Accident Of Birth
Tom Fletcher
brilliant album. I particularly like Freak.The whole album is a lot
different from what I had heard of Dickinson before (I have only heard Balls
To Picasso before this). I can feel a slight grunge feel on the album, and
the guitar sounds suggest this. I think some guitar lines are like Dream
Theater too. Some of the guitar parts remind me of bands like Pearl Jam.
Maybe I'm listening to the guitar parts more than anything else because I
play guitar, but still, it sounds pretty grungy in places.
This album wipes the floor clean with Maidens last two albums.
Tom Fletcher
t...@fletch05.globalnet.co.uk
Shiflet
Last 2? Hell, I find it preferable to Maiden's last *5* and I'm not even
counting live albums... AoB is definately excellent.
> Tom Fletcher
> t...@fletch05.globalnet.co.uk
Danny Shiflet
"We plan ahead, that way we don't have to do anything right now"-
Valentine, Tremors
Stargazer
> I finally got Accident Of Birth today, at long last. I think this is a
> brilliant album..... I can feel a slight grunge feel on the album, and
> the guitar sounds suggest this. I think some guitar lines are like Dream
> Theater too. Some of the guitar parts remind me of bands like Pearl Jam.
> Maybe I'm listening to the guitar parts more than anything else because I
> play guitar, but still, it sounds pretty grungy in places.....
I agree that AOB is brilliant. But reminiscent of Pearl Jam and grunge? I just
don't hear that at all. Anyone else?
Tom Fletcher
just
>don't hear that at all. Anyone else?
Okay, maybe not Pearl Jam (I used them as an example) but it definetly
sounds grungy (the heavy guitars - I believe by the sound they are 7 string
guitars) Or even some thrash.
Tom Fletcher
t...@fletch05.globalnet.co.uk
Stargazer
> >I agree that AOB is brilliant. But reminiscent of Pearl Jam and grunge?
> >I just don't hear that at all. Anyone else?
>
> Okay, maybe not Pearl Jam (I used them as an example) but it definetly
> sounds grungy (the heavy guitars - I believe by the sound they are 7 string
> guitars) Or even some thrash.
OK, now I see where you're going and I agree with you. The 7 string, or just
detuned, guitars and the extra heavy sound took me a spin or two to get used
to. It was almost too Slayer-ish or too thrash metal or something upon first
listen, but the tunes and the playing of both Roy Z and Adrian (not to mention
the voice) got me past any biases I may have held pretty quickly. I haven't
heard a lead guitarist with Roy Z's talent since John Petrucci kicked my butt
w/the "Images And Words" Dream Theater disc.
Tokus
just
>don't hear that at all. Anyone else?
well, maybe a bit in Freak, but not in the rest of the songs. Freak is the
only song which I don't like very much. the rest are excellent.
cu
Tonnie
FaceMe78
>detuned, guitars and the extra heavy sound took me a spin or two to get used
>to. It was almost too Slayer-ish or too thrash metal or something upon first
>listen, but the tunes and the playing of both Roy Z and Adrian (not to
>mention
>the voice) got me past any biases I may have held pretty quickly. I haven't
>heard a lead guitarist with Roy Z's talent since John Petrucci kicked my butt
>w/the "Images And Words" Dream Theater disc.
>
>
You know after reading that post I was kinda surprised someone in the IM ng
could have a semi-negative attitude about thrash metal. Of course I guess it
shouldn't really shock me because maiden isn't exactly "mindblowingly heavy" in
fact they're one of the "lightest" bands I care for most of the stuff I'm into
is definitely on the "heavy" side of the spectrum. I'm just kinda ranting here
and I'm just going to say I personally love thrash and death metal so there!
"All I wanted was a pepsi just one pepsi and she wouldn't give it to me just
one pepsi!"-ST
Shiflet
> You know after reading that post I was kinda surprised someone in the IM ng
> could have a semi-negative attitude about thrash metal.
I hate thrash. Some of the most godawful stuff I've ever heard, just
barely preferable to rap.
> Of course I guess it
> shouldn't really shock me because maiden isn't exactly "mindblowingly heavy" in
> fact they're one of the "lightest" bands I care for
Yes, rather than make noise they make music. Their playing is elaborate,
and you're at least able to make out their music...
> most of the stuff I'm into
> is definitely on the "heavy" side of the spectrum.
Music can be "heavy" without being hypersonic and unlistenable...
> I'm just kinda ranting here
> and I'm just going to say I personally love thrash and death metal so there!
>
> "All I wanted was a pepsi just one pepsi and she wouldn't give it to me just
> one pepsi!"-ST
Danny Shiflet
FaceMe78
>> could have a semi-negative attitude about thrash metal.
>
>I hate thrash. Some of the most godawful stuff I've ever heard, just
>barely preferable to rap.
Well everyone is entitled to their own opinions you just say some dumb things a
little farther down..
>> Of course I guess it
>> shouldn't really shock me because maiden isn't exactly "mindblowingly
>heavy" in
>> fact they're one of the "lightest" bands I care for
>
>Yes, rather than make noise they make music. Their playing is elaborate,
>and you're at least able to make out their music...
Tell me how Slayer's,Testament's,early megadeth's or
metallica's,overkill's,anthrax's,morbid angel's,hell any thrash or death band
has "inelaborate" playing and what exactly is "elaborate" playing in your
opinion anyway? I for one can hear every note and riff in their songs I have no
trouble "making out" their music.
>> most of the stuff I'm into
>> is definitely on the "heavy" side of the spectrum.
>
>Music can be "heavy" without being hypersonic and unlistenable...
Agreed music doesn't have to be fast and loud to be "heavy" it's just my fave
type of stuff.
You know all I did was show a little surprise at the fact that someone who
likes a "metal band" such as IM could dislike thrash so much that's all and you
had to go and respond like an asshole. I could go on about how horrible IM has
become in recent years, and how they've never been as good as the other bands
in their general style but I'm not going to oh wait I just did. Hell listen to
Diamond Head,Judas Priest,Saxon,or just about any NWOBHM band all have much
more enjoyable music than IM IMO.
Significant Pickle
<3683D8...@ix.netcom.com>...
> FaceMe78 wrote:
>
> > You know after reading that post I was kinda surprised someone in the
IM ng
> > could have a semi-negative attitude about thrash metal.
>
> I hate thrash. Some of the most godawful stuff I've ever heard, just
> barely preferable to rap.
>
> > shouldn't really shock me because maiden isn't exactly "mindblowingly
heavy" in
> > fact they're one of the "lightest" bands I care for
>
> Yes, rather than make noise they make music. Their playing is elaborate,
> and you're at least able to make out their music...
Suffocation plays some of the most elaborate music you'll ever hear. But
you'll never admit it....it's too "heavy and unlistenable".
> > most of the stuff I'm into
> > is definitely on the "heavy" side of the spectrum.
>
> Music can be "heavy" without being hypersonic and unlistenable...
Let's turn that around: music can also be listenable without being
"catchy".
Heh, two can play the stupid semantics game.
The question is: can you play anything other?
E.
--
******
"We die and are reborn with each breath,
And for each death; the shedding of a lie,
A truth is born."
--Foundation, "Morning"
Significant Pickle
<19981225174325...@ng-cc1.aol.com>...
> Tell me how Slayer's,Testament's,early megadeth's or
> metallica's,overkill's,anthrax's,morbid angel's,hell any thrash or death
band
> has "inelaborate" playing and what exactly is "elaborate" playing in your
> opinion anyway? I for one can hear every note and riff in their songs I
have no
> trouble "making out" their music.
"Waaaaah....it's too heavy and evil! I can't sing along to the chorus!
Make it stop!"
> You know all I did was show a little surprise at the fact that someone
who
> likes a "metal band" such as IM could dislike thrash so much that's all
and you
> had to go and respond like an asshole. I could go on about how horrible
IM has
> become in recent years, and how they've never been as good as the other
bands
> in their general style but I'm not going to oh wait I just did. Hell
listen to
> Diamond Head,Judas Priest,Saxon,or just about any NWOBHM band all have
much
> more enjoyable music than IM IMO.
To add to your list (of stuff better than Maiden in the last 10 years):
* Blind Guardian
* Stratovarius
* In Flames
* Dark Tranquility
* Rhapsody
* Rage
* Therion
* Savatage
....That's just off the top of my head.
Ronald Shiflet
"Significant Pickle" <sgnfc...@aol.com> wrote:
>FaceMe78 <face...@aol.com> wrote in article
><19981225174325...@ng-cc1.aol.com>...
>
>> Tell me how Slayer's,Testament's,early megadeth's or
>> metallica's,overkill's,anthrax's,morbid angel's,hell any thrash or death
>band
>> has "inelaborate" playing and what exactly is "elaborate" playing in your
>> opinion anyway?
Stuff like the decipherable solos on Helloween, or King Diamond, or Mercyful Fate, or Rhoads era Ozzy, or... Basically, not the noise that makes up most thrash(and that definately includes early Metallica, Megadeth, and Slayer)
> I for one can hear every note and riff in their songs I
>have no
>> trouble "making out" their music.
I can hear the riffs too. But they are annoying riffs, not great ones like those done by Hansen and Weikath, or Randy Rhoads, or Denner, or Sherman, or La Rocque, or... I guess I should say I can't make out well done music in thrash.
>"Waaaaah....it's too heavy and evil!
I take it you've read practically none of my posts. Too "evil", good one. Most people here probably know I'm a huge Mercyful Fate/King Diamond fan, you seem to have missed that. In other words, if you think evil music bothers me, might I suggest you check the lyrics of M.Fate's Satan's Fall, Into the Coven, Nuns Have No Fun, Black Masses, Black Funeral, Evil, Doomed by the Living Dead, Lucifer, The Oath, Come to the Sabbath, Burning the Cross, and quite a few others? And for the record, I'm an atheist. I don't give a shit if it's black metal, Christian metal, or just your basic metal, as long as it sounds good.
> I can't sing along to the chorus! Make it stop!"
A lot of Fate stuff doesn't even have a chorus. There are almost no choruses on Diamond's Them album. Nice try, though in the future could you actually criticise me for not liking something I don't like rather than stuff that doesn't bother me?
>> You know all I did was show a little surprise at the fact that someone
>who
>> likes a "metal band" such as IM could dislike thrash so much that's all
>and you
>> had to go and respond like an asshole.
I gave reasons why an IM fan could hate thrash. That's not responding like an asshole. I despise that music, and I told you why. Saying I don't understand how an IM fan could dislike thrash is like saying I don't know how a country fan can hate Shania Twain.
> I could go on about how horrible
>IM has
>> become in recent years,
Yes, since '86. If you'd read more than 3 of my posts, you'd probably have known that I really don't care for anything they've done since Somewhere in Time.
> and how they've never been as good as the other
>bands
>> in their general style but I'm not going to oh wait I just did. Hell
>listen to
>> Diamond Head,Judas Priest,Saxon,or just about any NWOBHM band all have
>much
>> more enjoyable music than IM IMO.
Judas Priest is definately preferable(well, not counting Jugulator.), again, you're arguing with me by postings things I agree with? Am I missing something here? Haven't heard the other two, but I'm still looking for them.
>To add to your list (of stuff better than Maiden in the last 10 years):
Better than stuff from the last 10 years? Hell, that encompasses an *awful* lot of material...
>* Blind Guardian
Looking for their stuff.
>* Stratovarius
>* In Flames
>* Dark Tranquility
>* Rhapsody
And theirs.
>* Savatage
And theirs.
And to add more:
King Diamond
Mercyful Fate
Ozzy
Helloween
HammerFall
>.....That's just off the top of my head.
IM is hardly my favorite band. I prefer Ozzy, Priest, King Diamond, Mercyful Fate, Helloween... You sure choose an interesting attack style, you criticise me for not liking "evil" music(which I enjoy a lot of), try to make fun of me for liking Maiden's recent stuff(which I don't), try to make fun of me by saying I don't like music without a chorus(doesn't bother me at all)... Any other thing else that I "don't like" that you wanna criticise me for? Maybe something that I actually don't like this time?
>E.
>--
>******
>"We die and are reborn with each breath,
>And for each death; the shedding of a lie,
>A truth is born."
>
>--Foundation, "Morning"
Danny Shiflet
Ronald Shiflet
"Significant Pickle" <sgnfc...@aol.com> wrote:
>Suffocation plays some of the most elaborate music you'll ever hear. But
>you'll never admit it....it's too "heavy and unlistenable".
Every thrash song I've heard is noise. Noise is not music. Sorry, I only listen to music. Heavy is fine. Hyperfast garbage is not. Punk generally isn't listenable either for the very same reasons. When you play at 110 rpm, it makes it kinda hard to put a decent tune or melody in there. Even worse when your singer has vocals that are so growly they're almost indecipherable... If I find a Suffocation album that I can play before buying it, I'll play it. But until I hear thrash that isn't hyper garbage, I'm gonna hate it.
>Let's turn that around: music can also be listenable without being
>"catchy".
S.Pickle, master of the obvious. I hate to break this to you, but one of my all time favorite bands(Mercyful Fate) isn't what you'd call "catchy." Any other stupid remarks you care to make while we're on the subject? You're certainly on a roll up to this point...
>Heh, two can play the stupid semantics game.
*You* OTOH also seem to like playing you know all about me. Cause so far you've accused me of disliking about 5 things I like, and liking a thing or two that I dislike. That's certainly a great way to argue your point...
>The question is: can you play anything other?
The question is, did I do something to you in the past? Just wondering, cause you're either *real* high strung about thrash music or you've got some kinda grudge. And before you decide to accuse me of something, perhaps you'd be better served actually reading my posts rather than talking out your ass?
Shiflet
news sevice...
