OASIS CRAP BELONGS ELSEWHERE ASSHOLES!
Infidel
Oh Really, tell me where they are then! I typed their name in and no way
did I see anything even relating to the Gallagher Phylum! And besides, why
would I waste my time searching high and low for their newsgroup? And if
the newsgroup really exists...then move that shit there.
By the way, what school teaches or taught you your grammar and spelling?
I think the Newgroup either belongs to:
alt.crap.oasis
alt.hoax.oasis
alt.ripoff.oasis
rec.mrsnofulofagus.fictionalcharacters.oasis
rec.monotony.oasis
Neil Schmeal
OASIS CRAP BELONGS ELSEWHERE (the newspost formerly known as Re: Were the
Beatles all that good compared to today)
References: <5dt478$35c$7...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>
<5dveh1$7...@Urvile.MSUS.EDU> <330f71fe...@news.demon.co.uk>
<330F73...@concentric.net>
<01bc247d$eba1e960$540e...@tridel.com.ph.ph>
Infidel wrote:
>
> I agree to this statement. I understand that Blur and Oasis have had
> disputes. If Oasis was so big and all, why don't they have their own
> newsgroup? Any why does Blur have one? Oh yeah, Oasis stinks... Get
the
> hell out of here!
> You Monotonous Arrogant Freaks!
>
> Neil Schmeal
You're Idiot!!! Are you blind or smth??? OASIS have their newsgroup!!!
Just open your eyes!!!
nyfac
Melanie Hannon wrote:
>
> ya, oasis sucks
Did it take long to write this? Did e. e. cummings lend a hand?
No, it's not me
nyfac <ny...@panix.com> wrote:
Oasis? Oh, you mean the new Beatlemania band. For a second I didn't know who
you were talking about. I saw original Beatlemania act back in 1981 during high
school, I think they looked a lot more like the Beatles than the new Beatlemania
act does, but the new Beatlemania act probably doesn't have as good hair and
makeup staff.
Geir Hongro
Well, I guess the difference is that the original Beatlemania act
played cover songs while Oasis write their own original songs.
If you don't agree then tell me what particular Beatles song do
you hear in "Wonderwall".
I want you to mention ONE particular song, and remember I'm not
interested in some fucking intro part or riff. I'm interested in
the MELODY - the part SUNG BY THE SINGER as that is the only thing
that is really important when it comes to songwriting.
--
Geir Hongro
New Homepage URL, same old shit:
http://home.sol.no/knhongro/Geir/
Matt Javes
In article <5fst8g$dqe$5...@o.online.no>, Geir Hongro <knho...@online.no>
writes
>Well, I guess the difference is that the original Beatlemania act
>played cover songs while Oasis write their own original songs.
>If you don't agree then tell me what particular Beatles song do
>you hear in "Wonderwall".
>
>I want you to mention ONE particular song, and remember I'm not
>interested in some fucking intro part or riff. I'm interested in
>the MELODY - the part SUNG BY THE SINGER as that is the only thing
>that is really important when it comes to songwriting.
>
>
The music doesn't count!
Only the melody is important!
Musicians across the world despair for our time is through!
--
Matt Javes Everything above represents my opinion only.
Except when I'm lying....
|Spider Gecko|
Thanks a lot for bursting my bubble. Geir, I guess that means that all
solos, jams, riffs and any instrumentation at all is totally unimportant.
I guess I better throw out all my classical music, jazz and record all my
rock to tape and cut out the guitar solos. Sorry mr. Zappa and King
Crimson, way too much going on instrumentally, I guess your music has
sucked all along. I better get a little mini-studio so I can dub out all
the stupid instruments and just listen to it the way it's ment to be heard,
acapella. Bye, I'm heading out to Best Buy to get some barber-shop quartet
cds!!!
Geir Hongro <knho...@online.no> wrote in article
<5fst8g$dqe$5...@o.online.no>...
> Well, I guess the difference is that the original Beatlemania act
> played cover songs while Oasis write their own original songs.
> If you don't agree then tell me what particular Beatles song do
> you hear in "Wonderwall".
>
> I want you to mention ONE particular song, and remember I'm not
> interested in some fucking intro part or riff. I'm interested in
> the MELODY - the part SUNG BY THE SINGER as that is the only thing
> that is really important when it comes to songwriting.
>
>
Geir Hongro
"|Spider Gecko|" <soc...@emory.edu> wrote:
>Thanks a lot for bursting my bubble. Geir, I guess that means that all
>solos, jams, riffs and any instrumentation at all is totally unimportant.
>I guess I better throw out all my classical music, jazz and record all my
>rock to tape and cut out the guitar solos. Sorry mr. Zappa and King
>Crimson, way too much going on instrumentally, I guess your music has
>sucked all along. I better get a little mini-studio so I can dub out all
>the stupid instruments and just listen to it the way it's ment to be heard,
>acapella. Bye, I'm heading out to Best Buy to get some barber-shop quartet
>cds!!!
Of course music has to be "packed into" something. But still
backing is just backing, and if you base a song on a riff, a synth
them or anything you won't get a really good song. The only REAL
good songs are those anyone can sing backed by anything they like.
|Spider Gecko|
Geir Hongro <knho...@online.no> wrote in article
<5fv1ap$8ot$4...@o.online.no>...
Why? As far as I'm concerned, music has no rules and as long as it sounds
good do it. But still, it appears that you are saying that all "good
songs" have word, which in turn means that instrumentals suck. That's what
really disturbs me about your post.
>
Geir Hongro
"|Spider Gecko|" <soc...@emory.edu> wrote:
>Why? As far as I'm concerned, music has no rules and as long as it sounds
>good do it. But still, it appears that you are saying that all "good
>songs" have word, which in turn means that instrumentals suck. That's what
>really disturbs me about your post.
