Hmmm...me don't likey too much, but not bad. That MIGHT be a compliment since I consider U2 to be "not bad". What else...? Yeah, good luck for the future I guess, there's always a chance to improve.
From Sweden, huh? I've lived there for 4-5 years, can speak the language :)...
Thread
Posts in chronological order
nigger nigger nigger!
OMG...Tresure Moment???
*squeals like a teenager at a 1964 Beatles gig*
"Second" best band??
C'mon!
You guys are selling yourselves short.
Numero uno baby!
*squeals like a teenager at a 1964 Beatles gig*
"Second" best band??
C'mon!
You guys are selling yourselves short.
Numero uno baby!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]you obviously dont know anything about music and songwriting thomas, its a simple fact[/QUOTE]
Luckily, I can still sleep at nights knowing that the people who know what they are talking about don't agree.
Luckily, I can still sleep at nights knowing that the people who know what they are talking about don't agree.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Perhaps YOU just don't understand music? Has that thought crossed your mind? Of course not. That's because your ego is cutting off the oxygen that *should* go to your brain.
There are few things in this world I know *more* about than music. I've spent half my life learning all I can about it, and am still working on it. I have heard more music and learned from more musicians than I have had meals.[/QUOTE]
You can study music all your life , doesnt mean you understand music. A real musician is a musician by heart not by studies.
You study it cause you aint a musician but most likely want to be.
For you to call it simple, i would like you to come up with something more complex.
There are few things in this world I know *more* about than music. I've spent half my life learning all I can about it, and am still working on it. I have heard more music and learned from more musicians than I have had meals.[/QUOTE]
You can study music all your life , doesnt mean you understand music. A real musician is a musician by heart not by studies.
You study it cause you aint a musician but most likely want to be.
For you to call it simple, i would like you to come up with something more complex.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mercury SingerOfLife wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Perhaps YOU just don't understand music? Has that thought crossed your mind? Of course not. That's because your ego is cutting off the oxygen that *should* go to your brain.
There are few things in this world I know *more* about than music. I've spent half my life learning all I can about it, and am still working on it. I have heard more music and learned from more musicians than I have had meals.[/QUOTE]
You can study music all your life , doesnt mean you understand music. A real musician is a musician by heart not by studies.
You study it cause you aint a musician but most likely want to be.
For you to call it simple, i would like you to come up with something more complex.[/QUOTE]
I did. I named you some already. In fact, the song I'm currently working on is more complex already. And that does not mean it is a very difficult song by a long run!
By all means, go ahead playing your music, just deflate your ego. You are not doing something extremely complex, nor are you proficient at what you DO do yet. There is no shame in playing simple stuff (hell, John Lee Hooker stuck with the three-chord-blues in only two keys for most of his life, but he was a genius!), but you have to be really good at what you DO work on.
My advise to you: learn something about counterpoint and work on your arrangements.
There are few things in this world I know *more* about than music. I've spent half my life learning all I can about it, and am still working on it. I have heard more music and learned from more musicians than I have had meals.[/QUOTE]
You can study music all your life , doesnt mean you understand music. A real musician is a musician by heart not by studies.
You study it cause you aint a musician but most likely want to be.
For you to call it simple, i would like you to come up with something more complex.[/QUOTE]
I did. I named you some already. In fact, the song I'm currently working on is more complex already. And that does not mean it is a very difficult song by a long run!
By all means, go ahead playing your music, just deflate your ego. You are not doing something extremely complex, nor are you proficient at what you DO do yet. There is no shame in playing simple stuff (hell, John Lee Hooker stuck with the three-chord-blues in only two keys for most of his life, but he was a genius!), but you have to be really good at what you DO work on.