Tom Fletcher
>Suffocation plays some of the most elaborate music you'll ever hear. But
>you'll never admit it....it's too "heavy and unlistenable".
>
I guess we will all have to listen to it, and our mouths will drop to the
floor, and we will say, "hey, Significant Pickle is a god! We all hate
Maiden!!".?????
<SNIP>
>Let's turn that around: music can also be listenable without being
>"catchy".
Agreed. This is the only good point I have seen from you.
>Heh, two can play the stupid semantics game.
Heh, but only you is a tosser.
>The question is: can you play anything other?
The question is : is your departure from this NG going to be soon?
Tom Fletcher
t...@fletch05.globalnet.co.uk
"Who leads you to the dark secrets?"
Bruce Dickinson
"You haunt me, you taunt me
You torture me back at your lair"
Steve Harris
Significant Pickle
<767drp$e...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>...
> In article <01be322d$c9b43460$f493c898@vanguard>,
> "Significant Pickle" <sgnfc...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I for one can hear every note and riff in their songs I
> >have no
> >> trouble "making out" their music.
>
> I can hear the riffs too. But they are annoying riffs, not great ones
like those done by Hansen and Weikath, or Randy Rhoads, or Denner, or
Sherman, or La Rocque, or... I guess I should say I can't make out well
done music in thrash.
>
> >"Waaaaah....it's too heavy and evil!
>
> I take it you've read practically none of my posts. Too "evil", good one.
Most people here probably know I'm a huge Mercyful Fate/King Diamond fan,
you seem to have missed that. In other words, if you think evil music
bothers me, might I suggest you check the lyrics of M.Fate's Satan's Fall,
Into the Coven, Nuns Have No Fun, Black Masses, Black Funeral, Evil, Doomed
by the Living Dead, Lucifer, The Oath, Come to the Sabbath, Burning the
Cross, and quite a few others? And for the record, I'm an atheist. I don't
give a shit if it's black metal, Christian metal, or just your basic metal,
as long as it sounds good.
I'm curious. Do you know what King Diamond's definition of "evil" is?
> > I can't sing along to the chorus! Make it stop!"
>
> A lot of Fate stuff doesn't even have a chorus. There are almost no
choruses on Diamond's Them album. Nice try, though in the future could you
actually criticise me for not liking something I don't like rather than
stuff that doesn't bother me?
Mercyful Fate is an incredible band (loved 'em since '87). However, I beg
to differ, they're quite "catchy".
Note: my definition of 'catchy' is as wide (read: generalized) as your
def. of "noise". Catchy is music that emphasizes 'hooks and strong
melodies'. I love alot of this type of music too (and you seem to have
assumed that I don't).
However, my beef with your opinion (not >you<) was ONLY the fact that you
say that non "catchy" (my def) music is "noise" (implied: not "music").
> >> You know all I did was show a little surprise at the fact that someone
> >who
> >> likes a "metal band" such as IM could dislike thrash so much that's
all
> >and you
> >> had to go and respond like an asshole.
>
> I gave reasons why an IM fan could hate thrash. That's not responding
like an asshole. I despise that music, and I told you why. Saying I don't
understand how an IM fan could dislike thrash is like saying I don't know
how a country fan can hate Shania Twain.
>
> > I could go on about how horrible
> >IM has
> >> become in recent years,
>
> Yes, since '86. If you'd read more than 3 of my posts, you'd probably
have known that I really don't care for anything they've done since
Somewhere in Time.
You're assuming I'm "accusing" you of liking their newer stuff?
Where did you get this?
> > and how they've never been as good as the other
> >bands
> >> in their general style but I'm not going to oh wait I just did. Hell
> >listen to
> >> Diamond Head,Judas Priest,Saxon,or just about any NWOBHM band all have
> >much
> >> more enjoyable music than IM IMO.
>
> Judas Priest is definately preferable(well, not counting Jugulator.),
again, you're arguing with me by postings things I agree with? Am I missing
something here? Haven't heard the other two, but I'm still looking for
them.
>
> >To add to your list (of stuff better than Maiden in the last 10 years):
>
> Better than stuff from the last 10 years? Hell, that encompasses an
*awful* lot of material...
100% agreed. I was naming some stuff >I< know of specifically. There's
alot more I've yet to "discover", tho.
> >* Blind Guardian
>
> Looking for their stuff.
>
> >* Stratovarius
> >* In Flames
> >* Dark Tranquility
> >* Rhapsody
>
> And theirs.
>
> >* Savatage
>
> And theirs.
> And to add more:
> King Diamond
> Mercyful Fate
> Ozzy
> Helloween
> HammerFall
>
> >.....That's just off the top of my head.
>
> IM is hardly my favorite band. I prefer Ozzy, Priest, King Diamond,
Mercyful Fate, Helloween... You sure choose an interesting attack style,
you criticise me for not liking "evil" music(which I enjoy a lot of), try
to make fun of me for liking Maiden's recent stuff(which I don't), try to
make fun of me by saying I don't like music without a chorus(doesn't bother
me at all)... Any other thing else that I "don't like" that you wanna
criticise me for? Maybe something that I actually don't like this time?>>
I'll admit the "chorus insult" was out of line, but you hooked on to it.
There was plenty of relevant content in the other "accusations".
Interesting how you assumed (just as you accused me of), however, that I
have not heard MF.
Significant Pickle
> In article <01be322d$448f1f20$f493c898@vanguard>,
> "Significant Pickle" <sgnfc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Suffocation plays some of the most elaborate music you'll ever hear.
But
> >you'll never admit it....it's too "heavy and unlistenable".
>
listen to music. Heavy is fine. Hyperfast garbage is not. Punk generally
isn't listenable either for the very same reasons. When you play at 110
rpm, it makes it kinda hard to put a decent tune or melody in there. Even
worse when your singer has vocals that are so growly they're almost
indecipherable... If I find a Suffocation album that I can play before
buying it, I'll play it. But until I hear thrash that isn't hyper garbage,
I'm gonna hate it.
"Thrash is noise. Noise is not music" is the sweeping generalization I'm
holding you accountable for.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
> >Let's turn that around: music can also be listenable without being
> >"catchy".
>
> S.Pickle, master of the obvious. I hate to break this to you, but one of
my all time favorite bands(Mercyful Fate) isn't what you'd call "catchy."
Any other stupid remarks you care to make while we're on the subject?
You're certainly on a roll up to this point...
MF >is< "catchy". See my other post.
> >Heh, two can play the stupid semantics game.
>
> *You* OTOH also seem to like playing you know all about me. Cause so far
you've accused me of disliking about 5 things I like, and liking a thing or
two that I dislike. That's certainly a great way to argue your point...
> >The question is: can you play anything other?
>
> The question is, did I do something to you in the past? Just wondering,
cause you're either *real* high strung about thrash music or you've got
some kinda grudge. And before you decide to accuse me of something, perhaps
you'd be better served actually reading my posts rather than talking out
your ass?
Hmm....an "autoflame" :)
You won't believe this, but I'm not interested in flame in the least.
Shiflet
> I'm curious. Do you know what King Diamond's definition of "evil" is?
I haven't heard him give a specific definition, no... But you mentioned
evil music, and last I checked Satanism, necrophilia, raping a nun, that
sort of thing would generally be considered evil...
> Mercyful Fate is an incredible band (loved 'em since '87). However, I beg
> to differ, they're quite "catchy".
>
> Note: my definition of 'catchy' is as wide (read: generalized) as your
> def. of "noise". Catchy is music that emphasizes 'hooks and strong
> melodies'. I love alot of this type of music too (and you seem to have
> assumed that I don't).
*Music* also emphasizes melody, that's the thing. The melodies on
Fate/Diamond stuff aren't what most people would consider "catchy"
either.
> However, my beef with your opinion (not >you<) was ONLY the fact that you
> say that non "catchy" (my def) music is "noise" (implied: not "music").
Yes, that's the thing. *Music* needs melody to *be* music.
> You're assuming I'm "accusing" you of liking their newer stuff?
Oops, that was from the FaceMe guy(whose post you responded to was one I
never saw for some reason)
> I'll admit the "chorus insult" was out of line, but you hooked on to it.
> There was plenty of relevant content in the other "accusations".
Not really...
> Interesting how you assumed (just as you accused me of), however, that I have not heard MF.
No, you accused me of not liking evil music or songs without choruses.
Since I'm a huge MF fan, I figured I'd better point that out to make
sure you knew *exactly* what I was talking about.
> E.
> --
> ******
> "We die and are reborn with each breath,
> And for each death; the shedding of a lie,
> A truth is born."
>
> --Foundation, "Morning"
Danny Shiflet
Shiflet
> "Thrash is noise. Noise is not music" is the sweeping generalization I'm holding you accountable for.
That's cause noise ain't music. Music requires melody, always has until
thrash/punk came along.
> MF >is< "catchy". See my other post.
Not really. See my other post.
Shiflet
>
> You know my news server fucked up and I seemed to have missed some of this
> thread oh
So did I apparently, I didn't even see your later responses till SP
responded to them...
> well anyway sorry that I wrongfully accused you of liking the new
> stuff..
No prob.
> Look the reason I responded to your post the way I did is because instead of
> just stating why you disliked thrash music you said something to the effect of
> "thrash is nothing but noise and is barely more tolerable than rap" I wouldn't
> have been so ticked if you had just said something along the lines of "thrash
> just isn't my thing because.." I wouldn't have called you an asshole if you
> hadn't said basically that Thrash SUX!!!!
Well okay, I see. I just don't generally use IMO or anything like that,
anything I say should generally be taken as having an IMO in front.
> "All I wanted was a pepsi just one pepsi and she wouldn't give it to me just
> one pepsi!"-ST
Danny Shiflet
Shiflet
> If you're interested, I can supply you with KD's definition of evil and
> Satanism (in the context of his music/lyrics). It may surprise you.
Sure, that I'll read...
> So a percussion song/piece (see: just about any tribal or
> percussion-ambient CD) is not music?
There can be a melody, even in percussion pieces(particulary tribal
pieces)
> An Iron Maiden demo CD with horrible production so that you cannot tell the individual notes is not "music"?
I'd have to hear the demo in question.
>
> Furthermore, if you can decipher NO melody in thrash or punk (gods, I can
> decipher melody in my most hated genre--rap--easily), then perhaps you are
> the one with faulty perception.
I hate rap more than any other musical style, but I can find melody in
it. But not in the majority of thrash songs...
> The word you're looking for is "caricature" (thanks Daemonic).
Perhaps, but play that music for nearly anyone, and then watch how they
look at you. Heck, if I played something like Satan's Fall at school I'd
probably get in trouble(hell, Sleepless Nights actually scared my Psych
class...)
> I mocked you for calling thrash (incl. early Metallica noise).
*Especially* early Metallica. Kill Em All is easily one of the *worst*
albums I've ever listened to. Noise it most certainly is. There are some
okay stuff on Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets, but not much...
> That's all, no accusations. Get over that, and address the points.
Already have.
> E.
> --
> ******
> "We die and are reborn with each breath,
> And for each death; the shedding of a lie,
> A truth is born."
>
> --Foundation, "Morning"
Danny Shiflet
FaceMe78
>
>Oops, that was from the FaceMe guy(whose post you responded to was one I
>never saw for some reason)
You know my news server fucked up and I seemed to have missed some of this
thread oh well anyway sorry that I wrongfully accused you of liking the new
stuff..
Look the reason I responded to your post the way I did is because instead of
just stating why you disliked thrash music you said something to the effect of
"thrash is nothing but noise and is barely more tolerable than rap" I wouldn't
have been so ticked if you had just said something along the lines of "thrash
just isn't my thing because.." I wouldn't have called you an asshole if you
hadn't said basically that Thrash SUX!!!!
"All I wanted was a pepsi just one pepsi and she wouldn't give it to me just
one pepsi!"-ST
Significant Pickle
> Significant Pickle wrote:
>
> > I'm curious. Do you know what King Diamond's definition of "evil" is?
>
> I haven't heard him give a specific definition, no... But you mentioned
> evil music, and last I checked Satanism, necrophilia, raping a nun, that
> sort of thing would generally be considered evil...
If you're interested, I can supply you with KD's definition of evil and
Satanism (in the context of his music/lyrics). It may surprise you.
> > Mercyful Fate is an incredible band (loved 'em since '87). However, I
beg
> > to differ, they're quite "catchy".
> >
> > Note: my definition of 'catchy' is as wide (read: generalized) as your
> > def. of "noise". Catchy is music that emphasizes 'hooks and strong
> > melodies'. I love alot of this type of music too (and you seem to have
> > assumed that I don't).
>
> *Music* also emphasizes melody, that's the thing. The melodies on
> Fate/Diamond stuff aren't what most people would consider "catchy"
> either.
So a percussion song/piece (see: just about any tribal or
percussion-ambient CD) is not music?
An Iron Maiden demo CD with horrible production so that you cannot tell the
individual notes is not "music"?
By your definition, this is the case.
> > However, my beef with your opinion (not >you<) was ONLY the fact that
you
> > say that non "catchy" (my def) music is "noise" (implied: not
"music").
>
> Yes, that's the thing. *Music* needs melody to *be* music.
See above.
Furthermore, if you can decipher NO melody in thrash or punk (gods, I can
decipher melody in my most hated genre--rap--easily), then perhaps you are
the one with faulty perception.
> > I'll admit the "chorus insult" was out of line, but you hooked on to
it.
> > There was plenty of relevant content in the other "accusations".
>
> Not really...
Your loss.
> > Interesting how you assumed (just as you accused me of), however, that
I have not heard MF.
>
> No, you accused me of not liking evil music or songs without choruses.
> Since I'm a huge MF fan, I figured I'd better point that out to make
> sure you knew *exactly* what I was talking about.
The word you're looking for is "caricature" (thanks Daemonic).