Well, not nessecarily. There's nothing wrong with instrumental
songs, as long as there is a distinctive melody you can actually
whistle along to
|Spider Gecko|
Well there happens to be a lot of music (imho, beautiful music) that has a
distinctive melody, but I can't whistle along with it, so thanks Geir, for
telling me that it SUCKS, no ifs, ands or buts. And why don't you hurry on
down to rec.music.compose and tell all the guys down there that. Those
damn music professors have got there heads up their asses too long with
their atonal bullshit. <REALITY CHECK MODE> One of the things I've always
loved about music is that there are no rules. To me, great music can be a
simple melody, pure texture, music based more around rthyhm than melody
(I.E. Stravinsky) or really complex stuff that I can't whistle at all but
leaves me thinking how beautiful it was. I guess that alot of progressive
rock, *most* classical music Debussy and after (and some baroque) and
avant-garde jazz is utter horseshit and that the perfect instrumental is a
2 minute R.E.M instrumental with an A-B-A-B-A arrangement.
Geir Hongro <knho...@online.no> wrote in article
<5fve7t$ga1$2...@o.online.no>...
Colin Dahms
Geir Hongro wrote:
> Of course music has to be "packed into" something. But still
> backing is just backing, and if you base a song on a riff, a synth
> them or anything you won't get a really good song. The only REAL
> good songs are those anyone can sing backed by anything they like.
Am I to understand then, that Instrumental music, having no vocals, has
no value at all? Relax, bud... Let people get what they want from
music. If you appreciate the poetry of ceratin lyrics, and the melody
line, or whatever, listen to stuff with that. Some people are looking
for different qualities in their music. None is less valid than
another, they're just different.
Geir Hongro
"|Spider Gecko|" <soc...@emory.edu> wrote:
>Well there happens to be a lot of music (imho, beautiful music) that has a
>distinctive melody, but I can't whistle along with it, so thanks Geir, for
>telling me that it SUCKS, no ifs, ands or buts. And why don't you hurry on
>down to rec.music.compose and tell all the guys down there that. Those
>damn music professors have got there heads up their asses too long with
>their atonal bullshit. <REALITY CHECK MODE> One of the things I've always
>loved about music is that there are no rules. To me, great music can be a
>simple melody, pure texture, music based more around rthyhm than melody
>(I.E. Stravinsky) or really complex stuff that I can't whistle at all but
>leaves me thinking how beautiful it was. I guess that alot of progressive
>rock, *most* classical music Debussy and after (and some baroque) and
>avant-garde jazz is utter horseshit and that the perfect instrumental is a
>2 minute R.E.M instrumental with an A-B-A-B-A arrangement.
Whistling along to most progressive rock is not difficult at all.
Apart from some of the avant garde experiments done by the likes
of ELP and SOft Machine most progressive rock has a truly hummable
melody.
Gary Allen
Geir Hongro wrote:
...
> backing is just backing, and if you base a song on a riff, a synth
> them or anything you won't get a really good song. The only REAL
> good songs are those anyone can sing backed by anything they like.
Well shit - roll on over Beethoven!
--
Gary M. Allen
Hewlett-Packard
Internet Technology Laboratory
Chelmsford MA
gal...@apollo.hp.com
Richard Pluck
In article <5fv1ap$8ot$4...@o.online.no>, Geir Hongro <knho...@online.no>
writes
>
>Of course music has to be "packed into" something. But still
>backing is just backing, and if you base a song on a riff, a synth
>them or anything you won't get a really good song. The only REAL
>good songs are those anyone can sing backed by anything they like.
>
This has got to be the biggest load of bollocks I've read on the net for
a long time (and that's saying something!!)
A song is the sum of it's parts and the best songs are those that fuse
the various elements into a whole that is greater than the sum of those
parts.
The best songs are those that we identify with or that move us
emotionally (or in the case of dance music, physically) ... in these
cases divorcing the lyrics from the backing track is wholly
inappropriate. Imagine a truly moving ballad, set to a lush and
melancholy string backing.
Now by your reckoning this ballad, if it's a truly good song, should
work with *any* backing .... just let that sink in a second ....
Right ... so we take out the strings and we replace it with a jaunty pop
synthesizer backing ... or a latin carnival feel ... or someone
hammering randomly on scrap car parts ... I'm sure you get the idea.
The lyrics are being used out of their proper context. Does that mean
that it can't be a good song? I don't think so.
In fact I would go as far as to say that if a set of lyrics can be used
with any instrumental backing it would have to be completely bland and
have no emotional content at all. If a song carries emotion in it's
lyrics then the backing will be suggested by the mood of those lyrics
and certain types of backing will be inappropriate to the song.
There are so many things that can make a good song ... and often the
lyrics or the vocal melody aren't the things that matter. Are there no
good instrumentals? Is 'Tomorrow Never Knows' crap because it relies on
it's overall sound, rather than the vocal line? Ever tried whistling
'Let's Go Away for a While' by Brian Wilson (on Pet Sounds)? Not to
mention all the dance music that is based on rhythm, not melody ... I
suppose that's a whole genre that's incapable of producing good music?
Somehow I don't think you've really thought about the implications of
what you've said ...
--
R i k
Michael Forrest Zink
Monsiuer Spider Gecko said one day...
> Sorry mr. Zappa and King
> Crimson, way too much going on instrumentally, I guess your music has
> sucked all along.
Some old melodies,
four-four,
an aura,
discipline, you need DISCIPLINE!
-MZ-
Michael Forrest Zink
> Well, not nessecarily. There's nothing wrong with instrumental
> songs, as long as there is a distinctive melody you can actually
> whistle along to
Well, why the fuck do you have to be able to whistle to it? Mr. Frank
Zappa, Genius Of Our Age, wrote some incredible melodies, some you can
whistle, some that are humanly impossible to play let alone whistle.
Gabor Csupo -- an original animator for The Simpsons -- was able to buy
FZ's music on the black market in Czechoslovakia for practically nothing
because, as his connection told him, "it's hard to whistle to."
This by your logic invalidates FZ's work, which will never be equalled,
can not be compared to, and kicks everyone's ass.
-MZ-
Ric Kelly
In article <5fv1ap$8ot$4...@o.online.no> Geir Hongro <knho...@online.no> writes:
" > "
Snip 8<
" > "But still
" > "backing is just backing, and if you base a song on a riff, a synth
" > "them or anything you won't get a really good song.