My advise to you: learn something about counterpoint and work on your arrangements.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]i think the beatles are crap in comparision to Queen. Queen is FAAAAAR more talented, Queen wrote songs in almost every genre while the beatles wrote songs in the same style all the time, not to mention Queen has THE best singer/frontman/musician of all time.[/QUOTE]
The beatles are crap? Okay you're rearded. I was gonna leave my opinion of your band to myself but that statement forced my hand. First of all the music nearly put me to sleep. It' soooooooo dull. NOthing creative about it nor is their anything that stands out. It's a piece of shit compared to Queen or the beatles. Queen influenced? Only if Queen were mindess rtards with synth in front of them and didn't know how to rock. Luckily Queen knew how to oc and yourmusic doesnt rock. It sounds lik pretentious new age crap, wrote by uncreatie types. Just my opinion.
By the way the Beatles covered a vaiety of styles, Listen to You Never Give Me Your Nmber or Maxwells Silver Hammer, or Oh Darling, I want you.... You should listen to abbey Road I guessbecaus thats althe songs I'm naming. What really sounded like the title track to Sgt. Pepper a the time|? Not much. The drumming on Strawerrie Fields is amazig, Abbey Road is mind Boggling at how amazing it is. The Beatles wee the best. The only way as far as musicianship goes, (musically they were better than Queen) is drumming, Ringo was amuch better drum compser than Rogr. Rogrs drumming is so boring for the most par. He migt've been physically more talented but Rngos mind was far superior. Maybe if you somewhat really "got" (undrstood) te Beatles o Queen for that matter your music would be better.
The beatles are crap? Okay you're rearded. I was gonna leave my opinion of your band to myself but that statement forced my hand. First of all the music nearly put me to sleep. It' soooooooo dull. NOthing creative about it nor is their anything that stands out. It's a piece of shit compared to Queen or the beatles. Queen influenced? Only if Queen were mindess rtards with synth in front of them and didn't know how to rock. Luckily Queen knew how to oc and yourmusic doesnt rock. It sounds lik pretentious new age crap, wrote by uncreatie types. Just my opinion.
By the way the Beatles covered a vaiety of styles, Listen to You Never Give Me Your Nmber or Maxwells Silver Hammer, or Oh Darling, I want you.... You should listen to abbey Road I guessbecaus thats althe songs I'm naming. What really sounded like the title track to Sgt. Pepper a the time|? Not much. The drumming on Strawerrie Fields is amazig, Abbey Road is mind Boggling at how amazing it is. The Beatles wee the best. The only way as far as musicianship goes, (musically they were better than Queen) is drumming, Ringo was amuch better drum compser than Rogr. Rogrs drumming is so boring for the most par. He migt've been physically more talented but Rngos mind was far superior. Maybe if you somewhat really "got" (undrstood) te Beatles o Queen for that matter your music would be better.
END END END!!! NOW PLEASE.
These guys have nothing else to do other than argue that they are the next best thing.
Please dont carry this on, this same topic ran for pages and pages last time they posted thier rubbish band.
I beg you, for the love of god!!!!
These guys have nothing else to do other than argue that they are the next best thing.
Please dont carry this on, this same topic ran for pages and pages last time they posted thier rubbish band.
I beg you, for the love of god!!!!
How can someone like the beatles, wanna talk about DULL, thats beatles for you.
THE DULLEST most unenergic music ever.
THE DULLEST most unenergic music ever.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kdj2hot wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]i think the beatles are crap in comparision to Queen. Queen is FAAAAAR more talented, Queen wrote songs in almost every genre while the beatles wrote songs in the same style all the time, not to mention Queen has THE best singer/frontman/musician of all time.[/QUOTE]
The beatles are crap? Okay you're rearded. I was gonna leave my opinion of your band to myself but that statement forced my hand. First of all the music nearly put me to sleep. It' soooooooo dull. NOthing creative about it nor is their anything that stands out. It's a piece of shit compared to Queen or the beatles. Queen influenced? Only if Queen were mindess rtards with synth in front of them and didn't know how to rock. Luckily Queen knew how to oc and yourmusic doesnt rock. It sounds lik pretentious new age crap, wrote by uncreatie types. Just my opinion.