When one mocks another (on UseNet using "quotations"), it is an
exaggeration of fact, based on fact.
I mocked you for calling thrash (incl. early Metallica noise). That's all,
no accusations. Get over that, and address the points.
E.
D.P.
Shiflet wrote in message <368877...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Significant Pickle wrote:
>
>> If you're interested, I can supply you with KD's definition of evil and
>> Satanism (in the context of his music/lyrics). It may surprise you.
>
>
>> percussion-ambient CD) is not music?
>
>pieces)
>
the individual notes is not "music"?
>
>
>>
>> decipher melody in my most hated genre--rap--easily), then perhaps you
are
>> the one with faulty perception.
>
>it. But not in the majority of thrash songs...
>
>
>look at you. Heck, if I played something like Satan's Fall at school I'd
>probably get in trouble(hell, Sleepless Nights actually scared my Psych
>class...)
>
>
>albums I've ever listened to. Noise it most certainly is. There are some
>okay stuff on Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets, but not much...
hmm ok. As you might know, on their reload tour, Metallica did a short
"unplugged" set that included songs off Kill em All (Motorbreath and Four
Horsemen). Now, if you listened to the songs *that* way, could you honesltly
say that its noise then? I mean, they're playing it on acoustic guitars and
the melody is quite clear right?So are you more concerned about the delivery
of the song or the song itself?
And say a band covered an IM song like Infinite Dreams and played it
"thrashmetaly" with horrible production, would you call it noise and dismiss
it immediatly. If you say "no" (because i'ts still IM and therefore
"melodic") then you have to look at Kill em All and thrash the same way (the
delivery and the content as seperate). But if you say "yes",... well then
I'm wasting my time.
Darek
Significant Pickle
> Significant Pickle wrote:
>
> > If you're interested, I can supply you with KD's definition of evil and
> > Satanism (in the context of his music/lyrics). It may surprise you.
>
> Sure, that I'll read...
A seperate post, then (Definition of "Evil"), so as not to dilute this
thread.
> > So a percussion song/piece (see: just about any tribal or
> > percussion-ambient CD) is not music?
>
> There can be a melody, even in percussion pieces(particulary tribal
> pieces)
That was terribly vague. Care to cite examples?
(note: there can be 'melody' in armpit farts as well, or burping the
national anthem. A sufficient change in pitch and dynamic to match the
definition).
> > An Iron Maiden demo CD with horrible production so that you cannot tell
the individual notes is not "music"?
>
> I'd have to hear the demo in question.
This implies that there is a possibility you'd dismiss it.
> > Furthermore, if you can decipher NO melody in thrash or punk (gods, I
can
> > decipher melody in my most hated genre--rap--easily), then perhaps you
are
> > the one with faulty perception.
>
> I hate rap more than any other musical style, but I can find melody in
> it. But not in the majority of thrash songs...
>
> > The word you're looking for is "caricature" (thanks Daemonic).
>
> Perhaps, but play that music for nearly anyone, and then watch how they
> look at you. Heck, if I played something like Satan's Fall at school I'd
> probably get in trouble(hell, Sleepless Nights actually scared my Psych
> class...)
That's stupid reasoning, tho.
The majority of the world thinks Korn and Hole and early Metallica are in
the same genre, even after listening. It's because they choose not to
>think< about the genre, and rather judge it "easily" by the aesthetics
(ie: how it "sounds") provided.
I've played Blind Guardian's "Nightfall in Middle-Earth" (power/orchestral
metal) for people locally, and have heard accusations like "this sounds
like X-mas carols!". Aesthetics....no consideration for >content<.
Analogy: A kid buys Tiger-Tail flavored ice-cream, but one day gets a cone
where the 'stripe' is blue instead of black. The material is the same, the
taste is essentially the same, but the visual aesthetic has changed. The
kid declares vehemently "THIS IS NOT TIGER-TAIL ICE CREAM!".
Do you see why I take issue with your assertions?
> > I mocked you for calling thrash (incl. early Metallica noise).
>
> *Especially* early Metallica. Kill Em All is easily one of the *worst*
> albums I've ever listened to. Noise it most certainly is. There are some
> okay stuff on Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets, but not much...
Opinions aside (I won't comment on your tastes, that is not my place), I
must assert that your view of those albums as noise is stupid....perhaps
"ignorant" (or "illogical") would be a better term.
Shiflet
> hmm ok. As you might know,
No, I don't follow their stuff.
> on their reload tour, Metallica did a short
> "unplugged" set that included songs off Kill em All (Motorbreath and Four
> Horsemen). Now, if you listened to the songs *that* way, could you honesltly
> say that its noise then? I mean, they're playing it on acoustic guitars and
> the melody is quite clear right?So are you more concerned about the delivery
> of the song or the song itself?
The delivery. Anyone can take a perfectly good song and turn it into
noise, and a few bands can take noise and turn it into music.
> And say a band covered an IM song like Infinite Dreams and played it
> "thrashmetaly" with horrible production, would you call it noise and dismiss
> it immediatly. If you say "no" (because i'ts still IM and therefore
> "melodic")
The melody comes from the execution, not the song itself. It takes the
playing to make it melodic...
> then you have to look at Kill em All and thrash the same way (the
> delivery and the content as seperate). But if you say "yes",... well then I'm wasting my time.
Then you're wasting your time. It's the delivery, not the writing that
makes a song melodic. I could scream out the lyrics to Rime of the
Ancient Mariner, a melodic song in a horribly unmelodic and noisy
manner, and just cause it's a melodic song doesn't mean it will be when
I get through with it.
> Darek
Shiflet
>
> A seperate post, then (Definition of "Evil"), so as not to dilute this
> thread.
Allright, will read.
> That was terribly vague. Care to cite examples?
Sorry, not my cup of tea. There's been melody in some I've heard, but
I'm afraid I can't give specifics.
> (note: there can be 'melody' in armpit farts as well, or burping the
> national anthem. A sufficient change in pitch and dynamic to match the
> definition).
Not quite, a tune you can follow in addition to change in pitch and
dynamic is required.
> This implies that there is a possibility you'd dismiss it.
There is. If they are playing completely shitty, then it may not be
music. That's probably why it's a demo, they're preparing for their
music...
> That's stupid reasoning, tho.
So, sacrificing children, raping nuns, getting it on with corpses,
drinking blood, and murder isn't evil?(I don't consider Satanism evil,
but murder, rape, and necrophilia is another matter) Where are you from
that that isn't considered evil?
> The majority of the world thinks Korn and Hole and early Metallica are in the same genre, even after listening.
Harldy. I know a lot of people who hate that stuff, but don't consider
it the same...
> It's because they choose not to
> >think< about the genre, and rather judge it "easily" by the aesthetics
> (ie: how it "sounds") provided.
>
> I've played Blind Guardian's "Nightfall in Middle-Earth" (power/orchestral
> metal) for people locally, and have heard accusations like "this sounds
> like X-mas carols!". Aesthetics....no consideration for >content<.
Interesting... And even if it does sound like X-Mas carols, so what?
That doesn't mean they can't sound like carols done in a metal playing
style...
> Analogy: A kid buys Tiger-Tail flavored ice-cream, but one day gets a cone
> where the 'stripe' is blue instead of black. The material is the same, the
> taste is essentially the same, but the visual aesthetic has changed. The
> kid declares vehemently "THIS IS NOT TIGER-TAIL ICE CREAM!".
>
> Do you see why I take issue with your assertions?
But there's a difference. It's the flavoring ingredients that make ice
cream, not the color. While it's the *sound* that makes music. Change
the color, it's still tastes the same. Change the sound however... Your
analogy is more like giving Adrian Smith a guitar from say, Mike Denner
so someone then proclaims "Hey, that's not Adrian Smith cause that ain't
his guitar!"
> Opinions aside (I won't comment on your tastes, that is not my place), I
> must assert that your view of those albums as noise is stupid....perhaps "ignorant" (or "illogical") would be a better term.
I'm basing my statements on the albums themselves, nothing more. I have
listened to them, and I can determine what it is I'm listening to.
> E.
> --
> ******
> "We die and are reborn with each breath,
> And for each death; the shedding of a lie,
> A truth is born."
>
> --Foundation, "Morning"
Danny Shiflet
D.P.
Shiflet wrote in message <36889B...@ix.netcom.com>...
>D.P. wrote:
>
>> hmm ok. As you might know,
>
>No, I don't follow their stuff.
>
>> on their reload tour, Metallica did a short
>> "unplugged" set that included songs off Kill em All (Motorbreath and Four
>> Horsemen). Now, if you listened to the songs *that* way, could you
honesltly
>> say that its noise then? I mean, they're playing it on acoustic guitars
and
>> the melody is quite clear right?So are you more concerned about the
delivery
>> of the song or the song itself?
>
>The delivery. Anyone can take a perfectly good song and turn it into
>noise, and a few bands can take noise and turn it into music.
and anyone can take a perfectly shitty song, but add "colour" and "flavour"
to it and make it the most wonderful thing that you ever heard. so again,
whats more important, the song itself, or the delivery? It seems to me that
you're more concerned with how something looks rather than what it really
is.
I'm not saying that the execution in music in unimportant, but it shouldn't
overshadow whats being played. By that logic, someone like Yngwie Malmsteen
or Kirk Hammett would be the greatest musician and songwriter alive.
>> And say a band covered an IM song like Infinite Dreams and played it
>> "thrashmetaly" with horrible production, would you call it noise and
dismiss
>> it immediatly. If you say "no" (because i'ts still IM and therefore
>> "melodic")
>
>The melody comes from the execution, not the song itself. It takes the
>playing to make it melodic...
ok then why can't you say, "I don't like the execution in thrashmetal"
instead of calling it noise cos I'm assuming that you already know that
there is melody there.
>> then you have to look at Kill em All and thrash the same way (the
>> delivery and the content as seperate). But if you say "yes",... well then
I'm wasting my time.
>
>Then you're wasting your time. It's the delivery, not the writing that
>makes a song melodic. I could scream out the lyrics to Rime of the
>Ancient Mariner, a melodic song in a horribly unmelodic and noisy
>manner, and just cause it's a melodic song doesn't mean it will be when
>I get through with it.
If the lyrics are poetic and well written, then they will always be that
way no matter how you sing them, unless you change them around. Whether the
way you sing those lyrics sounds good or not is irrelevant right now, but
the shit that you sing isn't. One again, you're more concerned about
appearance, and I have a feeling that this will eventually come down to a
"defenition of music and melody" discussion which will be a complete waste
of time.
Darek
FaceMe78
>> thread oh
>
>responded to them...
>
Stupid AOHell oh well..
>Well okay, I see. I just don't generally use IMO or anything like that,
>anything I say should generally be taken as having an IMO in front.
Well I know it was your opinion I just think that you stated your opinions in
well a bad way but that's just nit-picking I'd babble on and defend thrash but
pickle is doing a good job of it in another thread only reason I'm not going to
go into it is because you have your opinion and nothing I or anyone else is
going to change it period.
Shiflet
> and anyone can take a perfectly shitty song, but add "colour" and "flavour"
> to it and make it the most wonderful thing that you ever heard. so again,
> whats more important, the song itself, or the delivery?
The delivery. If done in a certain way, excellent writing can be turned
to utter garbage, and likewise utter garbage can be turned into great
music.
> It seems to me that
> you're more concerned with how something looks rather than what it really is.
No, with how it sounds. And that's what music is, the sound.
> I'm not saying that the execution in music in unimportant, but it shouldn't
> overshadow whats being played. By that logic, someone like Yngwie Malmsteen
> or Kirk Hammett would be the greatest musician and songwriter alive.
Well, based on Hammet's general execution of songs I'd have to disagree.
And yes, it's the execution, not the writing.
> ok then why can't you say, "I don't like the execution in thrashmetal"
> instead of calling it noise cos I'm assuming that you already know that
> there is melody there.
Very little melody, and that's why I don't like thrash. It's noise.
> If the lyrics are poetic and well written, then they will always be that
> way no matter how you sing them, unless you change them around. Whether the
> way you sing those lyrics sounds good or not is irrelevant right now, but
> the shit that you sing isn't.
Incorrect. You can take the greatest song ever written and completely
ruin it. They'll remain well written, but they won't be listenable...
> One again, you're more concerned about
> appearance, and I have a feeling that this will eventually come down to a
> "defenition of music and melody" discussion which will be a complete waste of time.
Well yes, cause it's the sound that defines music, not the lyrics.
Someone could right a masterpiece, then utterly ruin it, while someone
else could right totally inane lyrics and make it a great song.
> Darek
Shiflet
> Stupid AOHell oh well..
And Netcom...
> Well I know it was your opinion I just think that you stated your opinions in
> well a bad way but that's just nit-picking I'd babble on and defend thrash but
> pickle is doing a good job of it in another thread only reason I'm not going to
> go into it is because you have your opinion and nothing I or anyone else is
> going to change it period.
Good point. Until I hear well done thrash, my opinion will remain the
same.
> "All I wanted was a pepsi just one pepsi and she wouldn't give it to me just
> one pepsi!"-ST
Danny Shiflet
Significant Pickle
> Significant Pickle wrote:
> >
> > A seperate post, then (Definition of "Evil"), so as not to dilute this
> > thread.
>
> Allright, will read.
I'm downloading some stuff as we speak. It's going to take some time to
articulate into a post (there's some related interest in the Black Metal
and death metal ng's too).
Gimme a day or so...
> > That was terribly vague. Care to cite examples?
>
> Sorry, not my cup of tea. There's been melody in some I've heard, but
> I'm afraid I can't give specifics.
This point ends then, with me completely unconvinced of your argument then.
> > (note: there can be 'melody' in armpit farts as well, or burping the
> > national anthem. A sufficient change in pitch and dynamic to match the
> > definition).
