dylan sucks!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Kinda makes no sense to ask for unbiased opinions on a Queen fansite.[/QUOTE]
Haha, I know what you mean. There are a few
musically intelligent people here who participate in these discussions though
@Sir GH-Thanks for the response :)
@Matias- Poor you man, You got nothing better to do then bash Dylan. Just let it go man, why cause conflict, you know what I mean? On a different note,honestly try listening to Pet Sounds, it will give you a whole different meaning on the word harmony :) Its quite easy to see how the Beach Boys were the kings of harmony in '66. cheers.
Haha, I know what you mean. There are a few
musically intelligent people here who participate in these discussions though
@Sir GH-Thanks for the response :)
@Matias- Poor you man, You got nothing better to do then bash Dylan. Just let it go man, why cause conflict, you know what I mean? On a different note,honestly try listening to Pet Sounds, it will give you a whole different meaning on the word harmony :) Its quite easy to see how the Beach Boys were the kings of harmony in '66. cheers.
BUT GIMME A FUCKING EXAMPLE, YOU FUCKING COCKSUCKER!!!!!!!!
Complicated music theory does not make good music. Pop-iness does not make bad music. Any music that appeals to anyone is good music, but just not good to everyone. It's subjective, guys! Stop making excuses for your opinions!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Complicated music theory does not make good music. Pop-iness does not make bad music. Any music that appeals to anyone is good music, but just not good to everyone. It's subjective, guys! Stop making excuses for your opinions![/QUOTE]
Totally agree.
Totally agree.
I don't see how anyone can attempt to take Matias seriously ever again.
Personally, I love both albums but for very different reasons. If you were to compare, say, Blood On The Tracks with The Who By Numbers, then it would spark interesting debate because of the personal natures of each album; however, you can't really compare two albums that are so different as Blood On The Tracks and ANATO.
Personally, I love both albums but for very different reasons. If you were to compare, say, Blood On The Tracks with The Who By Numbers, then it would spark interesting debate because of the personal natures of each album; however, you can't really compare two albums that are so different as Blood On The Tracks and ANATO.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Complicated music theory does not make good music. Pop-iness does not make bad music. Any music that appeals to anyone is good music, but just not good to everyone. It's subjective, guys! Stop making excuses for your opinions![/QUOTE]
And you call yourself "music man"
SHAME ON YOU
To Lester: SHUT THE FUCK UP
And you call yourself "music man"
SHAME ON YOU
To Lester: SHUT THE FUCK UP
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]M a t i a s M a y<h6><i>QZ's Rainmaker wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Complicated music theory does not make good music. Pop-iness does not make bad music. Any music that appeals to anyone is good music, but just not good to everyone. It's subjective, guys! Stop making excuses for your opinions![/QUOTE]
And you call yourself "music man"
SHAME ON YOU
To Lester: SHUT THE FUCK UP[/QUOTE]
Haha, Matias, trust me, I've spent many of my years researching and learning various harmonies, arrangements, scales, chords, inversions, and modulations through my instrument of choice - the guitar.
But through all of this education and application, I have had an epiphany. Where do all these scales and harmonies come from? Did somebody arbitrarily decide upon them? No! These are formulas - no, these are LOOSE GUIDELINES that have been discovered over the years because they SOUND GOOD! Consider the most basic major scale. To the layman it just looks like a random series of notes. However, the specific intervals are such that have been found to sound naturally good to people in general, thus its widespread appeal. Certain people like different scales and such because it APPEALS to them! Not because their music theory instructor told them, "only these scales sound good."
This is the root of all music. This is why we have music, and this is why we love it so much. Because we enjoy it. You can explain away with all the music theory you want (and trust me, we "Music Men" certainly can), but at the very heart of it, we know what we like, and what sounds good, no matter why or how.
Those into music theory often talk about spending their first years "learning all the rules," and then the rest of their lives "learning how to break them." Theory and structure do not prove equivalent to enjoyability.
And you call yourself "music man"
SHAME ON YOU
To Lester: SHUT THE FUCK UP[/QUOTE]
Haha, Matias, trust me, I've spent many of my years researching and learning various harmonies, arrangements, scales, chords, inversions, and modulations through my instrument of choice - the guitar.
But through all of this education and application, I have had an epiphany. Where do all these scales and harmonies come from? Did somebody arbitrarily decide upon them? No! These are formulas - no, these are LOOSE GUIDELINES that have been discovered over the years because they SOUND GOOD! Consider the most basic major scale. To the layman it just looks like a random series of notes. However, the specific intervals are such that have been found to sound naturally good to people in general, thus its widespread appeal. Certain people like different scales and such because it APPEALS to them! Not because their music theory instructor told them, "only these scales sound good."