" > "
" > "--
" > "Geir Hongro
All Right Now FREE
Hammer to Fall Queen
Tie your Mother Down Queen
Smoke On The Water Purple
Jumping Jack Flash. Stones
Can't Get Enough Bad Co.
Apparently all the above are not "Really Good Songs" since they're Riff-
based.
Shit, I wish I'd written bad songs like that.
--
|) |/
|\ic |\ell\/
----------/
|_|
| |otSounds Guitar Studio
My views ARE those of this company:
I own the company - It says what I want!
Tel +44 (0)374 655298
r...@achenar.demon.co.uk
Geir Hongro
Well in my opinion Zappa clearly made his best work at the turn of
the 70s/80s, most of it very hummable....
Geir Hongro
Richard Pluck <r...@rickyp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The best songs are those that we identify with or that move us
>emotionally
The best songs are those with MELODIES that move me emotionally in
itself.
>Now by your reckoning this ballad, if it's a truly good song, should
>work with *any* backing .... just let that sink in a second ....
>
>Right ... so we take out the strings and we replace it with a >jaunty pop
>synthesizer backing ... or a latin carnival feel ... or someone
>hammering randomly on scrap car parts ... I'm sure you get the idea.
No, I don't - because for me lyrics mean nothing musically.
I think Yes had a quite interesting idea, because they were more
interested in the way the lyrics SOUNDED that what they were
actually ABOUT. That's the only purpose of lyrics, to be a part of
the sound.
>The lyrics are being used out of their proper context. Does that mean
>that it can't be a good song? I don't think so.
>
>In fact I would go as far as to say that if a set of lyrics can >be used
>with any instrumental backing it would have to be completely >bland and
>have no emotional content at all.
I don't agree. Besides a melody can have a lot of emotion in
itself regardless of the way the songs is performed.
>If a song carries emotion in it's
>lyrics then the backing will be suggested by the mood of those >lyrics
>and certain types of backing will be inappropriate to the song.
One of the worst thing about rock criticisism is too many people
care too much about lyrics. For me lyrics is just something that
makes it more easy to sing along to the song. Of course I have
been moved by lyrics. A lot of Pulp songs have marvellous lyrics,
but for me it does not make the songs better. If it is a good song
depends on the melody (...and since most Pulp songs have good
melodies too......well, they are not THAT bad....)
>There are so many things that can make a good song ... and often >the
>lyrics or the vocal melody aren't the things that matter. Are >there no
>good instrumentals?
Yes there are, as long as there is a distinctive melody. Shadows
made some truly great instrumentals. Most of today's house tunes
are NOT.
Is 'Tomorrow Never Knows' crap because it >relies on it's overall
sound, rather than the vocal line?
It's far from the best song by Beatles, but you sure can hum along
to it.
>Not to
>mention all the dance music that is based on rhythm, not melody >... I
>suppose that's a whole genre that's incapable of producing good music?
Dance music sucks, and I guess that's one of the most important
issues of my statement!
Geir Hongro
r...@achenar.demon.co.uk (Ric Kelly) wrote:
>
>In article <5fv1ap$8ot$4...@o.online.no> Geir Hongro <knho...@online.no> writes:
>" > "
>Snip 8<
>
>" > "But still
>" > "backing is just backing, and if you base a song on a riff, a synth
>" > "them or anything you won't get a really good song.
>" > "
>" > "--
>" > "Geir Hongro
>
>All Right Now FREE
>Hammer to Fall Queen
>Tie your Mother Down Queen
>Smoke On The Water Purple
>Jumping Jack Flash. Stones
>Can't Get Enough Bad Co.
>
>Apparently all the above are not "Really Good Songs" since they're Riff-
>based.
"Hammer To Fall" is not wholly riff based. Among other things it
has a middle-8 ("Rich or poor or famous for etc....") that has
NOTHING to do with the riff. ( I wish ALL songs had middle-8s!)
It true has a great riff, but the melody is not based on the riff
all the time.
"Smoke On The Water" and "Jumping Jack Flash" may have two of the
most famous riffs in rock history, but although the verses are
built upon riffs the choruses are not.
"All Right Now" and "Can't get Enough" are HIGLY overrated songs.
Who the fuck needs blues after all?
|Spider Gecko|
Well my favorite is Civilization Phaze III, which came out in 1994, right
after he died. It's definately not hummable, though. I guess people have
differant opinions.
Geir Hongro <knho...@online.no> wrote in article
<5g22m0$k4a$1...@o.online.no>...
sumrall
Michael Forrest Zink <dpg...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> writes: > Monsiuer Spider Gecko said one day...
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Kevin Murphy
Geir Hongro wrote:
> >" > "But still
> >" > "backing is just backing, and if you base a song on a riff, a synth
> >" > "them or anything you won't get a really good song.
> >" > "
> >" > "--
> >" > "Geir Hongro
> >
> >All Right Now FREE
> >Hammer to Fall Queen
> >Tie your Mother Down Queen
> >Smoke On The Water Purple
> >Jumping Jack Flash. Stones
> >Can't Get Enough Bad Co.
> >
> >Apparently all the above are not "Really Good Songs" since they're Riff-
> >based.
>
> "Hammer To Fall" is not wholly riff based. Among other things it
> has a middle-8 ("Rich or poor or famous for etc....") that has
> NOTHING to do with the riff. ( I wish ALL songs had middle-8s!)
> It true has a great riff, but the melody is not based on the riff
> all the time.
>
> "Smoke On The Water" and "Jumping Jack Flash" may have two of the
> most famous riffs in rock history, but although the verses are
> built upon riffs the choruses are not.
>
> "All Right Now" and "Can't get Enough" are HIGLY overrated songs.
> Who the fuck needs blues after all?
>
> --
> Geir Hongro
>
> New Homepage URL, same old shit:
> http://home.sol.no/knhongro/Geir/
Please everyone, do yourself a favor and *ignore* this all-knowing "genius".
--
"Pry these hairless apes from my streamlined form
and prepare them for torture!"