>
> Not quite, a tune you can follow in addition to change in pitch and
> dynamic is required.
You have to be able to "sing along?" (note: quotes = caricature, remember)
That's a really childish/naive description of music, IMO.
> > This implies that there is a possibility you'd dismiss it.
>
> There is. If they are playing completely shitty, then it may not be
> music. That's probably why it's a demo, they're preparing for their
> music...
>
> > That's stupid reasoning, tho.
>
> So, sacrificing children, raping nuns, getting it on with corpses,
> drinking blood, and murder isn't evil?(I don't consider Satanism evil,
> but murder, rape, and necrophilia is another matter) Where are you from
> that that isn't considered evil?
You lost me.
This point is related to my point ("that is stupid reasoning, tho")...how?
> > The majority of the world thinks Korn and Hole and early Metallica are
in the same genre, even after listening.
>
> Harldy. I know a lot of people who hate that stuff, but don't consider
> it the same...
Semantics, now. We can't get much further on this.
> > I've played Blind Guardian's "Nightfall in Middle-Earth"
(power/orchestral
> > metal) for people locally, and have heard accusations like "this sounds
> > like X-mas carols!". Aesthetics....no consideration for >content<.
>
> Interesting... And even if it does sound like X-Mas carols, so what?
> That doesn't mean they can't sound like carols done in a metal playing
> style...
You missed my point entirely.
If somebody said to you Number of the Beast sounds like a "girl punk band",
would you think it's ridiculous?
Aesthetics, no consideration for >content<.
> > Analogy: A kid buys Tiger-Tail flavored ice-cream, but one day gets a
cone
> > where the 'stripe' is blue instead of black. The material is the same,
the
> > taste is essentially the same, but the visual aesthetic has changed.
The
> > kid declares vehemently "THIS IS NOT TIGER-TAIL ICE CREAM!".
> >
> > Do you see why I take issue with your assertions?
>
> But there's a difference. It's the flavoring ingredients that make ice
> cream, not the color. While it's the *sound* that makes music.
And that's the root of our disagreement.
I think it's extremely simplistic and disrespectful to break music down
into "how it sounds".
Otherwise, production would be the absolute (or at least prominent) guage
in quality of music. And that's offensive.
>Change
> the color, it's still tastes the same. Change the sound however... Your
> analogy is more like giving Adrian Smith a guitar from say, Mike Denner
> so someone then proclaims "Hey, that's not Adrian Smith cause that ain't
> his guitar!"
"change the color, it still tastes the same": You argued against yourself.
D.P made a point about Metallica playing accoustic versions of their KEA
stuff.....they didn't change a note. All that changed was that they took
the distortion off their guitars.
And you're saying that this factor is what makes music music, and not
noise? Schrecklish!
> > Opinions aside (I won't comment on your tastes, that is not my place),
I
> > must assert that your view of those albums as noise is
stupid....perhaps "ignorant" (or "illogical") would be a better term.
>
> I'm basing my statements on the albums themselves, nothing more. I have
> listened to them, and I can determine what it is I'm listening to.
Do you think all metal is just noise?
Most mainstream (read: casual) music listeners do. Are they wrong?
Reciprocate this into our discussion, and consider.
Shiflet
> I'm downloading some stuff as we speak. It's going to take some time to
> articulate into a post (there's some related interest in the Black Metal
> and death metal ng's too).
> Gimme a day or so...
Okay.
> This point ends then, with me completely unconvinced of your argument then.
Well fine, but since I don't listen to the stuff by choice, you think
I'm gonna have specific examples? Okay, I don't know the offical name,
but try the soundtrack for Lucio Fulci's Zombie.
> You have to be able to "sing along?" (note: quotes = caricature, remember)
>
> That's a really childish/naive description of music, IMO.
Umm, no, there has to be a tune. Singing has nothing to do with it.
> You lost me.
> This point is related to my point ("that is stupid reasoning, tho")...how?
That if most people think it's evil doesn't mean anything. I was saying
that if that *isn't* evil, I don't know what is.
> Semantics, now. We can't get much further on this.
Coming from one who speaks for "the majority of the world"...
> You missed my point entirely.
> If somebody said to you Number of the Beast sounds like a "girl punk band",
> would you think it's ridiculous?
Yes, it's sung by a guy. The music might indeed sound like a girl punk
band, I've never listened to the stuff.
> Aesthetics, no consideration for >content<.
So by that logic, country music with lyrics along the lines of Number of
the Beast would be metal? Huh?
> And that's the root of our disagreement.
> I think it's extremely simplistic and disrespectful to break music down
> into "how it sounds".
>
> Otherwise, production would be the absolute (or at least prominent) guage
> in quality of music. And that's offensive.
The sound. The playing. *NOT* the production. I *never* said that. I
have some MF demos with *totally* crappy production, but the music
*itself* sounds like music. Just badly produced music.
> "change the color, it still tastes the same": You argued against yourself.
Not quite. You for reasons unknown completely ignored the point.
> D.P made a point about Metallica playing accoustic versions of their KEA
> stuff.....they didn't change a note. All that changed was that they took
> the distortion off their guitars.
Yes, they took out unnecessary noise.
> And you're saying that this factor is what makes music music, and not
> noise? Schrecklish!
Yeah...
> Do you think all metal is just noise?
No. A lot of it is well executed with melody and tune. It doesn't travel
at hypersonic velocities.
> Most mainstream (read: casual) music listeners do. Are they wrong?
>
> Reciprocate this into our discussion, and consider.
That is pointless. Most mainstream music listeners consider *all* music
they don't listen to noise. The *only* music I consider noise is thrash
and some punk. I hate rap, I hate pop, I hate just about everything. But
only those two styles play to make noise.
> E.
> --
> ******
> "We die and are reborn with each breath,
> And for each death; the shedding of a lie,
> A truth is born."
>
> --Foundation, "Morning"
Hey,
Check out what Laura found! It seems our boy Smiley has an obsession
with me! He's even mentioning me in other groups! I found a couple more
like this at other apparently random groups, apparently when he's not
trolling a.h., rspw, or alt.skinheads(another of his groups of choice)
he goes to groups and mentions my name. In one of them he called me his
"best friend." Scary, isn't it?
Significant Pickle
> Significant Pickle wrote:
>
> > I'm downloading some stuff as we speak. It's going to take some time
to
> > articulate into a post (there's some related interest in the Black
Metal
> > and death metal ng's too).
> > Gimme a day or so...
>
> Okay.
>
> > This point ends then, with me completely unconvinced of your argument
then.
>
> Well fine, but since I don't listen to the stuff by choice, you think
> I'm gonna have specific examples? Okay, I don't know the offical name,
> but try the soundtrack for Lucio Fulci's Zombie.
I'll look for it.
> > You have to be able to "sing along?" (note: quotes = caricature,
remember)
> >
> > That's a really childish/naive description of music, IMO.
>
> Umm, no, there has to be a tune. Singing has nothing to do with it.
(Able to): "sing along": replace with "hum along", "whistle to", whatever.
Aesthetics.
And it reinforces (logically) that you feel percussion alone is not
'music', in general.
> > You lost me.
> > This point is related to my point ("that is stupid reasoning,
tho")...how?
>
> That if most people think it's evil doesn't mean anything. I was saying
> that if that *isn't* evil, I don't know what is.
Fine, and fair enough.
I wasn't commenting on that, tho, I was commenting on your assertion that
lack of melody is not music.
> > Semantics, now. We can't get much further on this.
>
> Coming from one who speaks for "the majority of the world"...
Dishonest. Where did I say this (quote please)?
> > You missed my point entirely.
> > If somebody said to you Number of the Beast sounds like a "girl punk
band",
> > would you think it's ridiculous?
>
> Yes, it's sung by a guy. The music might indeed sound like a girl punk
> band, I've never listened to the stuff.
Bruce's "air raid siren" vocals are in the soprano/falsetto range (it is
called this because 'Men ain't s'posed to sing that thar way! Only gurls
do!').
The "girl punk band" assertion is a stupid one, agreed, but based on the
same aesthetics (how it 'sounds') as yours.
> > Aesthetics, no consideration for >content<.
>
> So by that logic, country music with lyrics along the lines of Number of
> the Beast would be metal? Huh?
You're polarizing the argument here (analogy: "You're picking at my
extreme point of view, so by that logic, a polar opposite extreme must is
true").
Explain why Hole is not metal. By your reasoning (sound is the determining
factor), Hole use distorted guitars, it's "heavy" (heh), the singer is a
screamer, and most of their lyrics are "depressing and anti-social" (the
common dishonest evaluation of metal lyrics).
> > And that's the root of our disagreement.
> > I think it's extremely simplistic and disrespectful to break music down
> > into "how it sounds".
> >
> > Otherwise, production would be the absolute (or at least prominent)
guage
> > in quality of music. And that's offensive.
>
> The sound. The playing. *NOT* the production. I *never* said that. I
> have some MF demos with *totally* crappy production, but the music
> *itself* sounds like music. Just badly produced music.
The playing is the delivery. If I deliver a tonally perfect rendition of
the Star Spangled Banner with armpit farts (recognizable to all/most
listeners), I have played perfectly, and the 'tune' has melody.
By your posted rationale, this fits the description of music.
Note: I'm not saying that sound/production/aesthetics have >nothing< to do
with the enjoyment of music [that'd be dishonest], but you are considering
ONLY this aspect, and not giving consideriation for >content< (how it is
written, how 'good' it is, etc).
> > "change the color, it still tastes the same": You argued against
yourself.
>
> Not quite. You for reasons unknown completely ignored the point.
You were essentially saying that my analogy was stretching it too far. Not
ignored....I'm using that to give you more "relevant" (by your rationale)
analogies.
> > D.P made a point about Metallica playing accoustic versions of their
KEA
> > stuff.....they didn't change a note. All that changed was that they
took
> > the distortion off their guitars.
>
> Yes, they took out unnecessary noise.
Distortion is unnecessary noise? Why isn't all music accoustic?
(At this point you'll say "Well, not all distortion, but they use too much
distortion!". I posit that this is, when all is said and done, the root of
your aesthetic argument against 'thrash noise'. And hence my rebuttal)
> > Do you think all metal is just noise?
>
> No. A lot of it is well executed with melody and tune. It doesn't travel
> at hypersonic velocities.
>
> > Most mainstream (read: casual) music listeners do. Are they wrong?
> >
> > Reciprocate this into our discussion, and consider.
>
> That is pointless. Most mainstream music listeners consider *all* music
> they don't listen to noise. The *only* music I consider noise is thrash
> and some punk. I hate rap, I hate pop, I hate just about everything. But
> only those two styles play to make noise.
Point a) You don't consider Death Metal, Grind, Hardcore, Funk-Industrial
noise? It has less "melody" than thrash and punk. What about "Pure rap"?
The type that is simply a vocalist (using rap's traditional atonal
"speaking voice" accompanied by a percussive backdrop?
Point b) If someone said "Iron Maiden is distorted shit noise. I can't
make out a fucking thing they're saying", how would they be 'wrong'?
Shiflet
> (Able to): "sing along": replace with "hum along", "whistle to", whatever.
> Aesthetics.
Yeah, a tune that one can go along with, rather it's just tapping
fingers, or humming, or what ever.
> And it reinforces (logically) that you feel percussion alone is not
> 'music', in general.
How do you figure?
> Fine, and fair enough.
> I wasn't commenting on that, tho, I was commenting on your assertion that
> lack of melody is not music.
Then why did you type that response to my assertion that "Most people
would consider that evil..."?
>
> Dishonest. Where did I say this (quote please)?
That is *not* dishonest. You words were "The majority of the world
thinks Metallica, Hole, and Korn are in the same genre."
> Bruce's "air raid siren" vocals are in the soprano/falsetto range (it is
> called this because 'Men ain't s'posed to sing that thar way! Only gurls
> do!').
But a high pithced guy and a high pitched girl still sound
differently...
> The "girl punk band" assertion is a stupid one, agreed, but based on the
> same aesthetics (how it 'sounds') as yours.
Incorrect.
> You're polarizing the argument here (analogy: "You're picking at my
> extreme point of view, so by that logic, a polar opposite extreme must is true").
Well, if you make one stupid assertion and that's okay, why is mine any
different?
> Explain why Hole is not metal. By your reasoning (sound is the determining
> factor), Hole use distorted guitars, it's "heavy" (heh), the singer is a
> screamer, and most of their lyrics are "depressing and anti-social" (the
> common dishonest evaluation of metal lyrics).
Don't listen to them, sorry. And the singer can be a screamer without it
being metal...
> The playing is the delivery. If I deliver a tonally perfect rendition of
> the Star Spangled Banner with armpit farts (recognizable to all/most
> listeners), I have played perfectly, and the 'tune' has melody.
And music also requires instruments. That is what makes the melody in
music.
> By your posted rationale, this fits the description of music.
>
> Note: I'm not saying that sound/production/aesthetics have >nothing< to do
> with the enjoyment of music [that'd be dishonest], but you are considering
> ONLY this aspect, and not giving consideriation for >content< (how it is
> written, how 'good' it is, etc).
Because music with bad lyrics can still be enjoyable if played properly.
Sure, I'd rather hear lyrics like Rime compared to Twisted Sister stuff,
but if the music is good is doesn't matter all that much.
> You were essentially saying that my analogy was stretching it too far. Not
> ignored....I'm using that to give you more "relevant" (by your rationale) analogies.
You were stretching it too far. You gave a totally absurd analogy.
> > Yes, they took out unnecessary noise.
>
> Distortion is unnecessary noise? Why isn't all music accoustic?
*Too much* distortion in unnecessary noise.