By the way the Beatles covered a vaiety of styles, Listen to You Never Give Me Your Nmber or Maxwells Silver Hammer, or Oh Darling, I want you.... You should listen to abbey Road I guessbecaus thats althe songs I'm naming. What really sounded like the title track to Sgt. Pepper a the time|? Not much. The drumming on Strawerrie Fields is amazig, Abbey Road is mind Boggling at how amazing it is. The Beatles wee the best. The only way as far as musicianship goes, (musically they were better than Queen) is drumming, Ringo was amuch better drum compser than Rogr. Rogrs drumming is so boring for the most par. He migt've been physically more talented but Rngos mind was far superior. Maybe if you somewhat really "got" (undrstood) te Beatles o Queen for that matter your music would be better.[/QUOTE]
LOL! Some of the funniest typos ever...
like "you're rearded" and "The Beatles wee the best"
Anyway, I agree. Anyone who says The Beatles didn't explore different musical styles is either deaf, dumb or has never listened to them. In any case, it's hard to take him seriously as a musician, when he says stupid things like that about the Beatles.
The beatles are crap? Okay you're rearded. I was gonna leave my opinion of your band to myself but that statement forced my hand. First of all the music nearly put me to sleep. It' soooooooo dull. NOthing creative about it nor is their anything that stands out. It's a piece of shit compared to Queen or the beatles. Queen influenced? Only if Queen were mindess rtards with synth in front of them and didn't know how to rock. Luckily Queen knew how to oc and yourmusic doesnt rock. It sounds lik pretentious new age crap, wrote by uncreatie types. Just my opinion.
By the way the Beatles covered a vaiety of styles, Listen to You Never Give Me Your Nmber or Maxwells Silver Hammer, or Oh Darling, I want you.... You should listen to abbey Road I guessbecaus thats althe songs I'm naming. What really sounded like the title track to Sgt. Pepper a the time|? Not much. The drumming on Strawerrie Fields is amazig, Abbey Road is mind Boggling at how amazing it is. The Beatles wee the best. The only way as far as musicianship goes, (musically they were better than Queen) is drumming, Ringo was amuch better drum compser than Rogr. Rogrs drumming is so boring for the most par. He migt've been physically more talented but Rngos mind was far superior. Maybe if you somewhat really "got" (undrstood) te Beatles o Queen for that matter your music would be better.[/QUOTE]
LOL! Some of the funniest typos ever...
like "you're rearded" and "The Beatles wee the best"
Anyway, I agree. Anyone who says The Beatles didn't explore different musical styles is either deaf, dumb or has never listened to them. In any case, it's hard to take him seriously as a musician, when he says stupid things like that about the Beatles.
Well the Beatles is the most overrated band in the history of music.
They suck monkey balls compared to queen and TM
They suck monkey balls compared to queen and TM
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]i think the beatles are crap in comparision to Queen. Queen is FAAAAAR more talented, Queen wrote songs in almost every genre while the beatles wrote songs in the same style all the time, not to mention Queen has THE best singer/frontman/musician of all time.[/QUOTE]
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Hey, thanks for outing yourself for the moronic, no-talent twit that you are so that it spared all of us from listening to your moronic, no-talent music. The Beatles not only changed music, they changed the world. If you're lucky, you might be able to aspire to changing your diaper, dipshit.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Hey, thanks for outing yourself for the moronic, no-talent twit that you are so that it spared all of us from listening to your moronic, no-talent music. The Beatles not only changed music, they changed the world. If you're lucky, you might be able to aspire to changing your diaper, dipshit.
Oh yeah, and having made the mistake of listening to your music, I'd recommend that you find a piano player that has progressed beyond Introduction to Keyboards Made Easy if you want to get noticed for something other than a complete lack of talent.
the music is too much for your simple minds im afraid :)
nigger nigger nigger!