Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 7
Amy Winehouse before drugs:; What a pretty girl, and what talent!
Topic Started: Dec 4 2011, 07:00 PM (1,858 Views)
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Virtuosity can be really exciting - Parker and Coltrane from jazz spring to mind, but it shouldn't be a goal in itself.

I hate that guitar shredding thing that was so popular for a while. Ynwgie Malmsteen might well have been a better musician if someone had broken all his fingers. Failing that, he might have been a great sheet-metal worker. Anything would have been improvement on the bloody racket he does make.

Yes, I know, I'm being arrogant again.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
kenny
Dec 5 2011, 11:57 PM
AL you are young.
Bless you.
articulate too.

it's not so easy to describe the differences between simple and complicated music so succintly... and i love both. Other than blues and 'pop' (which drive me bats) i like just about anything.

.. and thanks for the Ringo review Dave. I had no idea he was such a good drummer.

Winehouse was awesome.. it's really sad she exited early.
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Sorry Dave, but that misses the very point that drums are an equal part of the band, and not just the metronome. Again, if you're going to compare objectively, define an objective measurement.
I'm not talking drumming chops as is obvious in my comparison. Obviously being compared in the names I chose were good performers, and not so good performers.
Sting is an amazing songwriter, and even a good bassist. Traditionally has not been a reliable vocal performer. Starr as you said was a metronome for the two greatest songwriters - not a drummer at all, any more than Bono is a guitarist. Helfgott was also a lousy live performer...

Peart didn't start hitting pieces of gear due to sponsorship, are you serious? Are you deliberately being obtuse to make a point, or completely ignorant of Peart's beginnings?


My whole point has been that it isn't about technical ability, or musical ability only. You can't simply call one genre high brow, and another low brow. This is the point I think AL is missing, in assuming all classical music is high brow, while all 3 minute pop sings are low brow. First define a unit of measurement, then compare. You can't just say "jazz is better than rock" because then you sound ignorant in the face of bands like King Crimson or Mahavishnu Orchestra.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Both of which are jazz-rock fusions.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Ringo Starr a metronome?
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LWpianistin
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I don't think Dave and others are saying Starr was just a metronome, but that he knew his job and did it well. Every band member has a job, and when they all do their own job, it's great. And, yeah, it might mean getting not as much spot light, but that's the way it is. My job isn't in the spot light like the tour guides, but it's just as important.
And how are you today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kenny
Dec 5 2011, 02:37 PM
Mikhailoh
Dec 5 2011, 02:32 PM
Even Schoenberg? :hair:
Someone likes it.
Not me, but someone... well, maybe two people. :P
To them it's good.
I don't mind Schoenberg although I prefer Berg and Webern with the caveat that it is chamber music or solo piano- no large orchestra and especially no voice.

Which reminds me I do not as a rule care for any vocal music. Even my miniscule collection of Wagner - two discs from the Ring and Tristan- is without the accompanying wailers and moaners distorting the beauty of those strings and brassy orchestral flatulence of famously unresloved diminshed Seventh chords.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Dec 6 2011, 05:05 AM
kenny
Dec 5 2011, 11:28 PM
I'm not saying all music is equal.
Rather, all people are equal so IMHO each person's musical taste carries equal weight.

I do not agree that a person who graduated from the highest-ranking music conservatory with the highest grades is more qualified to state which music is better or best.
I do not feel anyone can state unequivocally which music is better or best, which seems to be what some in this thread are claiming.

IMHO, there can be no absolute measurement of music's 'goodness' that is independent of listener's taste any more then there can be an indisputable ranking of the best ice cream flavor.

This, "I know good music when I hear it" is sheer arrogance.
You can only say, "I know music that sounds good to me, or that I like, when I hear it."
By that argument, expressing any opinion about music, even the one that 'everyone's opinions are equally valid' is also arrogant.

I kind of take your point, though. The Wynton Marsalis attitude that anything with a rock beat is less valuable than his own very narrow definition of jazz is supremely arrogant, and sounds a lot like a 17 year old talking about music (there I go, being arrogant about 17 year olds). The danger for me is that saying everybody's opinion is equally valid falls apart. You really think that Mozart's opinions of musical taste should carry no more weight than Milli Vanilli?
You are missing my point.
Let me try again.

Opinion vs. fact.

Does that help?