> (At this point you'll say "Well, not all distortion, but they use too much
> distortion!". I posit that this is, when all is said and done, the root of
> your aesthetic argument against 'thrash noise'. And hence my rebuttal)
Yes. Thrash is the only style that uses that type of distortion.
> Point a) You don't consider Death Metal, Grind, Hardcore, Funk-Industrial
> noise? It has less "melody" than thrash and punk.
I don't like Death Metal either, but it can have melody. Don't listen to
Hardcore/Grind/Industrial(consider them annoying, but I have heard
indutrial with melody. Not a *great* melody, but it was there)
> What about "Pure rap"?
> The type that is simply a vocalist (using rap's traditional atonal
> "speaking voice" accompanied by a percussive backdrop?
Never even heard it.
> Point b) If someone said "Iron Maiden is distorted shit noise. I can't
> make out a fucking thing they're saying", how would they be 'wrong'?
If they can't make out what they're saying, fine. As for distorted shit
noise, to some people they are. But, play the same person a thrash song,
then ask them which they would be more likely to consider noise.
> E.
> --
> ******
> "We die and are reborn with each breath,
> And for each death; the shedding of a lie,
> A truth is born."
>
> --Foundation, "Morning"
Danny Shiflet
Tom Fletcher
>You're polarizing the argument here (analogy: "You're picking at my
>extreme point of view, so by that logic, a polar opposite extreme must is
>true").
So now THIS is an ARGUMENT? What do you hope to gain Pickle?
Significant Pickle wrote in "Maiden Sucks? Fight For Quality!"
>>And then, when the argument doesn't go your way, you
>> reckon you fucked up on your original post. Then you say "perhaps I
should
>> have said.........."
>Again with your "always"....generalization.
>Read my reply to you in other thread.
>"When the argument doesn't go your way": what about this post is an
>"argument". What am I trying to win?
Now you are arguing? What DO you want to win? If everyone thought the same
as you, would this be reasonable?
Significant Pickle
> Significant Pickle wrote:
>
> > (Able to): "sing along": replace with "hum along", "whistle to",
whatever.
> > Aesthetics.
>
> fingers, or humming, or what ever.
You can "tap your fingers" to an armpit fart rendition of the national
Anthem. You can 'hum' along to the above.
> > And it reinforces (logically) that you feel percussion alone is not
> > 'music', in general.
>
> How do you figure?
Percussion alone (someone playing a well-structured drum solo) has no
"melody"!
> > Fine, and fair enough.
> > I wasn't commenting on that, tho, I was commenting on your assertion
that
> > lack of melody is not music.
>
> Then why did you type that response to my assertion that "Most people
> would consider that evil..."?
A "directed response" is one that stems directly from the post before. An
"indirect response" is one that takes the context of something, and
illustrates the 'bigger' discussion using it as an example.
> > Dishonest. Where did I say this (quote please)?
>
> That is *not* dishonest. You words were "The majority of the world
> thinks Metallica, Hole, and Korn are in the same genre."
Ammend: "the majority of the world who does not >regularly< listen to the
aforementioned thinks they're in the same genre". Slight (perhaps even
unnecessary) alteration, but still the same point.
I stand behind it.
> > Bruce's "air raid siren" vocals are in the soprano/falsetto range (it
is
> > called this because 'Men ain't s'posed to sing that thar way! Only
gurls
> > do!').
>
> But a high pithced guy and a high pitched girl still sound
> differently...
I wasn't saying that, tho. Bruce's soprano, to the 'untrained' (read:
'ignorant') ear sounds like a "screaming girl".
> > The "girl punk band" assertion is a stupid one, agreed, but based on
the
> > same aesthetics (how it 'sounds') as yours.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> > You're polarizing the argument here (analogy: "You're picking at my
> > extreme point of view, so by that logic, a polar opposite extreme must
is true").
>
> Well, if you make one stupid assertion and that's okay, why is mine any
> different?
A) Don't be stupid. I did not make the above assertion, you
did..."mocking" my rationale. <sigh> And no, a country song (one written
entirely in the blues pentatonic scale) with metal lyrics is not a 'metal'
song. It's a sick hybrid.
Notice how there aren't any of those kicking around...
B) Are you saying (using apologism..'well if you can be stupid, what's
wrong if I am being stupid too'?) that your assertion is stupid?
> > Explain why Hole is not metal. By your reasoning (sound is the
determining
> > factor), Hole use distorted guitars, it's "heavy" (heh), the singer is
a
> > screamer, and most of their lyrics are "depressing and anti-social"
(the
> > common dishonest evaluation of metal lyrics).
>
> Don't listen to them, sorry. And the singer can be a screamer without it
> being metal...
Music can have value as music without having melody.
Now, I'll go you one step further and actually >rationalize< my point.
Tribal percussion is universally understood as music, and it has no shift
in pitch as to make it melodic.
> > The playing is the delivery. If I deliver a tonally perfect rendition
of
> > the Star Spangled Banner with armpit farts (recognizable to all/most
> > listeners), I have played perfectly, and the 'tune' has melody.
>
> And music also requires instruments. That is what makes the melody in
> music.
That's so stupid, it's painful to read.
If vocals are not "using an instrument" (and you'll say "well, your voice
IS an instrument!!11!!!!"), then please explain the difference between
using your voice and your armpits to create 'melody'.
While you're at it, please explain how >burping< the national anthem (I've
heard it done quite coherently) is more usage of an 'instrument' than
armpit-farts.
> > By your posted rationale, this fits the description of music.
> >
> > Note: I'm not saying that sound/production/aesthetics have >nothing<
to do
> > with the enjoyment of music [that'd be dishonest], but you are
considering
> > ONLY this aspect, and not giving consideriation for >content< (how it
is
> > written, how 'good' it is, etc).
>
> Because music with bad lyrics can still be enjoyable if played properly.
> Sure, I'd rather hear lyrics like Rime compared to Twisted Sister stuff,
> but if the music is good is doesn't matter all that much.
Who said anything about lyrics?
Take an instrumental. Please explain why "Anasthesia: Pulling Teeth" (an
instrumental from Kill Em All) is not music. It fits your criteria:
1) It has a discernable 'melody'. I can hum it, I can tap to it, and can
recite it with instrumentation. Not just me, either....apparently it is
'musical' enough for a complete outsider (Wolfman Barr) to write it out in
tablature without filtering processes.
2) It uses instruments, which create the melody.
Once you're done with that, repeat for >every single song< on Kill 'Em All
(which you have stated unequivocally is ALL NOISE, NO MUSIC).
> > You were essentially saying that my analogy was stretching it too far.
Not
> > ignored....I'm using that to give you more "relevant" (by your
rationale) analogies.
>
> You were stretching it too far. You gave a totally absurd analogy.
Oh?
> > > Yes, they took out unnecessary noise.
> >
> > Distortion is unnecessary noise? Why isn't all music accoustic?
>
> *Too much* distortion in unnecessary noise.
>
> > (At this point you'll say "Well, not all distortion, but they use too
much
> > distortion!". I posit that this is, when all is said and done, the
root of
> > your aesthetic argument against 'thrash noise'. And hence my
rebuttal)
>
> Yes. Thrash is the only style that uses that type of distortion.
Bullshit.
The distortion used on Ride the Lightning is identical to that used on
Marilyn Manson's "The Beautiful People" (ick.....what a comparison!)
Manson is hardly thrash, nor punk.
Also, death metal uses "that kind of distortion" exclusively (often FAR
'heavier)....and you have stated (below) that you think death metal can be
'melodic' [again, I find this stupid in context].
> > Point a) You don't consider Death Metal, Grind, Hardcore,
Funk-Industrial
> > noise? It has less "melody" than thrash and punk.
>
> I don't like Death Metal either, but it can have melody. Don't listen to
> Hardcore/Grind/Industrial(consider them annoying, but I have heard
> indutrial with melody. Not a *great* melody, but it was there)
My point was DIRECTLY contesting your "thrash and punk ALONE are noise"
contention. No subtleties there....I do not see how you missed it.
> > What about "Pure rap"?
> > The type that is simply a vocalist (using rap's traditional atonal
> > "speaking voice" accompanied by a percussive backdrop?
>
> Never even heard it.
That's difficult to believe (that was....oh....40% or so of rap in the
early 80's and then again in the early 90's?).
Here's the thing: you are saying (to quote you):
"Thrash is the ONLY kind of music that uses that sort of distortion".
Response to any challenge I make to this point yields:
"I haven't heard Genre X, Y, and Z".
That makes what you are saying.......ready for this?......>dishonest<.
> > Point b) If someone said "Iron Maiden is distorted shit noise. I
can't
> > make out a fucking thing they're saying", how would they be 'wrong'?
>
> If they can't make out what they're saying, fine. As for distorted shit
> noise, to some people they are. But, play the same person a thrash song,
> then ask them which they would be more likely to consider noise.
Consider: the percentage of thrash (and especially death) listeners who
are also musicians is likely higher than most "melodic" forms of music
(except, perhaps, country).
Does that mean anything to you?
Not the case with punk, but then....I can sing along to just about any punk
song I hear.
Significant Pickle
<76e28g$ob$2...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
> Significant Pickle wrote:
> >You're polarizing the argument here (analogy: "You're picking at my
> >extreme point of view, so by that logic, a polar opposite extreme must
is
> >true").
>
Heh, you're right. I fucked up again (altho, in context, that particular
part of my discussion with the other poster was closer to 'argument' than
anything else).
> Significant Pickle wrote in "Maiden Sucks? Fight For Quality!"
> >>And then, when the argument doesn't go your way, you
> >> reckon you fucked up on your original post. Then you say "perhaps I
> should
> >> have said.........."
>
> >Again with your "always"....generalization.
>
> >Read my reply to you in other thread.
> >"When the argument doesn't go your way": what about this post is an
> >"argument". What am I trying to win?
>
> Now you are arguing? What DO you want to win? If everyone thought the
same
> as you, would this be reasonable?
You definately supplied content, which deserves a response.
However, consider that you may be drawing a conclusion a bit too quickly
(ie. based on the fact that I fucked up and used the word "argument"
instead of "discussion", I want everyone to think like me).
But to answer your question nonetheless....if everyone thought like me,
it'd be fucking boring.
Shiflet
> You can "tap your fingers" to an armpit fart rendition of the national
> Anthem. You can 'hum' along to the above.
Didn't I already explain that?
> Percussion alone (someone playing a well-structured drum solo) has no
> "melody"!
Incorrect. I'm not a fan of drum solos, but they can be melodic. See the
solo on KD:In Concert '87.
> A "directed response" is one that stems directly from the post before. An
> "indirect response" is one that takes the context of something, and
> illustrates the 'bigger' discussion using it as an example.
Well, you seemed to be responding directly to the part I mentioned.
> Ammend: "the majority of the world who does not >regularly< listen to the
> aforementioned thinks they're in the same genre". Slight (perhaps even
> unnecessary) alteration, but still the same point.
Again, you told me(paraphrased) not to act like I know what others
think. Yet you're speaking for the majority of people who don't regulary
listen now?
> I wasn't saying that, tho. Bruce's soprano, to the 'untrained' (read:
> 'ignorant') ear sounds like a "screaming girl".
Find me one example. I don't know anyone that can't tell the difference
between a high pitched guy and a girl. They might say he sounds like a
"fag" or that he sounds like his balls are being crushed, but not a
"screaming girl" unless they just hate the style to being with.
> A) Don't be stupid. I did not make the above assertion, you
> did..."mocking" my rationale.
Using the same "rationale" as your assertion.
> <sigh> And no, a country song (one written
> entirely in the blues pentatonic scale) with metal lyrics is not a 'metal' song. It's a sick hybrid.
Yeah, but by your original statement it's the lyrical content and
writing that make the song. So, what makes that any different?
> Notice how there aren't any of those kicking around...
You'd be surprised.
> B) Are you saying (using apologism..'well if you can be stupid, what's
> wrong if I am being stupid too'?) that your assertion is stupid?
Yes, I *knew* my statement was absurd. I was using that to point out the
flaws in your arguement. I was never serious about what I said, my point
was that by your logic a country song with metal lyrics is actually a
metal song.
> Music can have value as music without having melody.
> Now, I'll go you one step further and actually >rationalize< my point.
> Tribal percussion is universally understood as music, and it has no shift in pitch as to make it melodic.
There doesn't have to be shift, there needs to be the tune. Again, see
the Zombie soundtrack. It's a drum melody, but it is melody.
> That's so stupid, it's painful to read.
> If vocals are not "using an instrument" (and you'll say "well, your voice
> IS an instrument!!11!!!!"), then please explain the difference between
> using your voice and your armpits to create 'melody'.
I don't consider singing without instruments to be music. I consider
music the playing, and singing as singing. Music can have singing, but
doesn't have to.
> While you're at it, please explain how >burping< the national anthem (I've
> heard it done quite coherently) is more usage of an 'instrument' than
> armpit-farts.
Umm, when did I saw that was an instrument?
> Who said anything about lyrics?
> Take an instrumental. Please explain why "Anasthesia: Pulling Teeth" (an
> instrumental from Kill Em All) is not music. It fits your criteria:
>
> 1) It has a discernable 'melody'. I can hum it, I can tap to it, and can
> recite it with instrumentation. Not just me, either....apparently it is
> 'musical' enough for a complete outsider (Wolfman Barr) to write it out in
> tablature without filtering processes.
>
> 2) It uses instruments, which create the melody.
>
> Once you're done with that, repeat for >every single song< on Kill 'Em All
> (which you have stated unequivocally is ALL NOISE, NO MUSIC).
Not all of it, most of it. Most of it doesn't have discenible tune or
melody. Too much distortion, not enough music.
> Bullshit.
> The distortion used on Ride the Lightning is identical to that used on
> Marilyn Manson's "The Beautiful People" (ick.....what a comparison!)