-The Fin-
Bruce Scott TOK
Ric Kelly (r...@achenar.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: All Right Now FREE
: Hammer to Fall Queen
: Tie your Mother Down Queen
: Smoke On The Water Purple
: Jumping Jack Flash. Stones
: Can't Get Enough Bad Co.
add this one:
Whole Lotta Love Led Zeppelin
: Apparently all the above are not "Really Good Songs" since they're Riff-
: based.
: Shit, I wish I'd written bad songs like that.
You and many others -- they all look so simple in hindsight.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott The deadliest bullshit is
odorless and transparent
b...@ipp-garching.mpg.de -- W Gibson
Richard Pluck
In article <5g2373$k4a$2...@o.online.no>, Geir Hongro <knho...@online.no>
writes
>Richard Pluck <r...@rickyp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The best songs are those that we identify with or that move us
>>emotionally
>
>The best songs are those with MELODIES that move me emotionally in
>itself.
>
>>Now by your reckoning this ballad, if it's a truly good song, should
>>work with *any* backing .... just let that sink in a second ....
>>
>>Right ... so we take out the strings and we replace it with a >jaunty pop
>>synthesizer backing ... or a latin carnival feel ... or someone
>>hammering randomly on scrap car parts ... I'm sure you get the idea.
>
>No, I don't - because for me lyrics mean nothing musically.
So you wouldn't find it rather absurd for Morrissey to sing 'Heaven
Knows I'm Miserable Now' to a tune like 'Happy Talk' ? (Please be
careful not to confuse ironic counterpoint of lyric and music with
totally inappropriate combinations)
>I think Yes had a quite interesting idea, because they were more
>interested in the way the lyrics SOUNDED that what they were
>actually ABOUT. That's the only purpose of lyrics, to be a part of
>the sound.
Again we disagree. Lyrics can be the most important part of a song,
they can also be totally irrelevant. Surely though, a melody will only
work within a certain subset of musical backings.
It comes back to the song as a complete construction. Placing the
emphasis on a melody, whether sung or played, is to reduce every piece
of music to that which can be played by a single instrument. The
interplay between instruments, between melody and rhythm, melody and
counter-melody, vocals and backing, all contribute to making a song what
it is. There is plenty of music around that uses this interplay between
elements to build a coherent whole when none of the individual strands
stands alone ... is such music all worthless?
>
>>The lyrics are being used out of their proper context. Does that mean
>>that it can't be a good song? I don't think so.
>>
>>In fact I would go as far as to say that if a set of lyrics can >be used
>>with any instrumental backing it would have to be completely >bland and
>>have no emotional content at all.
>
>I don't agree. Besides a melody can have a lot of emotion in
>itself regardless of the way the songs is performed.
So that melody that sounds so heart-rending played on the cello would be
just as moving played on a kazoo? Mood is set as much by tone and
context as by melodic content.
>
>>If a song carries emotion in it's
>>lyrics then the backing will be suggested by the mood of those >lyrics
>>and certain types of backing will be inappropriate to the song.
>
>One of the worst thing about rock criticisism is too many people
>care too much about lyrics. For me lyrics is just something that
>makes it more easy to sing along to the song. Of course I have
>been moved by lyrics. A lot of Pulp songs have marvellous lyrics,
>but for me it does not make the songs better.
For your typical pop song good lyrics are, indeed, just a bonus. Pulp's
music would stand up even if Jarvis was singing the kind of drivel that
passes for lyrics on R&B records. But that's not always the case ...
some early Bob Dylan, a lot of Lou Reed and the best examples of rap all
want you to focus on the lyrics ... the songwriter has something to say
and the backing is kept very simple (often to just a rhythm) so as not
to detract from those lyrics.
>Is 'Tomorrow Never Knows' crap because it >relies on it's overall
>sound, rather than the vocal line?
>
>It's far from the best song by Beatles, but you sure can hum along
>to it.
No it's not the best, but it's an acknowledged pop landmark ... however,
that's not the point. The point *is* that there is no way anyone could
argue that the appeal of TNK is a wonderful melody line ... but it's
still a good (I would say great) song ... which kind of invalidates the
good song must have a good melody argument.
>
>>Not to
>>mention all the dance music that is based on rhythm, not melody >... I
>>suppose that's a whole genre that's incapable of producing good music?
>
>Dance music sucks, and I guess that's one of the most important
>issues of my statement!
I'm ashamed to have to admit that I used to share this opinion ... I
would comment on the lack of decent lyrics, the repetitiveness and lack
of real tunes in dance music ... slowly the realisation dawned on me
that in the main dance music is not meant to be listened to in this way
[1][2] ... that's not it's appeal. Dance music's appeal is physical,
not emotional or intellectual. Dance music is to dance to ... and IMO
no genre of music has ever been better than todays club music to dance
to.
Outside the clubs dance music loses it's purpose, but when a track comes
on and you can't resist getting up to dance you have to admit that
there's something good about that music. Again it comes down to
context, and trying to make blanket statements about what does or
doesn't make a good song is pointless ... music and it's effect on us is
far too complicated a subject to be reduced to such simple analysis as
melody is good or rhythm is good.
[1] Some dance music does make a successful transistion from club to
living room e.g 'Leftism' by Leftfield
[2] My opinion of dance music changed as I started going to clubs more
often ... dance music is sensitive to it's surroundings!
--
R i k
tom
In article <01bc2ce3$0e323120$58fb...@socamh.dialup.emory.edu>,
on 9 Mar 1997 23:35:11 GMT,
"|Spider Gecko|" <soc...@emory.edu> writes:
>Well there happens to be a lot of music (imho, beautiful music) that has a
>distinctive melody, but I can't whistle along with it, so thanks Geir, for
>telling me that it SUCKS, no ifs, ands or buts. And why don't you hurry on
>down to rec.music.compose and tell all the guys down there that. Those
>damn music professors have got there heads up their asses too long with
>their atonal bullshit. <REALITY CHECK MODE> One of the things I've always
>loved about music is that there are no rules. To me, great music can be a
>simple melody, pure texture, music based more around rthyhm than melody
>(I.E. Stravinsky) or really complex stuff that I can't whistle at all but
>leaves me thinking how beautiful it was. I guess that alot of progressive
>rock, *most* classical music Debussy and after (and some baroque) and
>avant-garde jazz is utter horseshit and that the perfect instrumental is a
>2 minute R.E.M instrumental with an A-B-A-B-A arrangement.