I concede that expert's opinions carries more weight, but even an expert's opinion is an opinion, not a fact.
Being sure of your opinion is fine, just don't express it as fact.
That is what people are doing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
LWpianistin
Dec 6 2011, 08:19 AM
I don't think Dave and others are saying Starr was just a metronome,
No, KB did.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
kenny
Dec 6 2011, 08:25 AM
John D'Oh
Dec 6 2011, 05:05 AM
kenny
Dec 5 2011, 11:28 PM
I'm not saying all music is equal.
Rather, all people are equal so IMHO each person's musical taste carries equal weight.

I do not agree that a person who graduated from the highest-ranking music conservatory with the highest grades is more qualified to state which music is better or best.
I do not feel anyone can state unequivocally which music is better or best, which seems to be what some in this thread are claiming.

IMHO, there can be no absolute measurement of music's 'goodness' that is independent of listener's taste any more then there can be an indisputable ranking of the best ice cream flavor.

This, "I know good music when I hear it" is sheer arrogance.
You can only say, "I know music that sounds good to me, or that I like, when I hear it."
By that argument, expressing any opinion about music, even the one that 'everyone's opinions are equally valid' is also arrogant.

I kind of take your point, though. The Wynton Marsalis attitude that anything with a rock beat is less valuable than his own very narrow definition of jazz is supremely arrogant, and sounds a lot like a 17 year old talking about music (there I go, being arrogant about 17 year olds). The danger for me is that saying everybody's opinion is equally valid falls apart. You really think that Mozart's opinions of musical taste should carry no more weight than Milli Vanilli?
You are missing my point.
Let me try again.

Opinion vs. fact.

Does that help?

I concede that expert's opinions carries more weight, but even an expert's opinion is an opinion, not a fact.
Being sure of your opinion is fine, just don't express it as fact.
That is what people are doing.
So you finally admit that not everyone's opinions are equal in value. I WIN!!!!! :lol:
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LWpianistin
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
JBryan
Dec 6 2011, 08:25 AM
LWpianistin
Dec 6 2011, 08:19 AM
I don't think Dave and others are saying Starr was just a metronome,
No, KB did.
Good point.
And how are you today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
KlavierBauer
Dec 6 2011, 08:12 AM
Sorry Dave, but that misses the very point that drums are an equal part of the band, and not just the metronome. Again, if you're going to compare objectively, define an objective measurement.
I'm not talking drumming chops as is obvious in my comparison. Obviously being compared in the names I chose were good performers, and not so good performers.
Sting is an amazing songwriter, and even a good bassist. Traditionally has not been a reliable vocal performer. Starr as you said was a metronome for the two greatest songwriters - not a drummer at all, any more than Bono is a guitarist. Helfgott was also a lousy live performer...

Peart didn't start hitting pieces of gear due to sponsorship, are you serious? Are you deliberately being obtuse to make a point, or completely ignorant of Peart's beginnings?


My whole point has been that it isn't about technical ability, or musical ability only. You can't simply call one genre high brow, and another low brow. This is the point I think AL is missing, in assuming all classical music is high brow, while all 3 minute pop sings are low brow. First define a unit of measurement, then compare. You can't just say "jazz is better than rock" because then you sound ignorant in the face of bands like King Crimson or Mahavishnu Orchestra.
Fascinating. I haven't a clue what you're talking about, as you appear to have heard not a word that I wrote. Let's try to break it down.

1. I disagree that "drums are an equal part of the band" because the statement is irrelevant. The question, in every musical context, should be "what does the song need"? Any other question misses the point. And the answer is, in every context, that a good drummer does what the song needs.

2. Chops are all that is obvious in your comparison. You belittle Ringo, who only played drums for the single most influential rock band in the history of the music, as not a drummer at all. Am I hearing you right?! And you hold up as the avatar of great drumming Neil Peart? I'm sorry -- what again was Rush's contribution to music or history?

3. I didn't think I was being subtle about the Ziljian comment. Would you understand if I said that he must own stock in the company because he owns so much damned hardware? A good drummer can create a pocket with a pencil on a desktop. Methinks Neil is overcompensating for some shrinkage or other. And what on earth could I care about Peart's beginnings? Was it hardscrabble? Who cares?

