ILoveQueen20
THIS THREAD IS A LIE!!!!!!!!! *Runs*
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Soundfreak
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Soundfreak wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But it's not more valid than anyone else's. If you think otherwise, then it's you with the God complex, not us.
[/QUOTE]
...it's YOU taking the high God-like position to rate people and their abilities and personalities - not me..;-) .
[/QUOTE]
Rating a person's abilities is not taking a God-like position.
Deeming a thread 'pointless' or 'boring' because you think it's pointless or boring is taking a God-like position.
Therefore, it is you who's got the God complex, not any of us.
And again, if you don't care about this discussions, why are you still reading? Maybe you do care and you're not able to accept it.
[/QUOTE]
It has nothing to do with "taking a God like position" putting a topic in question. It's about philosophy.
Probably you also rate your family members (Mummy is better than Daddy...) or your friends (he is better....he is not that good...) So do it, if it makes you feel better. Rate and rank your whole world.
While I prefer to enjoy the variety and differences of all those great artists.
And be assured, I don't carry on reading this topic...;-)
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Soundfreak wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But it's not more valid than anyone else's. If you think otherwise, then it's you with the God complex, not us.
[/QUOTE]
...it's YOU taking the high God-like position to rate people and their abilities and personalities - not me..;-) .
[/QUOTE]
Rating a person's abilities is not taking a God-like position.
Deeming a thread 'pointless' or 'boring' because you think it's pointless or boring is taking a God-like position.
Therefore, it is you who's got the God complex, not any of us.
And again, if you don't care about this discussions, why are you still reading? Maybe you do care and you're not able to accept it.
[/QUOTE]
It has nothing to do with "taking a God like position" putting a topic in question. It's about philosophy.
Probably you also rate your family members (Mummy is better than Daddy...) or your friends (he is better....he is not that good...) So do it, if it makes you feel better. Rate and rank your whole world.
While I prefer to enjoy the variety and differences of all those great artists.
And be assured, I don't carry on reading this topic...;-)
Sebastian
You can enjoy the variety and differences of artists and still rate some as better than the others. I like pizza way more than I like salad. Does it mean I hate salad? No. Does it mean I never eat salad? No. Does it mean I never enjoy salad? No. It simply means I like pizza more.
The fact I wrote Petrucci's better than May doesn't AT ALL imply anything about the way I live my life, BTW. If you're so narrow-minded to conclude that, then it's your problem, not mine. And if you keep replying is because indeed you keep reading, which means that you DO care about this thread, but you're not able to accept it.
Again, your problem.
The fact I wrote Petrucci's better than May doesn't AT ALL imply anything about the way I live my life, BTW. If you're so narrow-minded to conclude that, then it's your problem, not mine. And if you keep replying is because indeed you keep reading, which means that you DO care about this thread, but you're not able to accept it.
Again, your problem.
Jimmy Dean
I don't understand why people are disagreeing that Petrucci is better than May. I don't like John Petrucci and I'm not a big fan of Dream Theatre... but when you listen to the guy play... he blows Brian May out of the water.... the guy is very very talented... he was a scholar of the guitar, Brian May was not... Brian May learned guitar as a hobby while he was in school...and mastered it when it became profitable....
He's an incredible talent, and anyone who *disagrees* obviously doesn't know a thing or two about guitar skill. Any guitarist in Queen zone will agree, and any queen fan who is oblivious to reality will never agree. Pure and simple.
He's an incredible talent, and anyone who *disagrees* obviously doesn't know a thing or two about guitar skill. Any guitarist in Queen zone will agree, and any queen fan who is oblivious to reality will never agree. Pure and simple.
Sebastian
Some people don't or can't separate 'my favourite' from 'the best'. It's like those people thinking that their city, their school, their favourite football team and their accent are the best and all the others are inferior.
And one hasn't got anything to do with the other: a person may have Queen as their favourite band and yet admit that there are people who play better than any of them, realise that there are bands that have outsold them and see how neither factor's got to affect their choice.
And one hasn't got anything to do with the other: a person may have Queen as their favourite band and yet admit that there are people who play better than any of them, realise that there are bands that have outsold them and see how neither factor's got to affect their choice.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
I guess only time will tell then...DT is one of those bands I could never get in to. I like yes, love rush and other progressive bands. DT leaves me flat, It's the singer i don't like..........Sounds like the helloween guy from the 80's......