>
>> "|Spider Gecko|" <soc...@emory.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Why? As far as I'm concerned, music has no rules and as long as it
>sounds
>> >good do it. But still, it appears that you are saying that all "good
>> >songs" have word, which in turn means that instrumentals suck. That's
>what
>> >really disturbs me about your post.
>>
>> songs, as long as there is a distinctive melody you can actually
>> whistle along to
>>
>>
I'm reminded of a tune by Weather Report from the album "I sing the body electr
ic" called: Requiem for the unknown soldier. Or is it Hymn for the unknown..
anyway, I sure as hell can't whistle or hum the melody. (If you can call it
that) And there are no words, still it is a fantastic piece of music! Zawinul
uses musical "textures" to "paint" an aural picture. I suppose someone will
tell me it sucks. Sigh.
Ric Kelly
In article <5g23ei$k4a$3...@o.online.no> Geir Hongro <knho...@online.no> writes:
" > "r...@achenar.demon.co.uk (Ric Kelly) wrote:
" > ">
" > ">In article <5fv1ap$8ot$4...@o.online.no> Geir Hongro <knho...@online.no> writes:
" > ">" > "
" > ">Snip 8<
" > ">
" > ">All Right Now FREE
" > ">Hammer to Fall Queen
" > ">Tie your Mother Down Queen
" > ">Smoke On The Water Purple
" > ">Jumping Jack Flash. Stones
" > ">Can't Get Enough Bad Co.
" > ">
" > ">Apparently all the above are not "Really Good Songs" since they're Riff-
" > ">based.
" > "
" > ""Hammer To Fall" is not wholly riff based. Among other things it
" > "has a middle-8 ("Rich or poor or famous for etc....") that has
" > "NOTHING to do with the riff. ( I wish ALL songs had middle-8s!)
" > "It true has a great riff, but the melody is not based on the riff
" > "all the time.
" > "
" > ""Smoke On The Water" and "Jumping Jack Flash" may have two of the
" > "most famous riffs in rock history, but although the verses are
" > "built upon riffs the choruses are not.
" > "
" > ""All Right Now" and "Can't get Enough" are HIGLY overrated songs.
" > "Who the fuck needs blues after all?
You're contradicting your earlier posts which stated that if the song had
a non-vocal hook it was bad.
First, blues was the Starting line for rock as we know it today..FACT, not
opinion, so anyone who plays rock needs blues.
Secondly, I've read thru this thread for a while now, and come up with the
following conclusion:
If Geir likes it or can play it, then the song is Excellent.
If Geir doesn't like it, etc, then the song "SUCKS" or is irrelevant, and
Geir will create his reasons around this statement.
No-one else's opinions matter because they are all wrong...
Oh, well every discussion has one..
Geir Hongro
I haven't heard it, but I'm sure I prefer "Birdland" or "A Remark
You Made".
Geir Hongro
Richard Pluck <r...@rickyp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[1] Some dance music does make a successful transistion from club to
>living room e.g 'Leftism' by Leftfield
And those records are the ONLY house records worth wasting time on
at all. I mean: I like some stuff by Leftfield, by Orb and by the
Norwegian pioneer Biosphere. But if the song is just meant to be
danced to there is no point. Besides dance music was better in the
early 80s. "Thriller" is the best dance record ever.
Joe McGlinchey
On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, tom wrote:
> I'm reminded of a tune by Weather Report from the album "I sing the body electr
> ic" called: Requiem for the unknown soldier. Or is it Hymn for the unknown..
It was originally called "Unknown Soldier" on I SING THE BODY
ELECTRIC...Zawinul did an orchestral version of it on one of his latest
albums, SONGS FROM THE DANUBE (?I think that's what it's called)--I think
the title might be "Requiem for the Unknown Soldier" there...
> anyway, I sure as hell can't whistle or hum the melody. (If you can call it
> that) And there are no words, still it is a fantastic piece of music! Zawinul
Agreed (about it being a great piece), though, actually, I think it's one
of the more structured (and thus for me more easier to remember from a
melodic standpoint, especially the low, eerie vocalisms) songs on the
album...If you really want un-whistlable, try the "Vertical
Invader/T.H./Dr. Honoris Causa" free jam later on in the album! Though I
agree with your basic point; Geir's kind of nuts-o with the 'It's gotta be
hummable to be good' stuff....:)
> uses musical "textures" to "paint" an aural picture. I suppose someone will
> tell me it sucks. Sigh.
I won't. A great example of this is the song "Second Sunday in August",
also off I SING...Every time I hear that it blows me away...I have no idea
how to begin even writing something like that, which sounds very
elaborately planned out but still flows so naturally...
I'm a pianist, and Zawinul is one of my, perhaps even *THE*, greatest
idols. I saw him at the Blue Note a year ago, and he was doing absolutely
mind-blowing shit, like, playing an 'inverted' keyboard (i.e. the higher
up in the keyboard, the lower the sound it makes, and vice-versa)--I later
found out he had been doing that for years! Fabulous technique, but very
non-flashy, and a huge range of different musical styles throughout his
career...
Joe McGlinchey
Teachers College
Columbia University
John Patrick Riley
> >> Geir Hongro
> >>
> >> New Homepage URL, same old shit:
> >> http://home.sol.no/knhongro/Geir/
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> ic" called: Requiem for the unknown soldier. Or is it Hymn for the unknown..
> that) And there are no words, still it is a fantastic piece of music! Zawinul
> tell me it sucks. Sigh.
A lot of Brian Wilson's instumental work on the "Pet Sounds" album
(Beach Boys)is that way. Powerful stuff, but it can't be whistled.
(Brian himself observed this) -John
Andrew Braford
"All Right Now" and "Can't Get Enough" are blues songs?!? My Gawd, you
really don't know what you are talking about, do you? No wonder you are
an Oasis fan.