This is the root of all music. This is why we have music, and this is why we love it so much. Because we enjoy it. You can explain away with all the music theory you want (and trust me, we "Music Men" certainly can), but at the very heart of it, we know what we like, and what sounds good, no matter why or how.
Those into music theory often talk about spending their first years "learning all the rules," and then the rest of their lives "learning how to break them." Theory and structure do not prove equivalent to enjoyability.
I know that it doesn't matter how complex is something, but this guy is telling that Dylan's music is harmonically better than Queen's. And, realizing that he probably doesn't even know what a I-IV-V is... I'm afraid that someone might actually believe what he says.
But you know that music is not subjetive!! There are lots of things that helps you to tell whether something is good or bad. No matter if it's an instrument, a singer or a whole song.
Some rules can't be "broken."
After all, all the harmony stuff are not rules (they're not... now; we both know that some of them used to be), harmony is the main tool to make a song. You can make whatever you want with harmony (trying to make sense, of course).
But things such as rhythm, intonation, and things like that... you just can't say that no matter what, it's always music and it's good if someone likes it, that's just crazy. You're destroying years and years of study and effort, and elaboration and work.
If so, music would be the same... then The Ramones would equal Mozart, and no matter what, I'm never gonna say or think something like that (and if I do, KILL ME).
I believe that the most important thing when making music, is how much you work on your song. The song itself is just the 50% of the final thing... the other 50% is the work you put on it.
Dylan's music has always been a 3 or 4 chords thing... and I'm not saying that it's bad because of that, but they're ALWAYS 3 or 4 chords!!! He does that because he doesn't have the brains to do something better!!!
And there's not even a little work on those songs, they're recorded in one day and that's how those albums are made...
And ANATO with ADATR are my favourite albums ever, because I always thought that they're above everything (or almost everything) ever done in rock history. And as I grow up and learn new things, I'm just realizing how right I am!!
I can't find nothing but a band of geniouses there. All the work, all the effort, the creativity and how they planned EVERYTHING to make them sound flawless and perfect... everything's done so carefully, and that's the thing I admire the most.
And I'm not gonna allow some idiot to say that some abum with crappy songs recorded in 15 minutes is better than one of the very best masterpieces ever.
But you know that music is not subjetive!! There are lots of things that helps you to tell whether something is good or bad. No matter if it's an instrument, a singer or a whole song.
Some rules can't be "broken."
After all, all the harmony stuff are not rules (they're not... now; we both know that some of them used to be), harmony is the main tool to make a song. You can make whatever you want with harmony (trying to make sense, of course).
But things such as rhythm, intonation, and things like that... you just can't say that no matter what, it's always music and it's good if someone likes it, that's just crazy. You're destroying years and years of study and effort, and elaboration and work.
If so, music would be the same... then The Ramones would equal Mozart, and no matter what, I'm never gonna say or think something like that (and if I do, KILL ME).
I believe that the most important thing when making music, is how much you work on your song. The song itself is just the 50% of the final thing... the other 50% is the work you put on it.
Dylan's music has always been a 3 or 4 chords thing... and I'm not saying that it's bad because of that, but they're ALWAYS 3 or 4 chords!!! He does that because he doesn't have the brains to do something better!!!
And there's not even a little work on those songs, they're recorded in one day and that's how those albums are made...
And ANATO with ADATR are my favourite albums ever, because I always thought that they're above everything (or almost everything) ever done in rock history. And as I grow up and learn new things, I'm just realizing how right I am!!
I can't find nothing but a band of geniouses there. All the work, all the effort, the creativity and how they planned EVERYTHING to make them sound flawless and perfect... everything's done so carefully, and that's the thing I admire the most.
And I'm not gonna allow some idiot to say that some abum with crappy songs recorded in 15 minutes is better than one of the very best masterpieces ever.
Yeah, but not everything that's complex is enjoyable. Let's take a look at this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l31qrUl0s2w
What wins? This complex song, or, for example, the simple Last Horizon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l31qrUl0s2w
What wins? This complex song, or, for example, the simple Last Horizon?
Oh, and about Bob Dylan, I really don't listen that much to him, but his poetry is good, however, I'll take Jim Morison for instance :P
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]M a t i a s M a y<h6><i>QZ's Rainmaker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I know that it doesn't matter how complex is something, but this guy is telling that Dylan's music is harmonically better than Queen's. And, realizing that he probably doesn't even know what a I-IV-V is... I'm afraid that someone might actually believe what he says.
But you know that music is not subjetive!! There are lots of things that helps you to tell whether something is good or bad. No matter if it's an instrument, a singer or a whole song.
Some rules can't be "broken."
After all, all the harmony stuff are not rules (they're not... now; we both know that some of them used to be), harmony is the main tool to make a song. You can make whatever you want with harmony (trying to make sense, of course).