Well, I won't go there cause I consider Manson garbage.
> Manson is hardly thrash, nor punk.
No, he is industrial. Which is true, a lot of that meets my defininition
of noise as well(particulary that song)
> Also, death metal uses "that kind of distortion" exclusively (often FAR
> 'heavier)....and you have stated (below) that you think death metal can be 'melodic' [again, I find this stupid in context].
All of it? I *seriously* doubt that, cause I know people who *hate* the
typical DM sound, but do listen to some DM bands. A fair number of
people on this group and alt.music.ozzy mention certain death bands as
sounding like Helloween/HammerFall/IM and other more progressive acts.
> My point was DIRECTLY contesting your "thrash and punk ALONE are noise"
> contention. No subtleties there....I do not see how you missed it.
I do believe I said pretty much alone, if I left it out it was
unintentional.
> That's difficult to believe (that was....oh....40% or so of rap in the
> early 80's and then again in the early 90's?).
I don't listen to rap except when I'm forced to hear it(ie when I'm with
friends or something like that) Most of the rap I hear is vocals mixed
with heavy bass and drums.
> Here's the thing: you are saying (to quote you):
>
> "Thrash is the ONLY kind of music that uses that sort of distortion".
> Response to any challenge I make to this point yields:
>
> "I haven't heard Genre X, Y, and Z".
Again, I thought I stated "pretty much alone."
> That makes what you are saying.......ready for this?......>dishonest<.
Or perhaps, uninformed. Why is it whenever someone debates your points
they are "dishonest"? No matter what is said, you seem to think you're
being lied to.
> Consider: the percentage of thrash (and especially death) listeners who
> are also musicians is likely higher than most "melodic" forms of music
> (except, perhaps, country).
>
> Does that mean anything to you?
Yes, it means they don't have as much to worry about being musically
skilled. They can be noisy and get away with it. That's why so many
teenagers form punk bands as well.
> Not the case with punk, but then....
Really? I know quite a few teenage punk bands in this area, even moreso
than thrash.
> I can sing along to just about any punk song I hear.
So can I, but the music is the problem, not the singing(though I'm not
fond of the style, I can often understant them)
> E.
> --
> ******
> "We die and are reborn with each breath,
> And for each death; the shedding of a lie,
> A truth is born."
>
> --Foundation, "Morning"
Danny Shiflet
D.P.
Shiflet wrote in message <368ABB...@ix.netcom.com>...
By content I don't think that he meant lyrics but the actual music itself.
>> Notice how there aren't any of those kicking around...
>
>You'd be surprised.
>
>> B) Are you saying (using apologism..'well if you can be stupid, what's
>> wrong if I am being stupid too'?) that your assertion is stupid?
>
>Yes, I *knew* my statement was absurd. I was using that to point out the
>flaws in your arguement.
I don't think that he has any flaws in his arguments, and I agree with every
single one of them so far.
>I was never serious about what I said, my point
>was that by your logic a country song with metal lyrics is actually a
>metal song.
who said anything about lyrics in these discussions??.... and it is by
*your* logic, not Pickles, that a country song can be turned into a metal
song by being played loud, through a stack of marshalls etc. (ie. you-"it's
the delivery that makes the song sound (insert any genre, sound here), not
the writing. you-"music is about how it sounds, not the content")Then tell
me, if I play a Garth Brooks song through a Marshall in the metal "way"
would it still be country? By your defention, the answer is "no it would be
metal, because it sounds metally; who cares about the content and whats
being played?" And please don't say otherwise, (there are *3* posts that i
can think off the top of my head that you said this in), cos then you'll be
what Pickles calls "a lying sack of shit."
>> Music can have value as music without having melody.
>> Now, I'll go you one step further and actually >rationalize< my point.
>> Tribal percussion is universally understood as music, and it has no shift
in pitch as to make it melodic.
>
>There doesn't have to be shift, there needs to be the tune. Again, see
>the Zombie soundtrack. It's a drum melody, but it is melody.
>
>> That's so stupid, it's painful to read.
>> If vocals are not "using an instrument" (and you'll say "well, your voice
>> IS an instrument!!11!!!!"), then please explain the difference between
>> using your voice and your armpits to create 'melody'.
>
>I don't consider singing without instruments to be music. I consider
>music the playing, and singing as singing. Music can have singing, but
>doesn't have to.
uhhhh, so you can't have a vocal melody??? isn't melody the main ingredient
for music to you????
>> While you're at it, please explain how >burping< the national anthem
(I've
>> heard it done quite coherently) is more usage of an 'instrument' than
>> armpit-farts.
>
>Umm, when did I saw that was an instrument?
>
>> Who said anything about lyrics?
>> Take an instrumental. Please explain why "Anasthesia: Pulling Teeth"
(an
>> instrumental from Kill Em All) is not music. It fits your criteria:
>>
>> 1) It has a discernable 'melody'. I can hum it, I can tap to it, and can
>> recite it with instrumentation. Not just me, either....apparently it is
>> 'musical' enough for a complete outsider (Wolfman Barr) to write it out
in
>> tablature without filtering processes.
>>
>> 2) It uses instruments, which create the melody.
>>
>> Once you're done with that, repeat for >every single song< on Kill 'Em
All
>> (which you have stated unequivocally is ALL NOISE, NO MUSIC).
>
>Not all of it, most of it. Most of it doesn't have discenible tune or
>melody. Too much distortion, not enough music.
hmmm so now it's "not all of it, most of it" instead of "noise it most
certainly is". lying sack of shit???? dishonest?????
holy fuck, what do *you* consider musically skilled? Before you said that
delivery is the most important thing, and by that you would include
technicality, presicion etc.. am i correct? Now, there all tons of death
metal bands out there that are insanely technical and precise but you
wouldn't care because you can't understand the vocals or words (gee, but you
say that the voice can't be an instrument and therefore can't create melody
so there goes that point) and because you say that there isn't any melody
but of course you would never hear it because it's not your typical
"do-re-mi-so-fa" melody that you only know of.
Darek
Shiflet
> By content I don't think that he meant lyrics but the actual music itself.
He referred to lyrics and writing.
> who said anything about lyrics in these discussions??.... and it is by
> *your* logic, not Pickles, that a country song can be turned into a metal
> song by being played loud, through a stack of marshalls etc. (ie. you-"it's
> the delivery that makes the song sound (insert any genre, sound here), not
> the writing. you-"music is about how it sounds, not the content")Then tell
> me, if I play a Garth Brooks song through a Marshall in the metal "way"
> would it still be country? By your defention, the answer is "no it would be
> metal, because it sounds metally; who cares about the content and whats
> being played?" And please don't say otherwise, (there are *3* posts that i
> can think off the top of my head that you said this in), cos then you'll be
> what Pickles calls "a lying sack of shit."
Yes, if you took a Garth Brooks song, then played it with rapid
drumming, amps, electric guitars, etc, you'd have a metal song. A metal
song with stupid lyrics, true, but metal nonetheless.
> uhhhh, so you can't have a vocal melody??? isn't melody the main ingredient for music to you????
Yes, but by themselves vocals aren't particulary melodic.
> hmmm so now it's "not all of it, most of it" instead of "noise it most
> certainly is". lying sack of shit???? dishonest?????
I never said "all of it." I said all thrash I've heard, there are
certain songs from early Metallica that aren't thrash. But most of it
is.
> holy fuck, what do *you* consider musically skilled? Before you said that
> delivery is the most important thing, and by that you would include
> technicality, presicion etc.. am i correct? Now, there all tons of death
> metal bands out there that are insanely technical and precise but you
> wouldn't care because you can't understand the vocals or words
If the music was done well enough, I could probably listen to it. Those
are the bands I'm looking for in fact.
> (gee, but you
> say that the voice can't be an instrument and therefore can't create melody so there goes that point)
Yes, voices without music aren't particulary melodic. And death vocals
are annoying usually, but if the music was good enough I could tolerate
them.
> and because you say that there isn't any melody
> but of course you would never hear it because it's not your typical
> "do-re-mi-so-fa" melody that you only know of.
Well, you certainly proved nothing.
> Darek
D.P.
Shiflet wrote in message <368AE9...@ix.netcom.com>...
>D.P. wrote:
>
>> By content I don't think that he meant lyrics but the actual music
itself.
>
He was referring to how aesthetics, rather than actual content, appeal more
to ignorant folk
(aesthetics=how it sounds, content=what it is). But Pickles has to tell us
(him, not me :) what he was actually means by content, I guess.
>> who said anything about lyrics in these discussions??.... and it is by
>> *your* logic, not Pickles, that a country song can be turned into a metal
>> song by being played loud, through a stack of marshalls etc. (ie.
you-"it's
>> the delivery that makes the song sound (insert any genre, sound here),
not
>> the writing. you-"music is about how it sounds, not the content")Then
tell
>> me, if I play a Garth Brooks song through a Marshall in the metal "way"
>> would it still be country? By your defention, the answer is "no it would
be
>> metal, because it sounds metally; who cares about the content and whats
>> being played?" And please don't say otherwise, (there are *3* posts that
i
>> can think off the top of my head that you said this in), cos then you'll
be
>> what Pickles calls "a lying sack of shit."
>
>Yes, if you took a Garth Brooks song, then played it with rapid
>drumming, amps, electric guitars, etc, you'd have a metal song. A metal
>song with stupid lyrics, true, but metal nonetheless.
sigh... this paragraph is *the* flaw in your argument, and please answer:
what makes metal metal? what makes blues blues, jazz jazz et fucking
cetera....
so this is what metal means to you huh? rapid drumming, amps, and electric
guitars (aesthetics). How can you be a fan of metal then. It's like reading
a book only for it's cover (how it looks), not caring at all for content,
while validating that it is actually a book because it has lots of words and
pictures and judging it by it's narration and clearness (delivery). A good
book for you would be from Polka Dot Door then.
>> uhhhh, so you can't have a vocal melody??? isn't melody the main
ingredient for music to you????
>
>Yes, but by themselves vocals aren't particulary melodic.
ahhh "particularly" melodic. But it is melodic, isn't it? Whether it's good
or not is irrelevant.
>> hmmm so now it's "not all of it, most of it" instead of "noise it most
>> certainly is". lying sack of shit???? dishonest?????
>
>I never said "all of it." I said all thrash I've heard, there are
>certain songs from early Metallica that aren't thrash. But most of it
>is.
We're talking about Kill em All here, and all of it is thrash, therefore
noise. But now you just said that not all of it was noise. So the lying sack
of shit statement still stands.
>> holy fuck, what do *you* consider musically skilled? Before you said that
>> delivery is the most important thing, and by that you would include
>> technicality, presicion etc.. am i correct? Now, there all tons of death
>> metal bands out there that are insanely technical and precise but you
>> wouldn't care because you can't understand the vocals or words
>
>If the music was done well enough, I could probably listen to it. Those
>are the bands I'm looking for in fact.
Well... if a person considers thrash noise, I don't know how they could
tolerate most Death Metal.
It seems that you're not even past the first step.
>> (gee, but you
>> say that the voice can't be an instrument and therefore can't create
melody so there goes that point)
>
>Yes, voices without music aren't particulary melodic.
see (far) above
And death vocals
>are annoying usually, but if the music was good enough I could tolerate
>them.
Well I guess that's good enough.
>> and because you say that there isn't any melody
>> but of course you would never hear it because it's not your typical
>> "do-re-mi-so-fa" melody that you only know of.
>
>Well, you certainly proved nothing.
and you most certainly haven't either. It seems that you're dancing around
anything valid Pickles and I have to say.
Darek
Shiflet
> sigh... this paragraph is *the* flaw in your argument, and please answer:
> what makes metal metal? what makes blues blues, jazz jazz et fucking
> cetera....
> so this is what metal means to you huh? rapid drumming, amps, and electric
> guitars (aesthetics).
Mostly. Most styles of music have distinct sound. There are
exceptions(such as melodic death metal), but the basic sound of most
styles of music is easily identifiable. You play someone Maiden, they're
gonna know it's metal. Play someone like Willie Nelson, and you'll know
it's country. Not because of the singing, because of the musical sound.
> How can you be a fan of metal then. It's like reading
> a book only for it's cover (how it looks), not caring at all for content,
How the music sounds *is* it's content sir. People read books for the
writing. And AFAIK most people listen to music for the music. The music
in music is the equivalent of the writing in books.
> while validating that it is actually a book because it has lots of words and
> pictures and judging it by it's narration and clearness (delivery). A good
> book for you would be from Polka Dot Door then.
See above.
> ahhh "particularly" melodic. But it is melodic, isn't it?
Not really, at least not to me.(I can't stand singing without music)
> We're talking about Kill em All here, and all of it is thrash, therefore
> noise. But now you just said that not all of it was noise. So the lying sack
> of shit statement still stands.
I don't remember the song's title, but S.P. implied that it wasn't a
thrash song. If it is, my mistake, my statement stands. And IIRC, there
was one or two slower songs, but it's been awhile since I played it.
> Well... if a person considers thrash noise, I don't know how they could
> tolerate most Death Metal.
I don't tolerate most death metal. And for that matter, I never said I
did. Am I missing something here? This is about the 5th thing I've been
told is wrong/foolish that I never even said to begin with. Does
everyone know what I think on things but me?!?
> It seems that you're not even past the first step.
Of *what*?
> and you most certainly haven't either. It seems that you're dancing around anything valid Pickles and I have to say.
I'm responding to everything you say. Funny though, you give an example
and it's fine. I give an example using the exact same logic to prove how
absurd the statement is, and suddenly I'm an idiot dancing around the
point? Please, clarify. Why is it dancing around the point when I am
just doing what you are? Or are you saying that you're dancing around
the point as well?
> Darek
D.P.
