Help Brian win :(
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Haha...I like Queen to win everything.. :D Best rock band, best rock guitarist, best male singer, best drummer and best bassist ;)
Zebonka, we simply have the ability to write better,more complex quality songs, simple as that.
The beatles are overrated crap, there are MANY bands that are better than them, they are just hype.
I dont need to sell millions of albums to know that our music is better, i just know it simply by comparing songwriting.
listen to our song nothing lasts and tell me beatles could compose those melodies,harmonies and structures and complexity, they are just hype, nothing more.
The beatles are overrated crap, there are MANY bands that are better than them, they are just hype.
I dont need to sell millions of albums to know that our music is better, i just know it simply by comparing songwriting.
listen to our song nothing lasts and tell me beatles could compose those melodies,harmonies and structures and complexity, they are just hype, nothing more.
On your advice, I did just listen to your song, and I will disregard the instrument sounds themselves as they are either limited by your equipment, or simply a matter of personal choice.
You want to talk 'complex'.. for what the song is, you guys have done a competent job of arranging the strings but really - 'complex' ??? I am not hearing it. Perhaps it would help if you gave me your definition of complex.
I'll try and give an example - I don't consider any of the movie-music or songs that I've done 'complex'. I put a lot of effort into arranging it and adding more and more instruments and subtly burying things in there... but the music itself is not complex.
You 'simply know' that you are better than the Beatles, by 'comparing songwriting' ?
If you were to do any sort of in depth and proper comparison (as if such a thing could be done), you do realise you'd have the better part of 200 songs to compare yourself to?
Are you comparing yourselves as instrumentalists? Can you tell me with a straight face that your guitar player could come close to the delicate touch that George Harrison had in his capacity as a slide guitarist?
Can your drummer play "Oh Darlin'" in all it's subtleties (and they are there)?
What about the singing? Again, using "Oh Darlin'" as an example - if we eschew personal taste for a second and simply think 'louder + higher + lower = better', your singer is not as good as Paul McCartney and never will be.
Of course, personal taste will come into it first - if you don't like his voice, fine, but you can't tell the whole world it's 'crap'.
Same goes for John Lennon, and I've heard his shittiest moments, believe me.... say what you want about him as a rock singer, but I will always rate him highly as a white soul singer!
Honestly I do want to have an intelligent discussion about this for once, without flames, but you're making it difficult for me to understand exactly how you define 'better'. You say you have the 'ability' to write better songs than The Beatles. That really means nothing, you know.
One area in which you really aren't going to convince me of your superiority is harmonies. Have you ever heard "This Boy"? It was by no means their best song, but if you consider that it was only a year or two after they were doing things like "Love Me Do" - for crying out loud, that is some noticeable musical development.
How long since you guys formed, wrote your first song? How far have you come??
And don't even get me started on "Yes It Is". You will find more complex music. You will not find it on Treasure Moment's Myspace... that isn't a knock against you guys. I don't believe Complex always equals Good.
As far as live playing goes the Beatles were up against some tough odds, and they still managed to do these songs live, and do them well...
I am not one of the 'sheep' you hate so much. I've heard Let It Be and I reckon it's the laziest album in their catalogue. I can't stand Sgt. Pepper (except for the last song). But I'm telling you, overrated as they may be, the Beatles simply are not crap.
For fucks sake, going back to the harmonies for a sec - "Please Please Me". Their first no. 1, and already they were onto some good shit with the harmonies.
(Don't anyone barge in and tell me George Martin was responsible for half of all of this, because I know that already. I generally count him as one of the band).
Seriously, Treasure Moment-guy,
I'm not trying to wind you up at all, I hope you realise this. I did listen to your song, and you asked me if I thought the Beatles could write anything like that. Honestly, I reckon they could have.
They never wrote in that genre because it didn't exist yet, but at the barest bones level it wouldn't be too big a leap from something like "For No One" or "In My Life", with the faux-classical kind of stuff thrown in throughout.
Can I just offer one bit
You want to talk 'complex'.. for what the song is, you guys have done a competent job of arranging the strings but really - 'complex' ??? I am not hearing it. Perhaps it would help if you gave me your definition of complex.
I'll try and give an example - I don't consider any of the movie-music or songs that I've done 'complex'. I put a lot of effort into arranging it and adding more and more instruments and subtly burying things in there... but the music itself is not complex.
You 'simply know' that you are better than the Beatles, by 'comparing songwriting' ?
If you were to do any sort of in depth and proper comparison (as if such a thing could be done), you do realise you'd have the better part of 200 songs to compare yourself to?
Are you comparing yourselves as instrumentalists? Can you tell me with a straight face that your guitar player could come close to the delicate touch that George Harrison had in his capacity as a slide guitarist?