[/QUOTE]
Haha! Of course, to each his own. To say the least, James Labrie is an acquired taste. But pretty much any DT fan will say he's the weak link of the band.
Listen to Caught In A Web, New Millennium, and The Spirit Carries On. I think those are among his best vocal performances. Tastes aside, the fact that he can pull off tunes like these night after night, well into his 40s, says plenty about his abilities as a singer.
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
I guess only time will tell then...DT is one of those bands I could never get in to. I like yes, love rush and other progressive bands. DT leaves me flat, It's the singer i don't like..........Sounds like the helloween guy from the 80's......
[/QUOTE]
Haha! Of course, to each his own. To say the least, James Labrie is an acquired taste. But pretty much any DT fan will say he's the weak link of the band.
Listen to Caught In A Web, New Millennium, and The Spirit Carries On. I think those are among his best vocal performances. Tastes aside, the fact that he can pull off tunes like these night after night, well into his 40s, says plenty about his abilities as a singer.
john bodega
[QUOTE]
[b]Jimmy Dean wrote: [/b]
I don't understand why people are disagreeing that Petrucci is better than May.
[/QUOTE]
Technically speaking, I never disagreed on that score.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]What I want is a clear and agreed-upon definition of what 'better' is. I just watched [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEWs7XGb_u0]this video[/url] and it sounds like crap. If he's better than Brian, then I want to know what the idea of 'better' really is around here.
[/QUOTE]
[b]Jimmy Dean wrote: [/b]
I don't understand why people are disagreeing that Petrucci is better than May.
[/QUOTE]
Technically speaking, I never disagreed on that score.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]What I want is a clear and agreed-upon definition of what 'better' is. I just watched [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEWs7XGb_u0]this video[/url] and it sounds like crap. If he's better than Brian, then I want to know what the idea of 'better' really is around here.
[/QUOTE]
Jimmy Dean
listen to the classics... Pull Me Under and Under a Glass Moon are their two best known tracks... Then the albums Images & Words, Awake and Train of Thought will surely give you a better definition of what "better" is.
mike hunt
Just listened to some DT tunes on youtube, still not a big fan, though this time I listened to the music instead of the vocals, and could see the band obviously has talent. i see why so many people rate this guitar player so highly. even if musically superior to queen, songwriting they are not. I wont budge on that one, lol. Queen=one of the best songwriting groups of all time.
Sebastian
That's what makes Queen and Beatles so unique. Thousands of people can play bass, piano, drums and/or guitar way better than McCartney (let alone the instruments he only recorded a couple of notes on), but how many can write [i]Here, There and Everywhere[/i]?
IMO, even though Fred was a marvellous singer and an outstanding pianist, he was even better composer and arranger.
Same for Dr May: wonderful guitarist, great singer, decent pianist, genius composer/arranger, good lyricist.
Deaks: marvellous bassist, great guitarist, better composer/arranger, fine lyricist.
Blondrummer: brilliant drummer (very underrated), fabulous singer, good guitarist, but even better as composer/arranger and good lyricist too.
IMO, even though Fred was a marvellous singer and an outstanding pianist, he was even better composer and arranger.
Same for Dr May: wonderful guitarist, great singer, decent pianist, genius composer/arranger, good lyricist.
Deaks: marvellous bassist, great guitarist, better composer/arranger, fine lyricist.
Blondrummer: brilliant drummer (very underrated), fabulous singer, good guitarist, but even better as composer/arranger and good lyricist too.
Jimmy Dean
Agreed with Mike Hunt... Queen's songwriting abilities surpass most bands... they easily rank with the Beatles, Bowie, Elton John & Bernie Taupin, and a few others who don't come to mind right now
Wiley
Oh, the good-old objectivity/subjectivity thread again. I love it! Here's a long post but hopefully it will be worth it.
Some things you can fairly easily measure: speed, distance, mass, etc.
Some things you can't measure so easily: customer satisfaction, overall mass group thinking/tendencies, etc.
Even the latter can be measured in a way that serves a given purpose more effectively than if you didn't measure them at all. This must be done under a given framework, with several assumptions, etc.
For instance, I can measure "the beauty of a guitarist's tone regardless of the gear they use" by asking fans all over the world to vote for each of their idol's pieces of music in which their "tone" is "most beautiful". Then make a list of these pieces of music.
Then I can pick 100,000 random people to listen to the selected pieces of music and select what's most beautiful to them.