>D.P. wrote:
>
>> sigh... this paragraph is *the* flaw in your argument, and please answer:
>> what makes metal metal? what makes blues blues, jazz jazz et fucking
>> cetera....
>> so this is what metal means to you huh? rapid drumming, amps, and
electric
>> guitars (aesthetics).
>
>Mostly. Most styles of music have distinct sound. There are
>exceptions(such as melodic death metal), but the basic sound of most
>styles of music is easily identifiable. You play someone Maiden, they're
>gonna know it's metal. Play someone like Willie Nelson, and you'll know
>it's country. Not because of the singing, because of the musical sound.
Yes, but what is this musical sound? It's not the sound that you get from a
setting on your amplifier, it's not distortion or an electric guitar. Sure
all of these things add to enhance these sounds, but judging a genre on
these things alone is absurd.
>> How can you be a fan of metal then. It's like reading
>> a book only for it's cover (how it looks), not caring at all for content,
>
>How the music sounds *is* it's content sir.
See this is the main thing we disagree on. You beleive that musical sound is
distortion etc. . but my defention of sound is much different. It's the
content, a metal riff for example, no matter how it's played or played on
that makes up the sound of metal.
People read books for the
>writing. And AFAIK most people listen to music for the music. The music
>in music is the equivalent of the writing in books.
>
>> while validating that it is actually a book because it has lots of words
and
>> pictures and judging it by it's narration and clearness (delivery). A
good
>> book for you would be from Polka Dot Door then.
>
>See above.
>
>> ahhh "particularly" melodic. But it is melodic, isn't it?
>
>Not really, at least not to me.(I can't stand singing without music)
well.. one minute you're being objective and now you're being subjective.
>> We're talking about Kill em All here, and all of it is thrash, therefore
>> noise. But now you just said that not all of it was noise. So the lying
sack
>> of shit statement still stands.
>
>I don't remember the song's title, but S.P. implied that it wasn't a
>thrash song. If it is, my mistake, my statement stands. And IIRC, there
>was one or two slower songs, but it's been awhile since I played it.
>
>> Well... if a person considers thrash noise, I don't know how they could
>> tolerate most Death Metal.
>
>I don't tolerate most death metal. And for that matter, I never said I
>did. Am I missing something here? This is about the 5th thing I've been
>told is wrong/foolish that I never even said to begin with. Does
>everyone know what I think on things but me?!?
I never said that *you* could/would tolerate death metal, in fact I doubt
it, but you said that if the music was done well enough, you could probably
listen to it.
>
>> It seems that you're not even past the first step.
>
>Of *what*?
Of tolerance, open-mindedness towards death metal and a different approach
to music in general.
>> and you most certainly haven't either. It seems that you're dancing
around anything valid Pickles and I have to say.
>
>I'm responding to everything you say.
Yeah but with semantics. We give an example and you respond to the example
instead of the point.
Funny though, you give an example
>and it's fine. I give an example using the exact same logic to prove how
>absurd the statement is, and suddenly I'm an idiot dancing around the
>point? Please, clarify. Why is it dancing around the point when I am
>just doing what you are? Or are you saying that you're dancing around
>the point as well?
see above, plus think that this is a fine example:
*****
> > Yes, they took out unnecessary noise.
>
> Distortion is unnecessary noise? Why isn't all music accoustic?
*Too much* distortion in unnecessary noise.
> (At this point you'll say "Well, not all distortion, but they use too much
> distortion!". I posit that this is, when all is said and done, the root
of
> your aesthetic argument against 'thrash noise'. And hence my rebuttal)
Yes. Thrash is the only style that uses that type of distortion.
> Point a) You don't consider Death Metal, Grind, Hardcore, Funk-Industrial
> noise? It has less "melody" than thrash and punk.
I don't like Death Metal either, but it can have melody. Don't listen to
Hardcore/Grind/Industrial(consider them annoying, but I have heard
indutrial with melody. Not a *great* melody, but it was there)
*****
Darek
Shiflet
> Yes, but what is this musical sound? It's not the sound that you get from a
> setting on your amplifier, it's not distortion or an electric guitar. Sure
> all of these things add to enhance these sounds, but judging a genre on
> these things alone is absurd.
No, the sound is a lot of things. Electric guitar is a must, but there
are others...
> See this is the main thing we disagree on. You beleive that musical sound is
> distortion etc. . but my defention of sound is much different. It's the
> content, a metal riff for example, no matter how it's played or played on
> that makes up the sound of metal.
And there I disagree. I've heard acoustic versions of metal songs, and
they don't sound like metal songs.
> I never said that *you* could/would tolerate death metal, in fact I doubt
> it, but you said that if the music was done well enough, you could probably listen to it.
Yes, the bands that have a playing style closer to Helloween, early
Maiden, M.Fate and so on.
> Of tolerance, open-mindedness towards death metal and a different approach
> to music in general.
I can tolerate a lot. As for desire to hear it, that's another story.
> Yeah but with semantics. We give an example and you respond to the example instead of the point.
Yes, because the example is pointless. You use it to illustrate
something, but because of the nature you illustrate nothing.
> Darek
Shiflet
>
> So what you are saying is that "melodic" armpit-farts, even tho they meet
> your criteria for music, are not music.
Didn't meet the instrument criteria.
> I never heard it. How is it melodic?
> (If you include any instrument other than the drums, then your point is
> void).
Well, it's a drum solo. Nothing but drums. It's melodic cause it has a
tune and doesn't sound like someone beating for the hell of it.
> This isn't going to get anywhere.
> And this point is semantic, so to make you feel better, I'll say "youre
> RIGHT and I am WRONG. I think I know it all, I think I speak for all
> people and you are objective".
Amusing. Yet, when I said the majority of people would consider that
evil my point was invalid. Strange how this works...
> You mean, if they hate the style to begin with, they may get the "wrong"
> impression? Re-read your reply....this is EXACTLY what you imply.
Yes, that is the case. But the thing is, I hate other music as well. I
don't make the same statements about those though.
> You are lying (or you recall incorrectly).
> I said no such thing......the post was: "Aesthetics, with no consideration
> for >content<", verbatim. Nothing more.
And, the content is the music and lyrics, no?
> [www.dejanews.com, keyword search "Music, "Evil", and Noise" if you do not
> believe this]
Thanks teach, I've never used Dejanews before. Good thing I had you to
enlighten me!
> Please show me where you got your "lyrical content" assertion from.
>
> Definition of content: writing (composition), arrangement, orchestration.
Okay.
> Why do you bother to post this? That is reactionary.....and I don't buy
> it. (If you want to "prove" this, then cite a band please)
Pyschobilly. You want specifics I'll have to get back to you, cause I'll
need to email the guy to get band names.
> By MY logic (something you are 'mocking' incorrectly)
Your logic was illogical.
> A 'country song' which is written (musically and lyrically), orchestrated,
> arranged, AND delivered like a metal song would be a metal song.
Yes, we agree.
> Funny, this logic thing tho: It would never really >be< a country song in
> the first place, now, would it? So this paradox invalidates the entire
> sentence.
No. Will you deny that say, Folsom Prison Blues by Johnny Cash is a
country song? Of course not. But if delivered in a metal style, would it
not be metal?
> Ordered shifts in pitch IS a "tune". Melody = orchestrated "tunes".
Not necessarily. There doesn't have to be a pitch shift to have a tune.
> So a choir is not music?
No, it is people singing. And there is typically a piano with a choir...
> Kill Em All (including Anaesthesia--I don't know where you pulled that "S.
> Pickle implied that one is not thrash" bullshit) is ALL thrash.
You talked of easily discernible melodies, which I haven't heard in
thrash. There are some non-thrash songs on early Metallica, I assumed
that was one of them.
> And now you have changed your argument to "Most of it does not have
> discernable tune or melody" (it used to be ALL).
Then I was mistaken. I know at least Ride the Lightning has a non-thrash
tune or two, I thought you were implying that that was one as well.
> By the logic you have presented...."most of it is not music". Implies that
> some of it "is".
>
> Your point: THRASH IS NOT MUSIC. IT IS NOISE.
>
> Liar.
Thrash is not music. It is noise. At least what I've heard anyways.
> [www.dejanews.com--please re-read your original post about thrash being ALL noise and not music].
I don't deny saying that.
> So there is more music that is classified by your logic as noise.
>
> "Thrash and punk are the *only* genres of music that are pure noise"--you,
> 4 posts ago.
Didn't think of industrial, though they aren't always pure noise either.
> Liar.
Wrong.
> Name the bands. I cannot comment otherwise.
In Flames comes up a lot...
> Dishonesty (one applied definition) = claiming a fact (something you
> "know") knowing, even subconciously, that it is not honest.
>
> I HATE the FUCK out of rap. I also dislike (most) punk. If I called
> either one "noise and not music", I'd be a lying sack-of-shit, because I
> KNOW this is not the case.
As do I. I despise those styles, but I don't consider them as a whole
noise(though a lot of punk is...)
> You have stated unequivocally, for the record, that thrash takes no musical
> talent to create.
No, just less than other styles.
> I want you to mark this and remember it a few posts from now.
I would, if you were correct. But I'll remember that I said it requires
less talent than most. A few bands *are* talented, they just use their
talent in strange ways.
Shiflet
> S. Pickle: "Explain why Hole is not a metal band. They have distorted
> guitars, fast beats, and a screamer for a singer"
>
> Shiflet: "Hole is not a metal band. A band's singer can be a screamer
> without it being metal"
What?!? As you're so fond of pointing out, go to www.dejanews.com. I
never denied they were a metal band. I said I haven't heard their stuff
but just cause the singer screams doesn't mean it's metal!
> LIAR!
Physician, heal thyself!
> Your definition of "done" means essentially "produced" and "mixed".
>
> You've stated this over and over again.
Again, you're wrong. I even mentioned a MF demo I had, with horrid
production and little mixing that still sounded fine musically.
> That's "dishonest".
As is that statement.
Significant Pickle
> Significant Pickle wrote:
>
> > You can "tap your fingers" to an armpit fart rendition of the national
> > Anthem. You can 'hum' along to the above.
>
> Didn't I already explain that?
So what you are saying is that "melodic" armpit-farts, even tho they meet
your criteria for music, are not music.
> > Percussion alone (someone playing a well-structured drum solo) has no
> > "melody"!
>
> Incorrect. I'm not a fan of drum solos, but they can be melodic. See the
> solo on KD:In Concert '87.
I never heard it. How is it melodic?
(If you include any instrument other than the drums, then your point is
void).
> > Ammend: "the majority of the world who does not >regularly< listen to
the
> > aforementioned thinks they're in the same genre". Slight (perhaps even
> > unnecessary) alteration, but still the same point.
>
> Again, you told me(paraphrased) not to act like I know what others
> think. Yet you're speaking for the majority of people who don't regulary
> listen now?
This isn't going to get anywhere.
And this point is semantic, so to make you feel better, I'll say "youre
RIGHT and I am WRONG. I think I know it all, I think I speak for all
people and you are objective".
> > I wasn't saying that, tho. Bruce's soprano, to the 'untrained' (read:
> > 'ignorant') ear sounds like a "screaming girl".
>
> Find me one example. I don't know anyone that can't tell the difference
> between a high pitched guy and a girl. They might say he sounds like a
> "fag" or that he sounds like his balls are being crushed, but not a
> "screaming girl" unless they just hate the style to being with.
You mean, if they hate the style to begin with, they may get the "wrong"
impression? Re-read your reply....this is EXACTLY what you imply.
> > <sigh> And no, a country song (one written
> > entirely in the blues pentatonic scale) with metal lyrics is not a
'metal' song. It's a sick hybrid.
>
> Yeah, but by your original statement it's the lyrical content and
> writing that make the song. So, what makes that any different?
You are lying (or you recall incorrectly).
I said no such thing......the post was: "Aesthetics, with no consideration
for >content<", verbatim. Nothing more.
[www.dejanews.com, keyword search "Music, "Evil", and Noise" if you do not
believe this]
Please show me where you got your "lyrical content" assertion from.
Definition of content: writing (composition), arrangement, orchestration.
> > Notice how there aren't any of those kicking around...
>
> You'd be surprised.
Why do you bother to post this? That is reactionary.....and I don't buy
it.
(If you want to "prove" this, then cite a band please)
> > B) Are you saying (using apologism..'well if you can be stupid, what's
> > wrong if I am being stupid too'?) that your assertion is stupid?
>
> Yes, I *knew* my statement was absurd. I was using that to point out the
> flaws in your arguement. I was never serious about what I said, my point
> was that by your logic a country song with metal lyrics is actually a
> metal song.
By MY logic (something you are 'mocking' incorrectly)
A 'country song' which is written (musically and lyrically), orchestrated,
arranged, AND delivered like a metal song would be a metal song.
Funny, this logic thing tho: It would never really >be< a country song in
the first place, now, would it? So this paradox invalidates the entire
sentence.
> > Music can have value as music without having melody.
> > Now, I'll go you one step further and actually >rationalize< my point.
> > Tribal percussion is universally understood as music, and it has no
shift in pitch as to make it melodic.
>
> There doesn't have to be shift, there needs to be the tune. Again, see
> the Zombie soundtrack. It's a drum melody, but it is melody.
Ordered shifts in pitch IS a "tune". Melody = orchestrated "tunes".
> > That's so stupid, it's painful to read.
> > If vocals are not "using an instrument" (and you'll say "well, your
voice
> > IS an instrument!!11!!!!"), then please explain the difference between
> > using your voice and your armpits to create 'melody'.
>
> I don't consider singing without instruments to be music. I consider
> music the playing, and singing as singing. Music can have singing, but
> doesn't have to.
So a choir is not music?
> > While you're at it, please explain how >burping< the national anthem
(I've
> > heard it done quite coherently) is more usage of an 'instrument' than
> > armpit-farts.