But things such as rhythm, intonation, and things like that... you just can't say that no matter what, it's always music and it's good if someone likes it, that's just crazy. You're destroying years and years of study and effort, and elaboration and work.
If so, music would be the same... then The Ramones would equal Mozart, and no matter what, I'm never gonna say or think something like that (and if I do, KILL ME).
I believe that the most important thing when making music, is how much you work on your song. The song itself is just the 50% of the final thing... the other 50% is the work you put on it.
Dylan's music has always been a 3 or 4 chords thing... and I'm not saying that it's bad because of that, but they're ALWAYS 3 or 4 chords!!! He does that because he doesn't have the brains to do something better!!!
And there's not even a little work on those songs, they're recorded in one day and that's how those albums are made...
And ANATO with ADATR are my favourite albums ever, because I always thought that they're above everything (or almost everything) ever done in rock history. And as I grow up and learn new things, I'm just realizing how right I am!!
I can't find nothing but a band of geniouses there. All the work, all the effort, the creativity and how they planned EVERYTHING to make them sound flawless and perfect... everything's done so carefully, and that's the thing I admire the most.
And I'm not gonna allow some idiot to say that some abum with crappy songs recorded in 15 minutes is better than one of the very best masterpieces ever.[/QUOTE]
Think what you want man. Opinions are opinions.
@MusicMan-Great points :D
But you know that music is not subjetive!! There are lots of things that helps you to tell whether something is good or bad. No matter if it's an instrument, a singer or a whole song.
Some rules can't be "broken."
After all, all the harmony stuff are not rules (they're not... now; we both know that some of them used to be), harmony is the main tool to make a song. You can make whatever you want with harmony (trying to make sense, of course).
But things such as rhythm, intonation, and things like that... you just can't say that no matter what, it's always music and it's good if someone likes it, that's just crazy. You're destroying years and years of study and effort, and elaboration and work.
If so, music would be the same... then The Ramones would equal Mozart, and no matter what, I'm never gonna say or think something like that (and if I do, KILL ME).
I believe that the most important thing when making music, is how much you work on your song. The song itself is just the 50% of the final thing... the other 50% is the work you put on it.
Dylan's music has always been a 3 or 4 chords thing... and I'm not saying that it's bad because of that, but they're ALWAYS 3 or 4 chords!!! He does that because he doesn't have the brains to do something better!!!
And there's not even a little work on those songs, they're recorded in one day and that's how those albums are made...
And ANATO with ADATR are my favourite albums ever, because I always thought that they're above everything (or almost everything) ever done in rock history. And as I grow up and learn new things, I'm just realizing how right I am!!
I can't find nothing but a band of geniouses there. All the work, all the effort, the creativity and how they planned EVERYTHING to make them sound flawless and perfect... everything's done so carefully, and that's the thing I admire the most.
And I'm not gonna allow some idiot to say that some abum with crappy songs recorded in 15 minutes is better than one of the very best masterpieces ever.[/QUOTE]
Think what you want man. Opinions are opinions.
@MusicMan-Great points :D
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lester Burnham wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't see how anyone can attempt to take Matias seriously ever again.
Personally, I love both albums but for very different reasons. If you were to compare, say, Blood On The Tracks with The Who By Numbers, then it would spark interesting debate because of the personal natures of each album; however, you can't really compare two albums that are so different as Blood On The Tracks and ANATO.[/QUOTE]
People took him serious before? Great point, I only picked these two albums, because they are both famous and from the same time period :) It would have been nicer to pick the "Who By Numbers" though! Next time for sure :D
Personally, I love both albums but for very different reasons. If you were to compare, say, Blood On The Tracks with The Who By Numbers, then it would spark interesting debate because of the personal natures of each album; however, you can't really compare two albums that are so different as Blood On The Tracks and ANATO.[/QUOTE]
People took him serious before? Great point, I only picked these two albums, because they are both famous and from the same time period :) It would have been nicer to pick the "Who By Numbers" though! Next time for sure :D
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]M a t i a s M a y<h6><i>QZ's Rainmaker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I know that it doesn't matter how complex is something, but this guy is telling that Dylan's music is harmonically better than Queen's. And, realizing that he probably doesn't even know what a I-IV-V is... I'm afraid that someone might actually believe what he says.
But you know that music is not subjetive!! There are lots of things that helps you to tell whether something is good or bad. No matter if it's an instrument, a singer or a whole song.
Some rules can't be "broken."
After all, all the harmony stuff are not rules (they're not... now; we both know that some of them used to be), harmony is the main tool to make a song. You can make whatever you want with harmony (trying to make sense, of course).
But things such as rhythm, intonation, and things like that... you just can't say that no matter what, it's always music and it's good if someone likes it, that's just crazy. You're destroying years and years of study and effort, and elaboration and work.