Can your drummer play "Oh Darlin'" in all it's subtleties (and they are there)?
What about the singing? Again, using "Oh Darlin'" as an example - if we eschew personal taste for a second and simply think 'louder + higher + lower = better', your singer is not as good as Paul McCartney and never will be.
Of course, personal taste will come into it first - if you don't like his voice, fine, but you can't tell the whole world it's 'crap'.
Same goes for John Lennon, and I've heard his shittiest moments, believe me.... say what you want about him as a rock singer, but I will always rate him highly as a white soul singer!
Honestly I do want to have an intelligent discussion about this for once, without flames, but you're making it difficult for me to understand exactly how you define 'better'. You say you have the 'ability' to write better songs than The Beatles. That really means nothing, you know.
One area in which you really aren't going to convince me of your superiority is harmonies. Have you ever heard "This Boy"? It was by no means their best song, but if you consider that it was only a year or two after they were doing things like "Love Me Do" - for crying out loud, that is some noticeable musical development.
How long since you guys formed, wrote your first song? How far have you come??
And don't even get me started on "Yes It Is". You will find more complex music. You will not find it on Treasure Moment's Myspace... that isn't a knock against you guys. I don't believe Complex always equals Good.
As far as live playing goes the Beatles were up against some tough odds, and they still managed to do these songs live, and do them well...
I am not one of the 'sheep' you hate so much. I've heard Let It Be and I reckon it's the laziest album in their catalogue. I can't stand Sgt. Pepper (except for the last song). But I'm telling you, overrated as they may be, the Beatles simply are not crap.
For fucks sake, going back to the harmonies for a sec - "Please Please Me". Their first no. 1, and already they were onto some good shit with the harmonies.
(Don't anyone barge in and tell me George Martin was responsible for half of all of this, because I know that already. I generally count him as one of the band).
Seriously, Treasure Moment-guy,
I'm not trying to wind you up at all, I hope you realise this. I did listen to your song, and you asked me if I thought the Beatles could write anything like that. Honestly, I reckon they could have.
They never wrote in that genre because it didn't exist yet, but at the barest bones level it wouldn't be too big a leap from something like "For No One" or "In My Life", with the faux-classical kind of stuff thrown in throughout.
Can I just offer one bit
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]This is just about how organized each band's fan base is. [/QUOTE]
Or how much they could use a girlfriend or something...
Or how much they could use a girlfriend or something...
Zebonka
The singer is just temporarly until we find another one. I wasnt talking about singing part but the melodies, structures.
Ive heard about 20 beatles songs and imo it was some of the most boring, unispired, simple crap ive ever heard, thats what i think.
I think they are extremely overhyped and arent good musicians, sure they have a few good songs maybe but out of the 20 i heard i only liked 1 i think (yesterday)
I think its a joke when people even compare the beatles with Queen. Queen is about 1 million times better in everything. They were just hype, nothing more.
The singer is just temporarly until we find another one. I wasnt talking about singing part but the melodies, structures.
Ive heard about 20 beatles songs and imo it was some of the most boring, unispired, simple crap ive ever heard, thats what i think.
I think they are extremely overhyped and arent good musicians, sure they have a few good songs maybe but out of the 20 i heard i only liked 1 i think (yesterday)
I think its a joke when people even compare the beatles with Queen. Queen is about 1 million times better in everything. They were just hype, nothing more.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Zebonka
The singer is just temporarly until we find another one. I wasnt talking about singing part but the melodies, structures.
Ive heard about 20 beatles songs and imo it was some of the most boring, unispired, simple crap ive ever heard, thats what i think.
I think they are extremely overhyped and arent good musicians, sure they have a few good songs maybe but out of the 20 i heard i only liked 1 i think (yesterday)
I think its a joke when people even compare the beatles with Queen. Queen is about 1 million times better in everything. They were just hype, nothing more.[/QUOTE]
i think you need to realize why they were so great in that era.
listen to the other music that existed in the 50s and 60s, and i dare you to say how they didnt change the industry and how they didnt open doors to new techniques and styles.
they were great (at the very least) because they were the genesis of a genre! without them, there would not be the complexities that many musicians have based off of such influence. maybe they sound dull and simplistic to you now, but go back to that era, and ask anyone who had heard of them why they were so different, and such a sensation!
and your favorite band (you claim to be so incomparable) were influenced by them too- especially brian! note how QUEEN are usually compared with the BEATLES' success and accredited influence.
its on thing not to like them, but again, you dont seem to know the difference between fact and opinion. you dont have to like their music, and noone is saying that, but there is a reason to appreciate it. theres plenty of artists i think the same, where i dont much care for their stuff, but i respect them, because they were in some form, groundbreaking. the bands i love were most likely influenced by them- like queen! plenty of artists today love them, and are influenced by them. not everyone has to like them, but the appreciation is well deserved.