>
> Umm, when did I saw that was an instrument?
You didn't. This sentence was put ahead of time (in case you >did< qualify
voice as instrument by your logic)
> > Who said anything about lyrics?
> > Take an instrumental. Please explain why "Anasthesia: Pulling Teeth"
(an
> > instrumental from Kill Em All) is not music. It fits your criteria:
> >
> > 1) It has a discernable 'melody'. I can hum it, I can tap to it, and
can
> > recite it with instrumentation. Not just me, either....apparently it
is
> > 'musical' enough for a complete outsider (Wolfman Barr) to write it out
in
> > tablature without filtering processes.
> >
> > 2) It uses instruments, which create the melody.
> >
> > Once you're done with that, repeat for >every single song< on Kill 'Em
All
> > (which you have stated unequivocally is ALL NOISE, NO MUSIC).
>
> Not all of it, most of it. Most of it doesn't have discenible tune or
> melody. Too much distortion, not enough music.
Kill Em All (including Anaesthesia--I don't know where you pulled that "S.
Pickle implied that one is not thrash" bullshit) is ALL thrash.
And now you have changed your argument to "Most of it does not have
discernable tune or melody" (it used to be ALL).
By the logic you have presented...."most of it is not music". Implies that
some of it "is".
Your point: THRASH IS NOT MUSIC. IT IS NOISE.
Liar.
[www.dejanews.com--please re-read your original post about thrash being ALL
noise and not music].
> > Manson is hardly thrash, nor punk.
>
> No, he is industrial. Which is true, a lot of that meets my defininition
> of noise as well(particulary that song)
So there is more music that is classified by your logic as noise.
"Thrash and punk are the *only* genres of music that are pure noise"--you,
4 posts ago.
Liar.
> > Also, death metal uses "that kind of distortion" exclusively (often FAR
> > 'heavier)....and you have stated (below) that you think death metal can
be 'melodic' [again, I find this stupid in context].
>
> All of it? I *seriously* doubt that, cause I know people who *hate* the
> typical DM sound, but do listen to some DM bands. A fair number of
> people on this group and alt.music.ozzy mention certain death bands as
> sounding like Helloween/HammerFall/IM and other more progressive acts.
Name the bands. I cannot comment otherwise.
> > My point was DIRECTLY contesting your "thrash and punk ALONE are noise"
> > contention. No subtleties there....I do not see how you missed it.
>
> I do believe I said pretty much alone, if I left it out it was
> unintentional.
See above.
> > Here's the thing: you are saying (to quote you):
> >
> > "Thrash is the ONLY kind of music that uses that sort of distortion".
> > Response to any challenge I make to this point yields:
> >
> > "I haven't heard Genre X, Y, and Z".
>
> Again, I thought I stated "pretty much alone."
>
> > That makes what you are saying.......ready for this?......>dishonest<.
>
> Or perhaps, uninformed. Why is it whenever someone debates your points
> they are "dishonest"? No matter what is said, you seem to think you're
> being lied to.
Dishonesty (one applied definition) = claiming a fact (something you
"know") knowing, even subconciously, that it is not honest.
I HATE the FUCK out of rap. I also dislike (most) punk. If I called
either one "noise and not music", I'd be a lying sack-of-shit, because I
KNOW this is not the case.
Btw, you're not lying to ME. (in response to the "you seem to think
you're being lied to).
> > Consider: the percentage of thrash (and especially death) listeners
who
> > are also musicians is likely higher than most "melodic" forms of music
> > (except, perhaps, country).
> >
> > Does that mean anything to you?
>
> Yes, it means they don't have as much to worry about being musically
> skilled. They can be noisy and get away with it. That's why so many
> teenagers form punk bands as well.
You have stated unequivocally, for the record, that thrash takes no musical
talent to create.
I want you to mark this and remember it a few posts from now.
E.
Significant Pickle
> D.P. wrote:
>
> > who said anything about lyrics in these discussions??.... and it is by
> > *your* logic, not Pickles, that a country song can be turned into a
metal
> > song by being played loud, through a stack of marshalls etc. (ie.
you-"it's
> > the delivery that makes the song sound (insert any genre, sound here),
not
> > the writing. you-"music is about how it sounds, not the content")Then
tell
> > me, if I play a Garth Brooks song through a Marshall in the metal "way"
> > would it still be country? By your defention, the answer is "no it
would be
> > metal, because it sounds metally; who cares about the content and whats
> > being played?" And please don't say otherwise, (there are *3* posts
that i
> > can think off the top of my head that you said this in), cos then
you'll be
> > what Pickles calls "a lying sack of shit."
>
> drumming, amps, electric guitars, etc, you'd have a metal song. A metal
> song with stupid lyrics, true, but metal nonetheless.
It is unbelievable to me that you believe this.
Re-post:
S. Pickle: "Explain why Hole is not a metal band. They have distorted
guitars, fast beats, and a screamer for a singer"
Shiflet: "Hole is not a metal band. A band's singer can be a screamer
without it being metal"
LIAR!
> > holy fuck, what do *you* consider musically skilled? Before you said
that
> > delivery is the most important thing, and by that you would include
> > technicality, presicion etc.. am i correct? Now, there all tons of
death
> > metal bands out there that are insanely technical and precise but you
> > wouldn't care because you can't understand the vocals or words
>
> If the music was done well enough, I could probably listen to it. Those
> are the bands I'm looking for in fact.
Your definition of "done" means essentially "produced" and "mixed".
You've stated this over and over again.
> > (gee, but you
> > say that the voice can't be an instrument and therefore can't create
melody so there goes that point)
>
> Yes, voices without music aren't particulary melodic. And death vocals
> are annoying usually, but if the music was good enough I could tolerate
> them.
>
> > and because you say that there isn't any melody
> > but of course you would never hear it because it's not your typical
> > "do-re-mi-so-fa" melody that you only know of.
>
> Well, you certainly proved nothing.
That's "dishonest".
Significant Pickle
> Significant Pickle wrote:
>
> > S. Pickle: "Explain why Hole is not a metal band. They have distorted
> > guitars, fast beats, and a screamer for a singer"
> >
> > without it being metal"
>
> What?!? As you're so fond of pointing out, go to www.dejanews.com. I
> never denied they were a metal band. I said I haven't heard their stuff
> but just cause the singer screams doesn't mean it's metal!
I checked, and you are correct (that you did not deny Hole being metal).
Dishonest of me.
Hmmm....and this starts a whole (pun intended) new thread. You posit that
Hole is Metal!!!!
That is incredible! (but tangential to the point at hand).
> > LIAR!
>
> Physician, heal thyself!
Indeed. I deserved that.
> > Your definition of "done" means essentially "produced" and "mixed".
> >
> > You've stated this over and over again.
>
> Again, you're wrong. I even mentioned a MF demo I had, with horrid
> production and little mixing that still sounded fine musically.
Stop.
By your definition, changing Garth Brooks from 'country' to 'metal'
requires naught but the changing of his amplifiers, distortion, and overall
'sound'. That is mixing (aesthetic).
D.P. mentioned that Metallica does "singalong" accoustic versions of their
'noise thrash songs' (your definitions), which suddenly become music to
you. The only thing that has changed is lack of distortion on the guitars
(mixing--aesthetic).
> > That's "dishonest".
>
> As is that statement.
Disagreed. See above.
Shiflet
> Hmmm....and this starts a whole (pun intended) new thread. You posit that
> Hole is Metal!!!!
> That is incredible! (but tangential to the point at hand).
Umm, I didn't say they were either. As I've stated twice now, I haven't
heard them. Until I do, I can't say whether they are or aren't.
> Stop.
> By your definition, changing Garth Brooks from 'country' to 'metal'
> requires naught but the changing of his amplifiers, distortion, and overall
> 'sound'. That is mixing (aesthetic).
And his music in general. And changing something is different from doing
something originally(as was the case with the MF demos.) Yes, to
*change* an existing non-metal song to metal would require a fair amount
of mixing, and perhaps other stuff as well. To the best of my knowledge,
Garth doesn't use a lot of electric guitar(well, not until recently but
still...)
> D.P. mentioned that Metallica does "singalong" accoustic versions of their
> 'noise thrash songs' (your definitions), which suddenly become music to
> you. The only thing that has changed is lack of distortion on the guitars
> (mixing--aesthetic).
Alternate playing style, not alternate mixing.
> Disagreed. See above.
Likewise.
D.P.
Shiflet wrote in message <368B08...@ix.netcom.com>...
>D.P. wrote:
>
>> Yes, but what is this musical sound? It's not the sound that you get from
a
Sure
>> all of these things add to enhance these sounds, but judging a genre on
>> these things alone is absurd.
>
>No, the sound is a lot of things. Electric guitar is a must, but there
>are others...
See this is what I mean. You respond to my example, not the point.
Point: the sound of a song can not only come from aesthetic content, but the
musical content as well (happy, sad sounds.. get it?)
Judging a song solely on aesthetic content alone is absurd. Then you go and
say, "it's more than that, you need electric guitars and others!!"
WTF!?!???1
>> See this is the main thing we disagree on. You beleive that musical sound
is
>> distortion etc. . but my defention of sound is much different. It's the
>> content, a metal riff for example, no matter how it's played or played on
>> that makes up the sound of metal.
>
>And there I disagree. I've heard acoustic versions of metal songs, and
>they don't sound like metal songs.
so they sound like classical songs because they are played on acoustic
guitars right?
>> I never said that *you* could/would tolerate death metal, in fact I doubt
>> it, but you said that if the music was done well enough, you could
probably listen to it.
>
>Yes, the bands that have a playing style closer to Helloween, early
>Maiden, M.Fate and so on.
>
>> Of tolerance, open-mindedness towards death metal and a different
approach
>> to music in general.
>
>I can tolerate a lot. As for desire to hear it, that's another story.
>
>> Yeah but with semantics. We give an example and you respond to the
example instead of the point.
>
>Yes, because the example is pointless. You use it to illustrate
>something, but because of the nature you illustrate nothing.
nature? of my examples or the idea?
Darek
Shiflet
> See this is what I mean. You respond to my example, not the point.
> Point: the sound of a song can not only come from aesthetic content, but the
> musical content as well (happy, sad sounds.. get it?)
Okay, though I've heard happy sounding metal, and gloomy sounding metal,
and aggressive sounding metal, and upbeat sounding metal. I've heard
country songs that sound happy, sad, angry, etc as well. So what's the
point?
> so they sound like classical songs because they are played on acoustic
> guitars right?
No, they sound more like country than anything.
> nature? of my examples or the idea?
Of the example.
> Darek
Tokus
Significant Pickle heeft geschreven in bericht
<01be3483$b69300c0$cc8b94d1@vanguard>...
>> What?!? As you're so fond of pointing out, go to www.dejanews.com. I
>> never denied they were a metal band. I said I haven't heard their stuff
>> but just cause the singer screams doesn't mean it's metal!
>
>I checked, and you are correct (that you did not deny Hole being metal).
>Dishonest of me.
>Hmmm....and this starts a whole (pun intended) new thread. You posit that
>Hole is Metal!!!!
>That is incredible! (but tangential to the point at hand).
wow a whole new thread. Can you take it somewhere else because it has
nothing to do with Maiden anymore, and since it's a Maiden newsgroup... ah
hell I shouldn't have to explain it to you why it's a Maiden newsgroup and
what the topic of discussion should be.
posting off topic things is ok, if it's not going on for at least half the
posts. So please take this discussion to alt.metal or somewhere else, but
not in this newsgroup.
cu
Tonnie
T. & M. Van Noggeren
AMEN!!!!
Curtis Rea
>S. Pickle: "Explain why Hole is not a metal band. They have distorted
>guitars, fast beats, and a screamer for a singer"
>
>without it being metal"
>
>LIAR!
This comes from the guy who states over and over 'where's the content' or
'that's just a personal flame.' I see you've finally been reduced to our
level!!
endle...@att.net
>> drumming, amps, electric guitars, etc, you'd have a metal song. A metal
>> song with stupid lyrics, true, but metal nonetheless.
>
>It is unbelievable to me that you believe this.
Now I can see where this is believable(scary as that might be). I
would say Iron Maiden's version of King of Twilight is metal where
Nektar's original version certainly is not. I know I've heard a few
country versions of rock songs that would make you shudder when
comparing them to the original. You obviously have to change the
tempo of the song also. Tori Amos has recorded Led Zeppelin and
Nirvana songs(among others) and I certainly would catogorize her as
hard rock or grunge where the originals were.
Shaun Baker
12-31-98
Tom Fletcher
>> Yes, if you took a Garth Brooks song, then played it with rapid
>> drumming, amps, electric guitars, etc, you'd have a metal song. A metal
>> song with stupid lyrics, true, but metal nonetheless.
>
>It is unbelievable to me that you believe this.
>
How can you explain yourself when you say you can't believe he believes
this?
And a question, how can you say that Over The Hills And Far Away by Gary
Moore is metal and NOT an Irish folk tune, as there are many parts which
sound like Gary has got them from Irish folk tunes.
Could you say that the intrumental section to Cry No More by Yngwie
Malmsteen is classical and not metal, after all, it is a direct copy of a
section from " The Badinerie" by JS Bach.
You've got to ask yourself these questions. If you took a Metallica song and
played it on country and western instruments, and put the cliched country
and western fills in, would this STILL be metal, or a country and western
song? This is the exact opposite of what has been said above.
Tokus
and
>played it on country and western instruments, and put the cliched country
>and western fills in, would this STILL be metal, or a country and western
>song? This is the exact opposite of what has been said above.
well, I would call it a country & western version of a metal song, so it's
not metal.
cu
Tonnie
Significant Pickle
<76l9sf$f30$1...@news2.xs4all.nl>...
As they say on this ng.....1000% agreed.