these bands are just undiscovered and the ones who like them are labeled "hipsters" or whatever bullshit name you give them.
|
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 06/05/2005 : 10:55:48 PM
Ok, but steady 8th notes in parralell octaves gets old quick. Like in 4 measures. I don't mind it so much if they use it correctly like you said. I do prefer music that has the more exotic harmonies though as a personal taste. I like music that really challenges me to keep up with them. Listening is an active thing for me and not a passive thing.
As for my friends I can't say that I expect much from them as they have never studied music. Of course not all my friends are this way as I have some musician friends and such, but in general my friends outside of music don't know a damn thing about it. I think when I showed them the Wooten Bass Day 98 DVD they about died from realizing that he was really talented, and they liked it, but they still wouldn't listen to him on a really regular basis, because it's like a foreign language to them. I guess it's fine if they aren't into the "art music" like I am because I guess there is a place for the cool music and whatnot too. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/05/2005 : 7:35:50 PM
i'd have to take exception to the parallel 5th and octave comment. being into speed metal and hardcore, there's a lot of that. i don't find that the lack of exotic harmony, or even just thirds makes a rhythm guitar part boring. what makes it boring is when you have that root fifth octave formation, but absolutely nothing happens rhythmically. using power chords to slap down some badass groove or rhythm figure is a-ok in my book.
and jamie, i was talking about people who say that in general, not you specifically. that's just how it sounded to me. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 06/05/2005 : 7:26:02 PM
Zach, your friends you mentioned soundn pretty damn close-minded. I hate it when people listen to music for lyrics only, and listen to the same styles acting as if it's always something new. Love, Violence, Drugs, Self Loathing, Money, and How original/cool/different/badass/desireable to everyone Artist X is...that's the subject matter of 90% of songs on the charts. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 06/05/2005 : 4:04:43 PM
I think it's then about getting the musical ideas, but not getting the appeal. I get what most pop bands are doing musically, but I don't get why people listen to them. In fact usually for fun when a friend turns on the radio and tells me what a great song this or that is I'm a total ass and I begin to tell them what proggression they are using and then break apart their simple patterns and let them know just how uninteresting the music is to me. The worst is the punk style pop stuff with the bass on the beat all the time changing every other measure to a new note. I do often say though when someone tells me that some lame band is really good and has me listen to it that I don't get it at all because it makes no sense why they would want to play root, fifths and octaves in parrallels for minutes at a time. |
| Jamie M |
Posted - 06/05/2005 : 3:01:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
yay! it's back to radiohead.
in a sense i agree. i understand the cleverness of their music, but the music just doesn't appeal to me. i think "getting it" sound arrogant, too. as if "getting it" means "you have to like it, because taste isn't totally subjective." as if someone who gets it is somehow a step above someone who doesn't get it. i get it. i just don't want it.
EDIT'D
"Getting it" doesn't really encompass what I was trying to say, it only hints at it, and I hoped everyone would pick up on that. What I mean is that by getting it, there's something about their music that just makes sense, and it is amazing, and you enjoy it. And I mean this in an entirely subjective sense. I never even began to suggest that "getting it" was an objective thing. Just because I think there's a large contrast to getting and not getting Radiohead, doesn't make it objective.
Dan when you say you get it but don't want it; I can see that, by my definition, you don't get it. Because if you did get it, you'd want it. All the time.
And sorry if I sound arrogant, but I do feel a step above anyone who doesn't get the same inspiration that I do from Radiohead. How could I not? I'd be surprised if any of you didn't feel the same about your favourite music.