Fine. Listen to your teeny-pop Eurotrash bands all you want, but leave
the heavy lifting to us.
For the most part, you, sir, are HIGLY overrated. Especially your
spelling skills.
AB
Geir Hongro wrote:
>
> >All Right Now FREE
> >Hammer to Fall Queen
> >Tie your Mother Down Queen
> >Smoke On The Water Purple
> >Jumping Jack Flash. Stones
> >Can't Get Enough Bad Co.
> >
>
Millard Filthmore
> Oasis? Oh, you mean the new Beatlemania band. For a second I didn't know who
> you were talking about. I saw original Beatlemania act back in 1981
during high
> school, I think they looked a lot more like the Beatles than the new
Beatlemania
> act does, but the new Beatlemania act probably doesn't have as good hair and
> makeup staff.
Yer on the money.
Steve & Kathy Hoover
Joe McGlinchey <jb...@columbia.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SUN.3.95L.97031...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu>...
> On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, tom wrote:
>
> > I'm reminded of a tune by Weather Report from the album "I sing the
body electr
> > ic" called: Requiem for the unknown soldier. Or is it Hymn for the
unknown..
>
> It was originally called "Unknown Soldier" on I SING THE BODY
> ELECTRIC...Zawinul did an orchestral version of it on one of his latest
> albums, SONGS FROM THE DANUBE (?I think that's what it's called)--I think
> the title might be "Requiem for the Unknown Soldier" there...
>
> > anyway, I sure as hell can't whistle or hum the melody. (If you can
call it
> > that) And there are no words, still it is a fantastic piece of music!
Zawinul
>
> Agreed (about it being a great piece), though, actually, I think it's one
> of the more structured (and thus for me more easier to remember from a
> melodic standpoint, especially the low, eerie vocalisms) songs on the
> album...If you really want un-whistlable, try the "Vertical
> Invader/T.H./Dr. Honoris Causa" free jam later on in the album! Though I
> agree with your basic point; Geir's kind of nuts-o with the 'It's gotta
be
> hummable to be good' stuff....:)
>
> > uses musical "textures" to "paint" an aural picture. I suppose someone
will
> > tell me it sucks. Sigh.
>
> I won't. A great example of this is the song "Second Sunday in August",
> also off I SING...Every time I hear that it blows me away...I have no
idea
> how to begin even writing something like that, which sounds very
> elaborately planned out but still flows so naturally...
> I'm a pianist, and Zawinul is one of my, perhaps even *THE*, greatest
> idols. I saw him at the Blue Note a year ago, and he was doing
absolutely
> mind-blowing shit, like, playing an 'inverted' keyboard (i.e. the higher
> up in the keyboard, the lower the sound it makes, and vice-versa)--I
later
> found out he had been doing that for years! Fabulous technique, but very
> non-flashy, and a huge range of different musical styles throughout his
> career...
>
> Joe McGlinchey
> Teachers College
> Columbia University
>
> He used to use 2 ARP 2600's named Eins & Zwei (one & two) - sometimes
with one keyboard "normal" and the other inverted. I'd love to be that
schizo!
Jon Best
Geir Hongro wrote:
>
> I haven't heard it, but I'm sure I prefer <snip>......
Just slam that little mind tight!
Jon Best
FALSTAFF
Joe McGlinchey
On 12 Mar 1997, Steve & Kathy Hoover wrote:
> > idols. I saw him at the Blue Note a year ago, and he was doing
> absolutely
> > mind-blowing shit, like, playing an 'inverted' keyboard (i.e. the higher
> > up in the keyboard, the lower the sound it makes, and vice-versa)--I
> later
> > found out he had been doing that for years! Fabulous technique, but very
> He used to use 2 ARP 2600's named Eins & Zwei (one & two) - sometimes
> with one keyboard "normal" and the other inverted. I'd love to be that
> schizo!
Yeah, I remember they were originally ARPs...Do you know when he started
to do it, BTW? My guess is sometime around "Mr. Gone", where he was
supposedly doing all that experimental stuff similar to MIDI before MIDI
was around...
Richard Pluck
In article <5g4ov7$ob5$6...@o.online.no>, Geir Hongro <knho...@online.no>
writes
>Richard Pluck <r...@rickyp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>[1] Some dance music does make a successful transistion from club to
>>living room e.g 'Leftism' by Leftfield
>
>danced to there is no point.
But we're talking about *dance* music here ... it's only reason for
existing is to make you want to dance ... isn't that enough? ... if it
has an appeal that takes it out of the clubs that is a bonus.
>Besides dance music was better in the
>early 80s. "Thriller" is the best dance record ever.
Oh come on ... even in the early eighties there were better dance
records that 'Thriller' ... Jacko's own 'Billy Jean' was a better dance
track than 'Thriller' and there was a certain record by New Order called
'Blue Monday' about around that time that totally eclipses MJ's stuff.
But compared to todays dance music early eighties 'dance' music [1]
sounds restrained and lacking in energy.
As for todays dance music ... I'll see your Michael Jackson 'Thriller'
and raise you 'Born Slippy' by Underworld. I know which would be more
likely to fill an empty dancefloor around here!
Let's face it even a non dance act like Space can write a better dance
record than 'Thriller' ... ever hear 'Growler' from the 'Spiders' album?
[1] The quotes are there because between disco in the seventies and
the rise of house music in the mid eighties the dance scene, as such,
was fairly low key and most 'dance music' was danceable 'other' music
rather than music written to dance to ... if you get the distinction.
--
R i k
|Spider Gecko|
Geir Hongro <knho...@online.no> wrote in article
<5g4p3e$ob5$7...@o.online.no>...
>
> I haven't heard it, but I'm sure **********I********** prefer "Birdland"
or "A Remark
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You Made".
That's it exactly! You're trying to make this rule as a universal fact of
music, but you've been missing the *IMHO*!!! It's just a HO.
Tim Cross
Geir Hongro wrote:
> Well, not nessecarily. There's nothing wrong with instrumental
> songs, as long as there is a distinctive melody you can actually
> whistle along to
Ever try whistling along to Ives' Second Symphony?
