Matt Z., what's the deal with your signature?[/QUOTE]
Can't confirm, But I DO miss Microwave's ass-a'holish-ness
One can assume s/he's either dead or incarcerated
matt z · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
I see a lot of people here really hate folk music...well, I'm not one of them. It's not the best folk music I've ever heard, but it's well-played, they're enjoying themselves and, most importantly IMHO, they're taking some old songs and some new songs, and the old songs get re-invented. I appreciate that. Queen, or BM/RT+AL aren't re-inventing any songs, they're just playing them the way they always played them, just with some new guy on vocals. That's boring to me.[/QUOTE]
At least where I come from, anyone over the age of 25 grew up in a time when musical tastes were very fragmented - in the 70s you were either a Kiss fan or a Carole King fan, and there wasn't much gray area. So it's not at all unusual that people who like rock music don't like folk or classical/baroque/renaissance/medieval music.
Furthermore, there are people who are into classical or jazz who completely reject every other form of music. People just get rigid in their tastes.
And as much as I agree with you about reinterpreting old songs in a new way (which is, essentially, the modus operandi of folk music), I'd say 98% of people who go to a rock concert want to hear a song exactly as they remember it. Even when Elton changes the phrasing of Your Song a bit, some fans lose their minds. "It's my song, Elton, not yours!" Ha.. !
But these days, a growing portion of kids have such a wide variety of musical tastes. The question of "what kind of music are you into?" just usually doesn't have a quick answer anymore. The digital realm has made music so accessible.[/QUOTE]
You must be Canadian
brENsKi · Member since
fwiw - i'd happily pay good money to watch Ritchie Blackmore use his 12-string lute to beat Gillan senseless.
winterspelt · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
fwiw - i'd happily pay good money to watch Ritchie Blackmore use his 12-string lute to beat Gillan senseless.[/QUOTE]
What a good idea!
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]matt z wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
I see a lot of people here really hate folk music...well, I'm not one of them. It's not the best folk music I've ever heard, but it's well-played, they're enjoying themselves and, most importantly IMHO, they're taking some old songs and some new songs, and the old songs get re-invented. I appreciate that. Queen, or BM/RT+AL aren't re-inventing any songs, they're just playing them the way they always played them, just with some new guy on vocals. That's boring to me.[/QUOTE]
At least where I come from, anyone over the age of 25 grew up in a time when musical tastes were very fragmented - in the 70s you were either a Kiss fan or a Carole King fan, and there wasn't much gray area. So it's not at all unusual that people who like rock music don't like folk or classical/baroque/renaissance/medieval music.
Furthermore, there are people who are into classical or jazz who completely reject every other form of music. People just get rigid in their tastes.
And as much as I agree with you about reinterpreting old songs in a new way (which is, essentially, the modus operandi of folk music), I'd say 98% of people who go to a rock concert want to hear a song exactly as they remember it. Even when Elton changes the phrasing of Your Song a bit, some fans lose their minds. "It's my song, Elton, not yours!" Ha.. !
But these days, a growing portion of kids have such a wide variety of musical tastes. The question of "what kind of music are you into?" just usually doesn't have a quick answer anymore. The digital realm has made music so accessible.[/QUOTE]
You must be Canadian[/QUOTE]
How articulate of you. What's that supposed to mean?
The King Of Rhye · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
And as much as I agree with you about reinterpreting old songs in a new way (which is, essentially, the modus operandi of folk music), .[/QUOTE]
Thats almost the definition of jazz.............and quite a lot of rock..........
The King Of Rhye · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]matt z wrote:[/b]
]
You must be Canadian[/QUOTE]
And what the heck would be wrong with that?? (I'm like sorta part Canadian here......lol)
WKMahlerMahlers.Com · Member since
Seems like the discussion is going nowhere so allow me to interject.
Blackmore Ritchie is best known for "Smoke On The Water", "Child In Time", 'Woman From Tokyo", "Highway Star" and a few choice others from his days with Deep Purple. Good melodic guitar jamming songs to listen to but really, only "Black Night" seems to fit his current employment as side accompaniment to star wife / singer / songwriter Candice Night. Without Candice, Ritchie would be strumming alone, no life, no fun, no sound, just rehashing DP and other fav. Rainbow.
www.blackmoresnight.com "Dancer And The Moon" along with "Shadow Of The Moon", "Ghost Of A Rose" & "Fires At Midnight" show where Blackmore has conjured up inspiring entertaining radio band jam friendly songs.
brENsKi · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]WKMahlerMahlers.Com wrote:[/b]
Seems like the discussion is going nowhere so allow me to interject.
Without Candice, Ritchie would be strumming alone, no life, no fun, no sound, just rehashing DP and other fav. Rainbow.[/QUOTE]
i don't object to the BK stuff in any way, but your comment implies that "playing his old stuff" as a bad thing. i wish to fuck i had the ability to strum some of his old songs.
sorry but that's the most banal thing you've said....and by your own standards that's saying loads.
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The King Of Rhye wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
And as much as I agree with you about reinterpreting old songs in a new way (which is, essentially, the modus operandi of folk music), .[/QUOTE]
Thats almost the definition of jazz.............and quite a lot of rock..........
[/QUOTE]
Folk, jazz and to some extent blues, yes. Rock - a more nuanced story. 1950s rock 'n roll didn't do anything of the sort, songs were deliberately written to be exactly repeatable the way they were put on singles. When, in the course of the 1960s, longer songs / songs performed in an extended version live became fashionable and rock 'n roll musicians started looking beyond the neighboring genres of blues and rhythm&blues and into the domains of folk, jazz, classical and soul (amongst others), some kinds of rock music began incorporating the traits mentioned above. However, other branches of rock categorically denounced such things (in the same way that some rock 'n roll purists denounced all chords and chord extensions except primary harmonies and dominant 7th chords). Basically, the 1960s, especially the latter part of that decade, led to the complete disintegration of genres. It is very difficult for people living now to understand this, but before that time, music that didn't fit the characteristics of a certain genre tightly wasn't considered an interesting cross-over, open-minded or refreshing, but downright wrong or badly written.