I totally agree that taste and genius should be kept separate. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 06/05/2005 : 1:36:23 PM
Agreed. It should work pretty well except under the circumstances of people like John Cage and some others like Sun Ra and such where some people don't agree that what they do is genius. Even Phillip Glass gets kind of sketchy for most people. It's because they have created a new language as composers and certain people do not recognize it. It mostly sounds like it's coming from space to most people, but I hope that not too many people think that they are not genius'. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/05/2005 : 11:03:47 AM
let's say then, that taste is entirely subjective, but recognizing masterful composition, songcraft, or talent, is objective. for instance, you cannot argue the pure genius of stravinsky's rite of spring. you can't argue that tim reynold's songwriting and proficiency on guitar are bad, because they're just not. but just because it is pure genius doesn't mean you have to like it. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 06/05/2005 : 01:06:34 AM
I hsve no opinion of raiohead because for the life of me I can't recall a tune of theirs. However I must say that people who get certain things in music or that have an understanding of the musical language tend to be less enamored by the BS of the industry. I know that all taste in music is basically subjective, but people who pretty much know nothing about music can't be very objective or truthful to themselves in what they like because whether they realize it or not most of the time they are programmed to like something. I definitely have stuff I respect musically that I'm not into, but I think some people are more about subjectivity completely and can't even look at something objectively. I know it's a subjective thing to like or dislike, but I think there is a small case to be made for people who understand the language of music.
For me I want nothing to do with the playing of someone that isn't on a high level in some area. I see all the time these musicians with these seemingly cool licks and all that until you realize there is no connection between them and their music. I would rather listen to atonal, or free stuff that is produced from an emotionally connective state rather then someone who just can write some good tunes and play some cool shit. I'm more interested in seeig mastery of a language and expression. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/05/2005 : 12:44:42 AM
yeah. i fixed it. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 06/04/2005 : 11:13:12 PM
"as if someone who gets it is somehow a step above someone who gets it. i get it. "
hmm....I almost didn't get that..
Despite dan p's very confusing grammatical error that totally throws off the meaning of that sentence, I understand him. I totally agree. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/04/2005 : 10:33:08 PM
yay! it's back to radiohead.
in a sense i agree. i understand the cleverness of their music, but the music just doesn't appeal to me. i think "getting it" sound arrogant, too. as if "getting it" means "you have to like it, because taste isn't totally subjective." as if someone who gets it is somehow a step above someone who doesn't get it. i get it. i just don't want it.
EDIT'D |
| Jamie M |
Posted - 06/04/2005 : 8:28:38 PM
Haven't been here for awhile, and it seems the topic has strayed a fair bit, but I heard about this thread, and had to throw in my two or three cents on my favourite band. Haven't read everything, so sorry if I'm repeating someone.
The thing with Radiohead is that you really just have to get it. You do or you don't. And part of the beauty of it is you can get some of it, and not all of it, but that doesn't matter.. Cause they have covered many different styles. Compared to most bands anyway.
Personally I didn't used to like them that much. I thought Paranoid Android was brilliant, and that was it until Kid A came out. Even then I didn't like the other stuff though.. eventually one day it just clicked. OK Computer was suddenly the greatest album of all time. I used to think Radiohead songs were almost good but lacked something. Now they lack nothing at all. They are exactly what I want. I don't think you can force it. Music finds you. There's no reason why you have to like a band, or even understand why others like a band, just because alot of people do.
To me, Radiohead has the perfect combination of lyrics, singer, guitar, bass and drums, more consistently than any other band I've heard.
To me, Radiohead will never be anything less than brilliant
It seems that the only argument to saying Radiohead sucks is that you're jealous that you're unable to appreciate them and be as inspired as others are by their music. And actually, the way I see it, whatever helps you deal with it is just fine.. because that really is a great loss.
OK, that's all for now. Please resume off-topic conversation. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 06/04/2005 : 7:28:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
i am a healthy human male.
And so is HKG. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/03/2005 : 11:30:00 PM
i am a healthy human male. |
| enthuTIMsiast |
Posted - 06/03/2005 : 3:44:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by HotKoreanGirl
Do you really look like a human being, or are you really a computer program like HAL from 2001 Space oddessy, represented by 2 digital characters--one which looks like a green wife-beater with eyes, and the other his pink goon.
 |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/03/2005 : 3:19:38 PM
Do you really look like a human being, or are you really a computer program like HAL from 2001 Space oddessy, represented by 2 digital characters--one which looks like a green wife-beater with eyes, and the other his pink goon. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/03/2005 : 3:14:15 PM
do i look like what? |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/03/2005 : 1:13:30 PM
I wouldn't say I'm in love as much as unintentionally leading you into a baited love trap.
Music has the right to children - Boards of Canada
Pink Floyd creates a vast universe of sound and communicates like alien superiors talking to their beloved creation.
