Login   Sign Up 



 




This 155 message thread spans 11 pages:  < <   1   2   3   4   5   6  7  8   9   10   11  > >  
  • Re: WW v Dan Brown
    by Account Closed at 15:56 on 15 November 2006
    Griff, I don't think one must have


    studied composition and arrangements and songwriting


    to be able to decide if an album is technically great.

    Just as one doesn't have to complete a creative writing master's degree to decide that DVC is technically shit.
  • Re: WW v Dan Brown
    by Davy Skyflyer at 15:58 on 15 November 2006
    Griff -

    Yeah I think I know a little about music, thanks. I'm talking about the lyrics, and the power of the drumming, and the great bass hooks written by Matlock. It changed everything, and Steve Jones, having played the bass on the album, after Matlock left, and all the guitar parts, is one of the greatest rock n roll guitar players of all time. That's what I think, but you obviously know so much more than me, so I probably wrong in my simpleton ways.

    I feel the fact that Holidays in The Sun still sounds as fresh today as it did thirty years ago says a hell of a lot. I think the combination of rock n roll with a new, ferocious, sound was a stroke of genius, and Steve Jones' refusal to play minor chords was technically a cornerstone of punk, and a sound that was copied hundreds of times over. He even played the bass in major chords, which as a musician you'll know isn't exactly the norm, and that gave "Never Mind..." it's unique sound. It had never been done before, not with the songs, attitude and lyrics to back it up. That's why they were so undeniably good and changed so many people's lives.

    And Lydon was only 20 when he wrote stuff that he was pilloried for, that is now common place today, as in the notion that the Royal Family are an over paid remains of a nasty Imperial culture. And that's a simple example, but as much as I'd love to chat all night, I gotta go and do some things. But his lyrics in Holidays in the Sun, Bodies, Liar, are all fantastic social commentary of the time. And as you may know, his time in PiL afterwards shows he is a pioneer in pushing new influences into his music.

    Hope that explains my view on the Pistols a little bit though.

    Don't quite see what it has to do with why I hate Dan Brown's writng style, but still.

    Zoot - well I'm not being Elitist, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, but I can't explain now, I have to go, and I think what you say is wrong, but then I'm definitely not shooting anyone, so I hope I haven't spoiled your enjoyment of Dan Brown.

    Ta ta.



    <Added>

    And just before I leave, before anyone says "oh wow, he didn't play minor chords", what I mean is he refused to play anything other than major chords, not coz he couldn't, but because he didn't like the sounds that everyone else used. He wanted to be original. Check out the Beatles, Stones, Pink Floyd, whatever, back catalogues and you'll see many variations of major chords, and many minor chords, so at that time, it was a new sound, and its been copied ever since, coz people can learn it quickly, but its a good case of you know the rules to break them. It could work on either side of the argument.

    Sorry.

    And Lisa, so well put. So well put...

    ;)

  • Re: WW v Dan Brown
    by Zooter at 16:03 on 15 November 2006
    What in the name of Dan Brown does
    technically shit
    mean?
  • Re: WW v Dan Brown
    by Account Closed at 16:05 on 15 November 2006
    Griff, I don't think one must have
    studied composition and arrangements and songwriting to be able to decide if an album is technically great.


    Uh-uh. You can talk about the artistic merits of a piece till the cows come home and your view is as valid as the next person.

    But when people use the word "technically" then they are talking about "technique", ie the specific craft of the art in question. It's a term that annoys the hell out of me because it is normally used to assert an authority ("ah, you see, TECHNICALLY something is brilliant") without any explanation being given to back up the claim being made. Usually with the implication "don't argue with me because I know the deep TECHNICAL truth of the matter which you don't."

    So I've called Davy on it. As we would all expect, he has responded magnificently. I will attend to him shortly.


  • Re: WW v Dan Brown
    by Account Closed at 16:10 on 15 November 2006
    Zooter: technically shit, as in technically crap. Something of a sweeping pronouncement admittedly.