--
Tim Cross
US West Technologies, PSRP Development Group, Denver
tac...@uswest.com (303)624-2284 work (303)833-4982 home
The Julie Hoest Web Page: http://www.hidwater.com/hoest
My opinions, etc.
Geir Hongro
Richard Pluck <r...@rickyp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>But we're talking about *dance* music here ... it's only reason >for existing is to make you want to dance ... isn't that enough? ...
No, it's not enough. Music that does not work out in your home
stereo or car stereo is not as good as other music.
>Oh come on ... even in the early eighties there were better dance
>records that 'Thriller' ... Jacko's own 'Billy Jean' was a better >dance
>track than 'Thriller' and there was a certain record by New Order >called
>'Blue Monday' about around that time that totally eclipses MJ's >stuff.
"Blue Monday" was great too. "Thriller" was meant as an example (I
meant the album, but still I prefer the song "Thriller" to "Billie
Jean" just because it has MORE than just a dance beat)
>As for todays dance music ... I'll see your Michael Jackson >'Thriller'
>and raise you 'Born Slippy' by Underworld. I know which would be >more likely to fill an empty dancefloor around here!
That's because people dance in a very fast and dizzy way nowadays.
>Let's face it even a non dance act like Space can write a better >dance
>record than 'Thriller' ... ever hear 'Growler' from the 'Spiders' >album?
I like Space. They've got good melodies in addition to the groove.
Besides it all depends on what kind of dance is fashionable. If
you have to jump up and down on the floor. Space (and today's
dance music) is probably better, but if you are satisfiedjust
moving to the music Jackson would probably work out better.
>[1] The quotes are there because between disco in the >seventies and
>the rise of house music in the mid eighties the dance scene, as >such,
>was fairly low key and most 'dance music' was danceable 'other' >music
>rather than music written to dance to ... if you get the >distinction.
Well, that's the point. I prefer dancable "other music" - like
"Thriller" - like Space - like Leftfield.
--
Geir Hongrø
Geir Hongro
John Patrick Riley <cen1...@centuryinter.net> wrote:
>A lot of Brian Wilson's instumental work on the "Pet Sounds" album
>(Beach Boys)is that way. Powerful stuff, but it can't be whistled.
>(Brian himself observed this) -John
Since "Pet Sounds" is kind of a concept album those songs work
just because they are a part of a whole. The same goes for "The
Lamb Lies Down On Broadway" by Genesis - a great album although
some of the instrumental "songs" are unhummable fillers rather
than songs. Of course there was "On The Run" by Pink Floyd too.
For me it's just some noise in between "Breathe" and "Time", but
it works out just because it's part of a whole.
--
Geir Hongro
camgib
Well there are plenty of instrumental rock n roll that you can ... er...
hum along to...
"(I am) The Brazilian" - Genesis' last song on Invisible Touch
Virtually every song from Tangerine Dream -- especially on Risky
Business movie soundtrack.
"1984" -- Van Halen's first song on 1984 (what else!) and that's a great
introduction into "Jump".
Plenty of movie soundtracks - especially Star Wars soundtracks do have
those. Thank god for these... I won't need to ask for lyrics!!!
As for enjoying this particular thread... well.... it's how you say
it...
cam gib
Michael Forrest Zink
> Geir Hongro wrote:
>
> > Well, not nessecarily. There's nothing wrong with instrumental
> > songs, as long as there is a distinctive melody you can actually
> > whistle along to
>
> Ever try whistling along to Ives' Second Symphony?
How 'bout the first movement of Ives' "Three Places In New England," my
favorite non-Zappa classical piece of all time?
-MZ-
camgib
Thriller? A dance album??
WAHHHH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Excuse me. But... aaaa hahahahahahaha
<dropping to the floor, banging it hysterically>
AH hahahaha-- ooo-heeee*... that was funny.
But seriously...
Billie Jean's the only one that can be close to be hum-able. The rest,
especially "Thriller", isn't even close to being something that you can
ENJOY listening, much less DANCE to. "Beat It" wasn't even a dance tune
either, and besides, it's been seriously way overplayed. This is where I
got turned off from Jacko. Everywhere everytime in 1984 I'd hear the
song Beat It, morning afternoon, night. I'd get so sick of it that I
hated it... forever.
The fact that Jacko got weird after that didn't help matters. See that
asterisk above (*)... that's Jacko's signature cry. Think I wanna hear
any more cd's from him??
But anyway... carry on.
cam gib
Michael Forrest Zink
Geir, saw yer homepage. At least you like Monty Python.... :) (kidding
around, I'm just kidding around...)
"I can concur that this particular frenchman has not been to the toilet
in five years."
-MZ-
Joe McGlinchey
On Wed, 12 Mar 1997, camgib wrote:
> Well there are plenty of instrumental rock n roll that you can ... er...
> hum along to...
> Virtually every song from Tangerine Dream -- especially on Risky
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^
Now I have heard everything!! :)
|Spider Gecko|
Michael Forrest Zink <dpg...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.OSF.3.91.97031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...
Never heard either one of those, but a really beautiful song by Ives is
"The Things Our Fathers Loved (and the greatest of these was Liberty)"
There's nothing better than joyfully singing along to Edgard Varese's
Equatorial
Oh no, I got that damn tune stuck in my head again!!!
Oh constructores, Oh formadores!
"Take your dissonance like a man!"
-Charles Ives
|Spider Gecko|
|Spider Gecko|
Geir Hongro <knho...@online.no> wrote in article
<5g73ic$kba$3...@o.online.no>...
> John Patrick Riley <cen1...@centuryinter.net> wrote:
>
> >A lot of Brian Wilson's instumental work on the "Pet Sounds" album
> >(Beach Boys)is that way. Powerful stuff, but it can't be whistled.
> >(Brian himself observed this) -John
> The same goes for "The
> Lamb Lies Down On Broadway" by Genesis - a great album although
> some of the instrumental "songs" are unhummable fillers rather
> than songs.