Radiohead longs for its listeners to feel the jilted turmoil of the competitiveness of the modern world; to break free of it as well as patterned, mundane living. Ironic that they whine about the stuff that makes them so much money. |
| chrism |
Posted - 06/02/2005 : 7:18:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by HotKoreanGirl
And I am not trying to garner some strange affection through it
does that mean that you aren't in love with me? |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 06/02/2005 : 7:15:43 PM
It does. Especially the part where all the girls have so many hormones that they can't control their own vaginal impulses. Blessed be the horny girls. |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/02/2005 : 7:13:56 PM
that was pretty funny, but unfortunately, I have no Korean fetish, aside from being Korean myself...maybe it's narcisim (sp)?
Ah, to be close to puberty again...you yourself just went through it not long ago--that's cool. Who doesn't like pre-pubescent cocks in metaphorical asses? Is that bothersome? Do you not know many adults who use this sort of descriptive language? Sorry if you find it inserted (much like the cock) in the posts at inappropriate times.
I don't mean to turn anyone on with dirty jokes (god I hope I am not doing that!). And I am not trying to garner some strange affection through it either--I'm just trying to describe some things I feel about radiohead, and other things are incidentally brought up.
Rock on. Puberty rules. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 06/02/2005 : 6:53:54 PM
Close, but I'm 16. And no, I don't get turned on by flirty, dirty jokes on forums, which you seem to throw into most of your posts at inappropriate times. What with masturbation to your pics which to this day don't exist, fisting yourself to Radiohead, having sex with a 14 year old version of you, strange lusting burritos, and thrusting of flaccid(spell check your posts also please) pre-pubescent cocks into metaphorical asses... and that's just within your last 5 or 6 posts on this thread. With all those dirty jokes it's not too farfetched a claim to stake that you are a young boy budding into puberty.
And by the way, I hope you realize that until these pics get posted, the issue is resolved on these boards as to the fact of whether or not you are a man, and the verdict is this: you are a 14 year old boy with a korean fetish. |
| chrism |
Posted - 06/02/2005 : 6:51:27 PM
hurry up now. we're waiting.  |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/02/2005 : 6:43:18 PM
How can you live in this world and not see burritos bulge? (if that's the way you spell it).
Why do you think I am 14, or are you just really 14 yourself and wish I was 14, so that you could have sex with me?
Sometimes I wish I was 14 again and smoking weed so I could appreciate radiohead the way some do.
If I shifted topics, it was to protect people from compulsive masturbation on site of my pics. I am sorry, but I was doing it for your own good. But if you insist, I will dig some up. I advise you to view with caution though...and I'll try and see if I can find one with toothbrush, cup and all that, in order to proove I do exist. Kind of a lot of work to prove myself. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 06/02/2005 : 6:25:16 PM
Burritos don't bulge. And bulge isn't spelled buldge.
Why do I keep getting the impression that you're just a 14 year old boy? Oh yeah, probably because you still haven't proved you're not, and you abruptly shifted topics after being challenged to post pictures. |
| chrism |
Posted - 06/02/2005 : 5:12:30 PM
Yeah, PF rocks. dave gilmours' solo stuff is unreal too. i have the meltdown concert on dvd. ps. if i was a love slave, i wouldn't ask for help.
 burrito of lust |
| HotKoreanGirl |
Posted - 06/02/2005 : 5:09:32 PM
haha, ok, well, I don't think I should threaten anyone with my fire and brimstone...it is much too--HOT. It will make you buldge--like a burrito of lust. I advise staying clear of such things unless you desire to become a helpless love slave.
Let's try and stay on target with the topic--I believe it went from Radiohead to pink floyd, to fisting on video. I'm not sure how it got to the fisting, but I thought pink floyd and Radiohead were supposed to be the pertinent ones.
Pink floyd obviously requires no fisting, noor looking at myself in a mirror to appreciate.
Radiohead requires extreme fisting. Or else simulated fisting via-3dstudio max and some hallucinagenic drugs.
|
| chrism |
Posted - 06/02/2005 : 4:53:09 PM
are you threatening me with powers of lust?  i cannot be defeated, for i am VIRGIN MAN...wait, no i'm not. but i don't believe you. |
|
|