    I haven't read DVC but I feel strongly that Davy should be allowed to express his opinion that he finds it to be vacuous drivel.
  • Re: WW v Dan Brown
    by Zooter at 16:15 on 15 November 2006
    Is anyone trying to stop him?
  • Re: WW v Dan Brown
    by Beadle at 16:16 on 15 November 2006
    Blimey, it's dark up here.

    How's the view for everyone else?
  • Re: WW v Dan Brown
    by Zooter at 16:19 on 15 November 2006
    as it did thirty years ago
    -how do you know?
  • Re: WW v Dan Brown
    by Account Closed at 16:23 on 15 November 2006
    It's a term that annoys the hell out of me because it is normally used to assert an authority


    as opposed to:


    I speak as someone who used to work as a musician, who has studied composition and arrangements and songwriting.


    and


    Did they use unusual song structures ? Unexpected or novel harmonies, scales, modes, rhythms or chord sequences ?


    Griff, you might well be a musical expert but many of us aren't and I don't think we should be denied the privilege of using the words 'technique' and 'technical' just because we aren't part of the 'musical elite'.


    Hi Beadle!

    Zooter - I never said anyone was trying to stop Davy voicing his opinion.
  • Re: WW v Dan Brown
    by Account Closed at 16:24 on 15 November 2006
    Yeah I think I know a little about music, thanks. I'm talking about the lyrics, and the power of the drumming, and the great bass hooks written by Matlock.


    Davy, this is all just opinion. If you're going to make a statement of fact, that this album is "technically one of the greatest albums ever made", you're going have to do better than saying "the drumming is powerful" and it has "great bass hooks". You could say that about just about any rock album ever made. Otherwise you're just saying "it's my favourite" which I have no contention with.

    It changed everything, and Steve Jones, having played the bass on the album, after Matlock left, and all the guitar parts, is one of the greatest rock n roll guitar players of all time.


    Ditto. Just opinion. I can get that in the pub, thanks.

    I think the combination of rock n roll with a new, ferocious, sound was a stroke of genius, and Steve Jones' refusal to play minor chords was technically a cornerstone of punk, and a sound that was copied hundreds of times over.
    He even played the bass in major chords, which as a musician you'll know isn't exactly the norm, and that gave "Never Mind..." it's unique sound. It had never been done before


    This is tripe. I don't know what Pistols hagiography you read this in. You play the bass guitar one note at a time. Yeah, I know, some people play chords, in complex musical genres like modern jazz or really heavy rockers like The Who or Led Zep, but Jones didn't. He played root notes and scales and riffs to accompany the chords being played, which as you've noted were major chords. This is not technical brilliance, it's how you play the bass. Bands have been writing songs around purely major chords since time began. Witness Status Quo for example.

    not with the songs, attitude and lyrics to back it up. That's why they were so undeniably good and changed so many people's lives.

    I don't deny that. But that's artistic, not technical, brilliance.

    his lyrics in Holidays in the Sun, Bodies, Liar, are all fantastic social commentary of the time.


    Lie lie lie lie liar you lie lie lie lie
    I think you're funny you're funny ha ha
    I don't need it don't need your blah blah
    Should've realised I know what you are
    You're in suspension you're in suspension
    You're in suspension you're a liar
    You're a liar you're a liar
    Lie lie


    Er. Yeah, right.

  • Re: WW v Dan Brown
    by Zooter at 16:29 on 15 November 2006
    Zooter - I never said anyone was trying to stop Davy voicing his opinion
    .Ooh clever!
  • Re: WW v Dan Brown
    by Account Closed at 16:30 on 15 November 2006
    Zooter - not particularly clever. Just fact.
  • Re: WW v Dan Brown
    by Zooter at 16:32 on 15 November 2006
    That's what I meant. Need a sarcasm smiley! How about +=-
  • Re: WW v Dan Brown
    by Account Closed at 16:35 on 15 November 2006
    How about? :}



    <Added>

    Actually, it looks a bit demented.
  • Re: WW v Dan Brown
    by Zooter at 16:38 on 15 November 2006
    Looks like someone who wants to join a conversation but doesn't know anyone and doesn't drink.

    <Added>

    how about :~
    kind of forked tongue
  • This 155 message thread spans 11 pages:  < <   1   2   3   4   5   6  7  8   9   10   11  > >