If so, music would be the same... then The Ramones would equal Mozart, and no matter what, I'm never gonna say or think something like that (and if I do, KILL ME).
I believe that the most important thing when making music, is how much you work on your song. The song itself is just the 50% of the final thing... the other 50% is the work you put on it.
Dylan's music has always been a 3 or 4 chords thing... and I'm not saying that it's bad because of that, but they're ALWAYS 3 or 4 chords!!! He does that because he doesn't have the brains to do something better!!!
And there's not even a little work on those songs, they're recorded in one day and that's how those albums are made...
And ANATO with ADATR are my favourite albums ever, because I always thought that they're above everything (or almost everything) ever done in rock history. And as I grow up and learn new things, I'm just realizing how right I am!!
I can't find nothing but a band of geniouses there. All the work, all the effort, the creativity and how they planned EVERYTHING to make them sound flawless and perfect... everything's done so carefully, and that's the thing I admire the most.
And I'm not gonna allow some idiot to say that some abum with crappy songs recorded in 15 minutes is better than one of the very best masterpieces ever.[/QUOTE]
You are just proving just how subjective music is with this post! You must certainly realize that not everyone uses these criteria as a basis of what they think is good music or not! Your opinions are well taken, though, and I understand why you like what you do. However, one should be more open minded and realize that not everyone thinks that way.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Onikage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yeah, but not everything that's complex is enjoyable. Let's take a look at this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l31qrUl0s2w
What wins? This complex song, or, for example, the simple Last Horizon?[/QUOTE]
See, nothing wins. It just depends what you're looking for. If technical ability is what you cherish, you wouldn't even look at Last Horizon. However, this guy uses a lot of sweep picking, which is almost like a parlor trick to seem faster than you really are. My favorite "shredder" will always be Paul Gilbert...and I've explained why many times before - the guy's not only one of the most technically superior guitarists around, but he also has one of the best ears for harmony and melody. He doesn't simply use shredding as a means of itself...he uses it as a tool to the greater music that he creates.
But you know that music is not subjetive!! There are lots of things that helps you to tell whether something is good or bad. No matter if it's an instrument, a singer or a whole song.
Some rules can't be "broken."
After all, all the harmony stuff are not rules (they're not... now; we both know that some of them used to be), harmony is the main tool to make a song. You can make whatever you want with harmony (trying to make sense, of course).
But things such as rhythm, intonation, and things like that... you just can't say that no matter what, it's always music and it's good if someone likes it, that's just crazy. You're destroying years and years of study and effort, and elaboration and work.
If so, music would be the same... then The Ramones would equal Mozart, and no matter what, I'm never gonna say or think something like that (and if I do, KILL ME).
I believe that the most important thing when making music, is how much you work on your song. The song itself is just the 50% of the final thing... the other 50% is the work you put on it.
Dylan's music has always been a 3 or 4 chords thing... and I'm not saying that it's bad because of that, but they're ALWAYS 3 or 4 chords!!! He does that because he doesn't have the brains to do something better!!!
And there's not even a little work on those songs, they're recorded in one day and that's how those albums are made...
And ANATO with ADATR are my favourite albums ever, because I always thought that they're above everything (or almost everything) ever done in rock history. And as I grow up and learn new things, I'm just realizing how right I am!!
I can't find nothing but a band of geniouses there. All the work, all the effort, the creativity and how they planned EVERYTHING to make them sound flawless and perfect... everything's done so carefully, and that's the thing I admire the most.
And I'm not gonna allow some idiot to say that some abum with crappy songs recorded in 15 minutes is better than one of the very best masterpieces ever.[/QUOTE]
You are just proving just how subjective music is with this post! You must certainly realize that not everyone uses these criteria as a basis of what they think is good music or not! Your opinions are well taken, though, and I understand why you like what you do. However, one should be more open minded and realize that not everyone thinks that way.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Onikage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yeah, but not everything that's complex is enjoyable. Let's take a look at this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l31qrUl0s2w
What wins? This complex song, or, for example, the simple Last Horizon?[/QUOTE]
See, nothing wins. It just depends what you're looking for. If technical ability is what you cherish, you wouldn't even look at Last Horizon. However, this guy uses a lot of sweep picking, which is almost like a parlor trick to seem faster than you really are. My favorite "shredder" will always be Paul Gilbert...and I've explained why many times before - the guy's not only one of the most technically superior guitarists around, but he also has one of the best ears for harmony and melody. He doesn't simply use shredding as a means of itself...he uses it as a tool to the greater music that he creates.
^---Truly is the Music Man, Thank you for your insight. I hope Matias May can learn how to cool down his anger and I suppose "passion" now. This topic was ment as a harmless, debate topic. I suppose its best to let it die now