The singer is just temporarly until we find another one. I wasnt talking about singing part but the melodies, structures.
Ive heard about 20 beatles songs and imo it was some of the most boring, unispired, simple crap ive ever heard, thats what i think.
I think they are extremely overhyped and arent good musicians, sure they have a few good songs maybe but out of the 20 i heard i only liked 1 i think (yesterday)
I think its a joke when people even compare the beatles with Queen. Queen is about 1 million times better in everything. They were just hype, nothing more.[/QUOTE]
i think you need to realize why they were so great in that era.
listen to the other music that existed in the 50s and 60s, and i dare you to say how they didnt change the industry and how they didnt open doors to new techniques and styles.
they were great (at the very least) because they were the genesis of a genre! without them, there would not be the complexities that many musicians have based off of such influence. maybe they sound dull and simplistic to you now, but go back to that era, and ask anyone who had heard of them why they were so different, and such a sensation!
and your favorite band (you claim to be so incomparable) were influenced by them too- especially brian! note how QUEEN are usually compared with the BEATLES' success and accredited influence.
its on thing not to like them, but again, you dont seem to know the difference between fact and opinion. you dont have to like their music, and noone is saying that, but there is a reason to appreciate it. theres plenty of artists i think the same, where i dont much care for their stuff, but i respect them, because they were in some form, groundbreaking. the bands i love were most likely influenced by them- like queen! plenty of artists today love them, and are influenced by them. not everyone has to like them, but the appreciation is well deserved.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sparrow wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Zebonka
The singer is just temporarly until we find another one. I wasnt talking about singing part but the melodies, structures.
Ive heard about 20 beatles songs and imo it was some of the most boring, unispired, simple crap ive ever heard, thats what i think.
I think they are extremely overhyped and arent good musicians, sure they have a few good songs maybe but out of the 20 i heard i only liked 1 i think (yesterday)
I think its a joke when people even compare the beatles with Queen. Queen is about 1 million times better in everything. They were just hype, nothing more.[/QUOTE]
i think you need to realize why they were so great in that era.
listen to the other music that existed in the 50s and 60s, and i dare you to say how they didnt change the industry and how they didnt open doors to new techniques and styles.
they were great (at the very least) because they were the genesis of a genre! without them, there would not be the complexities that many musicians have based off of such influence. maybe they sound dull and simplistic to you now, but go back to that era, and ask anyone who had heard of them why they were so different, and such a sensation!
and your favorite band (you claim to be so incomparable) were influenced by them too- especially brian! note how QUEEN are usually compared with the BEATLES' success and accredited influence.
its on thing not to like them, but again, you dont seem to know the difference between fact and opinion. you dont have to like their music, and noone is saying that, but there is a reason to appreciate it. theres plenty of artists i think the same, where i dont much care for their stuff, but i respect them, because they were in some form, groundbreaking. the bands i love were most likely influenced by them- like queen! plenty of artists today love them, and are influenced by them. not everyone has to like them, but the appreciation is well deserved.
[/QUOTE]
i wasnt around that time when they were big so i dont know what impact they had and you may be right that they had a big impact back then.
All im judging is the music they played and its nothing compared to Queen to be honest and i dont see how an amateur band like that could possibly have a big influence on Queen, just listen to bohemian rhapsody and tell me the beatles could ever dream of composing something like that.
Not just that song but many other songs. Queen were able to do what no other band has done and that is to write great music in all kinda genres. Complex and great music with alot of feeling and passion.
The beatles sound to me like some beginner that has just grabbed a guitar and is trying to play something while Queen is on the top level of songwriting and skills.
so you may be right about their impact back then but i was only talking about the music regardless of the time.
Its not like music before beatles were even less complex as there have been highly skilled classical composers way before them and Queen, specially freddie was highly influenced by classical music in his songwriting so i dont see much beatles influence on them, at least freddie.
You really cant compare the 2 bands, they are on the opposite sides of skills, songwriting and quality.
The singer is just temporarly until we find another one. I wasnt talking about singing part but the melodies, structures.
Ive heard about 20 beatles songs and imo it was some of the most boring, unispired, simple crap ive ever heard, thats what i think.