4. I wasn't talking about one type of music being better than another. I'm not aware that I hate any type of music, so I think you're barking up the wrong tree there. I'm arguing for the greatness of Ringo because he listened to music and reacted musically to it, thereby helping to create something the world hadn't heard before and hasn't heard since. If you want to talk about cultural issues and such, that's another discussion. To suggest that Ringo isn't a drummer is to misunderstand the music you pretend to know something about.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
i belong to a group (for now) and tho we don't have percussion, I know, in spite of my musicianship that I am an unreliable tempo setter.. We have a director, but our bass guitar player is the man. he is also an ausberger guy and tempo is his thing. I face him and know if I am off by his furrowed eyebrows... so does the director who has a propensity for rubato.. it drives Mike bats... even the ritardandos at the piece's ends.
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Dec 6 2011, 08:30 AM
kenny
Dec 6 2011, 08:25 AM
John D'Oh
Dec 6 2011, 05:05 AM
kenny
Dec 5 2011, 11:28 PM
I'm not saying all music is equal.
Rather, all people are equal so IMHO each person's musical taste carries equal weight.

I do not agree that a person who graduated from the highest-ranking music conservatory with the highest grades is more qualified to state which music is better or best.
I do not feel anyone can state unequivocally which music is better or best, which seems to be what some in this thread are claiming.

IMHO, there can be no absolute measurement of music's 'goodness' that is independent of listener's taste any more then there can be an indisputable ranking of the best ice cream flavor.

This, "I know good music when I hear it" is sheer arrogance.
You can only say, "I know music that sounds good to me, or that I like, when I hear it."
By that argument, expressing any opinion about music, even the one that 'everyone's opinions are equally valid' is also arrogant.

I kind of take your point, though. The Wynton Marsalis attitude that anything with a rock beat is less valuable than his own very narrow definition of jazz is supremely arrogant, and sounds a lot like a 17 year old talking about music (there I go, being arrogant about 17 year olds). The danger for me is that saying everybody's opinion is equally valid falls apart. You really think that Mozart's opinions of musical taste should carry no more weight than Milli Vanilli?
You are missing my point.
Let me try again.

Opinion vs. fact.

Does that help?

I concede that expert's opinions carries more weight, but even an expert's opinion is an opinion, not a fact.
Being sure of your opinion is fine, just don't express it as fact.
That is what people are doing.
So you finally admit that not everyone's opinions are equal in value. I WIN!!!!! :lol:
People stating opinions as fact is what I'm pointing out.
Expressing your opinion, and making it clear it is your opinion, is less likely to start fights than stating it as a fact.
It is a huge difference with enormous wide-reaching implications.

The problematic thinking is everywhere.
Politics, religion, fashion, how your kids should grow up, how to invest, for the same budget is it better to buy a higher quality smaller diamond or a lower quality larger one, what kind of car and how you drive it, you have to attend your families Thanksgiving day event, what music is best ...

I don't meet many people who understand and have conquered how their minds have a tendency to morph opinions into facts.

Maybe the tendency stems from insecurity.
We need to be sure about stuff that we can't really be sure of.
The truth is cold and threatening.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Music preference is definitely a personal thing.

But I'm still right and you're still wrong. :tongue:

Ringo Starr? :lol2:
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Mark
Dec 6 2011, 09:33 AM
But I'm still right and you're still wrong. :tongue:

That is correct . . . also, I'm still right and you're still wrong. :P

They both coexist. :yes:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Coexistence is irrelevant. You will be assimilated.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Both of which are jazz-rock fusions.

Yes - obviously - and precisely.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
I don't think Dave and others are saying Starr was just a metronome, but that he knew his job and did it well. Every band member has a job, and when they all do their own job, it's great. And, yeah, it might mean getting not as much spot light, but that's the way it is. My job isn't in the spot light like the tour guides, but it's just as important.


Yes - which has been precisely my point all along.
One can make qualitative judgements with qualitative measures.
Peart is a better technical drummer than Starr.
Portnoy is a better technical drummer than Ulrich.
Starr and Ulrich are two of the most memorable and important drummers in history - I'm not discounting them as musicians.
My whole point all along has been that Starr is an example of what many drummers would consider "low brow" (to steal AL's parlance), even though he's been infinitely important to rock as one of its most influential constituents.
Another in that roundup would be Larry Mullen Jr., who isn't a fantastic drummer technically, but does what he does extremely well to make U2 one of the most influential rock bands in history. In fact, there's one great "musician" in the band (perhaps), but the amalgam can't simply be quantified as good, better, best, bad, worst, etc. It is music, it has value, and while it might not suit one's taste, it is of importance to music as an art form.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dave, your intellect is notable, but dizzying. I've not a clue what your point is in all of this.
My point since the beginning was that all music has value, the notion that one "type" of music has more "value" than another is a meaningless statement without something to qualify it - a technical measure.
I made a technical comparison between Peart and Starr, as well as between Kern and Helfgott, to demonstrate that making qualitative judgements requires some qualitative measure, AND such judgements can only be limited to those measurements.