I haven't really heard this album, but calling a piece "filler", just
because it's unhummable and its instrumental is preposterous. And who
cares if they're "songs"? As long as it's MUSIC and as long as it's GOOD,
I dig it.
Michael Forrest Zink
> There's nothing better than joyfully singing along to Edgard Varese's
> Equatorial
> Oh no, I got that damn tune stuck in my head again!!!
> Oh constructores, Oh formadores!
Try whistling/humming/dancing to EV's "Ionisation"!
-MZ-
Tom and/or Alex Ewing
>On Wed, 12 Mar 1997, camgib wrote:
>
>> Well there are plenty of instrumental rock n roll that you can ... er...
>> hum along to...
>> Virtually every song from Tangerine Dream -- especially on Risky
> ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^
>Now I have heard everything!! :)
Come now,
I was humming "Fly and Collision Of Comas Sola" just this morning in
the shower. My housemates called in the plumber.
Tom.
tew...@netcomuk.co.uk
"A taste for change, satisfied by a change
in taste."
Panasonic/Swans, LA2, 15/3/97 - be there.
Clarence Din
In article <5g2373$k4a$2...@o.online.no>, Geir Hongro <knho...@online.no> wrote:
>Richard Pluck <r...@rickyp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Not to
>>mention all the dance music that is based on rhythm, not melody >... I
>>suppose that's a whole genre that's incapable of producing good music?
>
>Dance music sucks, and I guess that's one of the most important
>issues of my statement!
>--
>Geir Hongro
I disagree totally. Have you ever listened to a Masters at Work mix?
Little Louie Vega gets Tito Puente or some other live musical master
in his songs and they really jam!
If you are referring to repetitive dance music where the same idea is
played over and over and over again, then I agree with your statement,
but there are many, many different genres of dance music, so you
really can't make a broad statement like "dance music sucks."
Clarence Din (610)995-4462 days (215)567-7988 eves d...@gradin.cis.upenn.edu
Fresh Records Loft Studio, 2300 Walnut Street, Suite 405, Phila, PA 19103
"Kick-Ass Digital Mastering on a Budget... Home of the * L1 *"
Richard Pluck
In article <5gkji5$3mu$1...@earth.superlink.net>, Sam Isaacson
<isaa...@mars.superlink.net> writes
>>For your typical pop song good lyrics are, indeed, just a bonus. Pulp's
>>music would stand up even if Jarvis was singing the kind of drivel that
>>passes for lyrics on R&B records. But that's not always the case ...
>>some early Bob Dylan, a lot of Lou Reed and the best examples of rap all
>>want you to focus on the lyrics ... the songwriter has something to say
>>and the backing is kept very simple (often to just a rhythm) so as not
>>to detract from those lyrics.
>
>IMHO, music doesn't really take away from good lyrics.
I agree. But by stripping the music down to the basics a songwriter
forces the listener's attention onto the lyrics; those that might be
distracted from the lyrics are left with nothing to be distracted by.
>
>>>
>>>>Not to
>>>>mention all the dance music that is based on rhythm, not melody >... I
>>>>suppose that's a whole genre that's incapable of producing good music?
>>>
>
>Let's not forget that a lot of dance music didn't start out as music,
>but was remixed *into* dance music?
Yes and most 'dance' remixes are abysmal, especially those done for
major artists who use a rent-a-producer like Todd Terry. It is very
rare that a remix can turn a standard radio friendly track into a *real*
dance record. If the track starts off with a decent groove then a good
dance remix is *possible*, but in general the resulting track just
doesn't feel right.
>
> Dance music's appeal is physical,
>>not emotional or intellectual. Dance music is to dance to ... and IMO
>>no genre of music has ever been better than todays club music to dance
>>to.
>
>Ever heard of ska?
Yes, thanks ... but my comments still stand. (All IMHO, of course!)
--
R i k
Mark Garvin
>I'm a pianist, and Zawinul is one of my, perhaps even *THE*, greatest
>idols. I saw him at the Blue Note a year ago, and he was doing absolutely
>mind-blowing shit, like, playing an 'inverted' keyboard (i.e. the higher
>up in the keyboard, the lower the sound it makes, and vice-versa)--I later
>found out he had been doing that for years! Fabulous technique, but very
>non-flashy, and a huge range of different musical styles throughout his
>career...
Zawinul has used inverted keyboards since the 'voltage control' days.
You really only have to change two voltage control wires on many of
the old synths.
He used the approach to come up with a lot of his odd-sounding
melodies, like Black Market.
That approach is great for getting beyond reflexive playing. I love
picking up a leftie-strung guitar for the same reason: You can see
where all the notes are, but reflexive patterns will yield unusual
intervals.
MGarvin
Dave
> Let's not forget that a lot of dance music didn't start out as music,
> but was remixed *into* dance music?
>
I had to mention this. I have two dances singles from Yes; "Owner of a
Lonely Heart" and "Leave It." I have no idea what they were thinking of
when they remixed those songs. :^)
Dave
Michael Forrest Zink
I have those too. Only got 'em because I'm now one 12-inch away from
completing my Yes collection...listened to 'em once. It was not good.
-MZ-
Jon Best
> > Dance music's appeal is physical,
> >>not emotional or intellectual. Dance music is to dance to ... and IMO
> >>no genre of music has ever been better than todays club music to dance
> >>to.
> >
> >Ever heard of ska?
I would have to cast my vote for ska, too and there is nothing that can
get you moving like live zydeco! Today's club music is danceable, but
the perfect-time drum machine stuff has got to suck brain cells. Very
numbing to me.
Jon Best
FALSTAFF
Mathew William Brock
In article <33305D...@erols.com>, Jon Best <jrb...@erols.com> wrote:
>> > Dance music's appeal is physical,
>> >>not emotional or intellectual. Dance music is to dance to ... and IMO
>> >>no genre of music has ever been better than todays club music to dance
>> >>to.
>> >
>> >Ever heard of ska?
>
>I would have to cast my vote for ska, too and there is nothing that can
>get you moving like live zydeco!
I'll second that about zydeco. If zydeco doesn't make you wanna
move, check your pulse - you're probably dead.
Mat