I think they are extremely overhyped and arent good musicians, sure they have a few good songs maybe but out of the 20 i heard i only liked 1 i think (yesterday)
I think its a joke when people even compare the beatles with Queen. Queen is about 1 million times better in everything. They were just hype, nothing more.[/QUOTE]
i think you need to realize why they were so great in that era.
listen to the other music that existed in the 50s and 60s, and i dare you to say how they didnt change the industry and how they didnt open doors to new techniques and styles.
they were great (at the very least) because they were the genesis of a genre! without them, there would not be the complexities that many musicians have based off of such influence. maybe they sound dull and simplistic to you now, but go back to that era, and ask anyone who had heard of them why they were so different, and such a sensation!
and your favorite band (you claim to be so incomparable) were influenced by them too- especially brian! note how QUEEN are usually compared with the BEATLES' success and accredited influence.
its on thing not to like them, but again, you dont seem to know the difference between fact and opinion. you dont have to like their music, and noone is saying that, but there is a reason to appreciate it. theres plenty of artists i think the same, where i dont much care for their stuff, but i respect them, because they were in some form, groundbreaking. the bands i love were most likely influenced by them- like queen! plenty of artists today love them, and are influenced by them. not everyone has to like them, but the appreciation is well deserved.
[/QUOTE]
i wasnt around that time when they were big so i dont know what impact they had and you may be right that they had a big impact back then.
All im judging is the music they played and its nothing compared to Queen to be honest and i dont see how an amateur band like that could possibly have a big influence on Queen, just listen to bohemian rhapsody and tell me the beatles could ever dream of composing something like that.
Not just that song but many other songs. Queen were able to do what no other band has done and that is to write great music in all kinda genres. Complex and great music with alot of feeling and passion.
The beatles sound to me like some beginner that has just grabbed a guitar and is trying to play something while Queen is on the top level of songwriting and skills.
so you may be right about their impact back then but i was only talking about the music regardless of the time.
Its not like music before beatles were even less complex as there have been highly skilled classical composers way before them and Queen, specially freddie was highly influenced by classical music in his songwriting so i dont see much beatles influence on them, at least freddie.
You really cant compare the 2 bands, they are on the opposite sides of skills, songwriting and quality.
See, right there, you've only heard 10% of their musical output - and you thought "Yesterday" was the best of the stuff you heard... I tremble to think exactly what 20 songs you listened to :/
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]See, right there, you've only heard 10% of their musical output - and you thought "Yesterday" was the best of the stuff you heard... I tremble to think exactly what 20 songs you listened to :/[/QUOTE]
someone wrote about 20 songs here to check and i checked them.
someone wrote about 20 songs here to check and i checked them.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I dont need to sell millions of albums to know that our music is better...[/QUOTE]
Don't worry.
Don't worry.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I dont need to sell millions of albums to know that our music is better...[/QUOTE]
Don't worry.
[/QUOTE]
you are right, in this brainwashed braindead age where people are smart as a monkey its pretty hard to achieve that, unless you play crappy braindead unoriginal 3 chord music or talentless rap
Don't worry.
[/QUOTE]
you are right, in this brainwashed braindead age where people are smart as a monkey its pretty hard to achieve that, unless you play crappy braindead unoriginal 3 chord music or talentless rap
But have you TRIED that? Hmmm? If you can't even make 'simple' music to get people interested, then how good can you possibly be?
You know it does take some kind of basic skill or intuition to make music that people really want to hear more of. Where has knocking other people's music gotten you?
You know it does take some kind of basic skill or intuition to make music that people really want to hear more of. Where has knocking other people's music gotten you?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]But have you TRIED that? Hmmm? If you can't even make 'simple' music to get people interested, then how good can you possibly be?
You know it does take some kind of basic skill or intuition to make music that people really want to hear more of. Where has knocking other people's music gotten you?[/QUOTE]
we havent recorded a real studio album yet and have to sort out the singer situation and get a proper singer, there is alot of material available so we ll do something soon.
I dont knock other music without a reason, do you see me knock Queen? no because they are quality, i only knock the music that really doesnt deserve the attention it gets and thats basically ALL the mainstream crap bands out there.
You know it does take some kind of basic skill or intuition to make music that people really want to hear more of. Where has knocking other people's music gotten you?[/QUOTE]
we havent recorded a real studio album yet and have to sort out the singer situation and get a proper singer, there is alot of material available so we ll do something soon.
I dont knock other music without a reason, do you see me knock Queen? no because they are quality, i only knock the music that really doesnt deserve the attention it gets and thats basically ALL the mainstream crap bands out there.
Well, Freddie is now consistently behind in his poll.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Dusta wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yeah, but, it's looking like poor Freddie is going to lose.[/QUOTE]
fuck that, freddie will never lose, no one can compare[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Dusta wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yeah, but, it's looking like poor Freddie is going to lose.[/QUOTE]
fuck that, freddie will never lose, no one can compare[/QUOTE]