With this in mind, there's a way to measure things, even if it's a pain in the ass and nobody bothers to do so (I know I don't, most of the time).
With this on mind...
The term "Better" is usually subjectve. You say something is "better" than something else as a result of an analysis, even if this analysis or study included only you and took you 2 microseconds or if was done at an international organization over a 10 year period.
If you somehow rate every possible skill in a measurable way and then define "Better Guitar playing" the following way:
BETTER = (Speed * 4) + (Originality * 1) + (Beauty of tone * 1) + (String skipping * 3) + (Curly-hair-liness * 1)
You would get one result in your May vs. Petrucci dilemma.
If you define "better" like this:
BETTER = (Speed * 1) + (Originality * 2) + (Beauty of tone * 3) + (String skipping * 0) + (Curly-hair-liness * 4)
You would get a different result.
If you can't be bothered to think of any of this, you can just say "IMO" and that's the end of it...
OR
You can switch from one position to the other in a way that you can nit-pick on everybody else's posts but somehow your rules don't apply to you.
:)
Some things you can fairly easily measure: speed, distance, mass, etc.
Some things you can't measure so easily: customer satisfaction, overall mass group thinking/tendencies, etc.
Even the latter can be measured in a way that serves a given purpose more effectively than if you didn't measure them at all. This must be done under a given framework, with several assumptions, etc.
For instance, I can measure "the beauty of a guitarist's tone regardless of the gear they use" by asking fans all over the world to vote for each of their idol's pieces of music in which their "tone" is "most beautiful". Then make a list of these pieces of music.
Then I can pick 100,000 random people to listen to the selected pieces of music and select what's most beautiful to them.
With this in mind, there's a way to measure things, even if it's a pain in the ass and nobody bothers to do so (I know I don't, most of the time).
With this on mind...
The term "Better" is usually subjectve. You say something is "better" than something else as a result of an analysis, even if this analysis or study included only you and took you 2 microseconds or if was done at an international organization over a 10 year period.
If you somehow rate every possible skill in a measurable way and then define "Better Guitar playing" the following way:
BETTER = (Speed * 4) + (Originality * 1) + (Beauty of tone * 1) + (String skipping * 3) + (Curly-hair-liness * 1)
You would get one result in your May vs. Petrucci dilemma.
If you define "better" like this:
BETTER = (Speed * 1) + (Originality * 2) + (Beauty of tone * 3) + (String skipping * 0) + (Curly-hair-liness * 4)
You would get a different result.
If you can't be bothered to think of any of this, you can just say "IMO" and that's the end of it...
OR
You can switch from one position to the other in a way that you can nit-pick on everybody else's posts but somehow your rules don't apply to you.
:)
Jimmy Dean
To Wiley... greatest post in this thread!... I enjoyed that thorough explanation.
Sebastian
But neither originality nor beauty of tone can be measured, as they're completely subjective. Hair doesn't count either, same with other aspects such as how many other instruments do they play or whether they sing well or not, or how good they are as composers.
When measuring them as guitarists (not composers), there are certain factors which are subjective (such as beauty or tone), and as such everybody will be biased for their favourite guitarist, song, solo and/or gear setting. Others can be measured, and according to those, you can get a definitive answer.
Or shall we say Slash is as good as singer as Freddie Mercury?
Is Roger Taylor as good on guitar as Brian May?
Is Ringo Star as good as composer as John Lennon?
When measuring them as guitarists (not composers), there are certain factors which are subjective (such as beauty or tone), and as such everybody will be biased for their favourite guitarist, song, solo and/or gear setting. Others can be measured, and according to those, you can get a definitive answer.
Or shall we say Slash is as good as singer as Freddie Mercury?
Is Roger Taylor as good on guitar as Brian May?
Is Ringo Star as good as composer as John Lennon?
Jimmy Dean
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
But neither originality nor beauty of tone can be measured, as they're completely subjective. Hair doesn't count either, same with other aspects such as how many other instruments do they play or whether they sing well or not, or how good they are as composers.
[/QUOTE]
I think he was kidding on the "hair" bit... since they both happen to have long curly hair... lol
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
But neither originality nor beauty of tone can be measured, as they're completely subjective. Hair doesn't count either, same with other aspects such as how many other instruments do they play or whether they sing well or not, or how good they are as composers.
[/QUOTE]
I think he was kidding on the "hair" bit... since they both happen to have long curly hair... lol