Quote:
 
I didn't think I was being subtle about the Ziljian comment. Would you understand if I said that he must own stock in the company because he owns so much damned hardware? A good drummer can create a pocket with a pencil on a desktop. Methinks Neil is overcompensating for some shrinkage or other. And what on earth could I care about Peart's beginnings? Was it hardscrabble? Who cares?


Your assertion was that Neal's style was based on the fact that he had a legal obligation due to sponsorship to hit each piece a given number of times. This is of course ridiculous if you understand his beginnings, and his history.
He is a hard rock / metal drummer, and as such travels with a big kit, creating more than a "pocket." The rules of "groove" don't necessarily apply in the genre we're talking about, where you're talking about note-specific composition meant to generate specific sound and texture, not set a back-beat for the lead guitarist. Terry Bozzio is a great example of this if Peart is a bad example for you.
Bozzio's record breaking kit isn't because he's making up for something or can't drum, or owes his sponsors. It's so that he can play diatonic and pentatonic scales and create melody on his kit.
Listen to Peart's Rhythm Method and show me a drummer on a 5pc. kit who can create the same experience. The gear is secondary to the music.

You're quick to point out your personal familiarity with Starr's role in the Beatles, I'm amazed that you wouldn't pay as much attention to Peart's role in Rush, and his role in drumming in general.
Your statement makes it clear that you don't understand the history of that band, or the genre, or you wouldn't be asking what their contribution to music has been...
Without getting into the cultural significance and their contributions in terms of defining an era of guitar, bass, and drum playing, how about being third only behind the Beatles and the Stones in most consecutive gold and platinum albums ever sold? No - clearly not influential or contributing in any significant way to hard rock.
Peart single handedly defined a generation of drummers, as Buddy Rich did before him.

I understand - this isn't really the discussion here, which is whether or not Amy Winehouse and Lady Gaga can be considered "musical" (which I think they can be), as opposed to fat women with too much vibrato who are considered part of something "better."
1) I wasn't discounting Starr - I was comparing him as a performer to Peart - I agree with you that he did his job very consistently, and very well.
2) Your points about Starr make my original point, that "better" and "best" are useless terms without qualifiers. You can't say Peart is a "better" drummer than Starr, because you haven't defined what makes them better, just as you can't say Opera is "better" than rap without defining what it's better at accomplishing.
3) I had to defend the honor of one of the most influential hard rock bands, as you were talking about them as though they're without contribution, and you were saying so authoritatively. I couldn't risk someone reading that and thinking you knew what you were talking about with regards to Rush, I hope you understand.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Rush suck. They're fret-wankers.

There, I said it.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nobody's Sock
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
John D'Oh
Dec 6 2011, 10:24 AM
Rush suck. They're fret-wankers.

There, I said it.
Rush would kick both Miles Davis and Charlie Parker's ass!

Where's your Canadian pride d'oh?

"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Nobody's Sock
Dec 6 2011, 10:27 AM
Rush would kick both Miles Davis and Charlie Parker's ass!
OK, you're excluded from being allowed to have any further part in this discussion. :lol:
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
KB:

We obviously have very different ideas of what matters in music. In my view, you focus on the means, which to me are entirely secondary to the ends. At the end of Ringo's drumming is a Beatles album; at the end of Neil's drumming is a Rush album. Who plays faster or louder or hits more things is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Someone else's is always bigger than yours (unless you're Larry and all bets are off).

By the way, my Ziljian comment has nothing whatever to do with sponsorship.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nobody's Sock
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
John D'Oh
Dec 6 2011, 10:32 AM
Nobody's Sock
Dec 6 2011, 10:27 AM
Rush would kick both Miles Davis and Charlie Parker's ass!
OK, you're excluded from being allowed to have any further part in this discussion. :lol:
Arrogant bastard! :trumpet:
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 7