THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: Spluff on 07 Dec 2008, 17:34
-
In a move that has both Coldplay haters and Satch fans applauding, Joe Satriani has sued Coldplay, accusing them of stealing from his 2004 song If I Could Fly and using it in their new single, Viva La Vida.
Whether Satch actually wants credit for the song, or just wants to see Coldplay pay for continually exposing us to their relentless musical torture is yet to be seen.
A side by side comparison and then an overlay of each other can be seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ofFw9DKu_I).
-
Yessssss die Coldplay die. This would not be the first time that Coldplay has bitten a riff directly from someone else, just in the past they've gotten permission for it.
-
I've hated Coldplay ever since their boring drivel first came to bring despair to the British public. Now i can finally be happy about something that is happening involving them. :lol:
If that was meant to be an original riff they made a piss-poor job of researching any others to make sure it really was. I hope they get sued for so much they can't afford to play 'music' any more at least. :laugh:
-
Steven Wilson says: WANKERS
(http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/631/8844395ug8.jpg)
-
Man, they can't even write their own bland yet overblown cock-rock melodies.
-
I am just going to play the devil's advocate, put this out there, and say that the only part Coldplay apparently ripped off is the first three notes. Not entirely sure that constitutes plagiarism, since there can only be how many combinations of notes in the entire music world? There has to be some form of overlap.
-
For three notes. I listened to the same thing as you did.
-
The entire chord progression was the same
-
If that was meant to be an original riff they made a piss-poor job of researching any others to make sure it really was. I hope they get sued for so much they can't afford to play 'music' any more at least. :laugh:
Wait, so now I've got to listen to thousands of bands just to make sure nobody has used the same chord progression before?
I still think it sounds just a bit similar, though. Same timing on shifts as well, it's one thing to use (for instance) a GEA chord progression, like hundreds of bands have done before, it is another thing to use the exact same riff as TNT.
-
KickThatBathProf beat me to it, but I explained it a bit more detailed, so...
For three notes. I listened to the same thing as you did.
Oh, I see what you mean now. The issue isn't the exact notes Chris Martin/Satriani hits, but the chord progression and melody. The fact that you can lay them on top of each other and sound completely harmonious throughout is what breaks it - the overlay version demonstrates that they always change at the same time and that they are played at the same speed. Whether or not Chris Martin hits the exact same notes as Satriani doesn't actually matter.
And even if you do listen to the notes, note (hurr) that they are always completely harmonious, the two songs could have been a collaborative effort by Coldplay and Satriani.
Okay, I think I see what you mean. I just am usually very skeptical when it comes to musical "plagiarism" for reasons I stated above. And I like your play on words thing (hurr). :wink:
-
the two songs could have been a collaborative effort by Coldplay and Satriani.
Apocalypse
-
Well, maybe if they did, they would either start playing decent music, or, failing that, their heads would explode.
-
Satch is good you cunts
-
I only acknowledge the existence of one Satch. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Armstrong#Personality)
-
Spluff, the they I was talking about was coldplay.
Harry, what about Satchel Paige?
-
the two songs could have been a collaborative effort by Coldplay and Satriani.
Apocalypse
You mean... A-rock-alypse?
The entire chord progression was the same
The entire chord progression is very common.
I honestly don't think this is a winnable case. At best Satriani can look to get some publicity. Which may in fact be what this entire thing is all about.
-
What I find amusing about this is that Martin & co. basically just picked the wrong key to play the song in. If they'd gone one semitone higher or lower, nobody would have noticed.
If you think that this is plagiarism then you are deluded. I'm not just saying this because the chord progression is pretty standard. The entire lawsuit hinges on the assumption that at least one member of Coldplay is a massive Joe Satriani fan. This member of Coldplay owns a copy of Surfing With The Alien and really likes the song in question. At some point he was listening to it and said to himself, "Yes, a Coldplay song lurks within this." Presumably he then drank a glass of cold milk or opened up Windows Solitaire or whatever you do with your time when you're a member of Coldplay.
It's a freak coincidence. Sorry.
-
If I Could Fly isn't on Surfing With the Alien man geeeeez.
-
A collaboration between Coldplay and Joe Satriani would almost be as bad as a collaboration between, say, Fallout Boy and John Mayer.
-
What that already happened
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v209/josephguzman/Sci-Fi/Khaan.gif)
-
I don't dislike coldplay (boring, though, and I find Katatonia's Day a captivating song), but bashing is always fun. I don't dislike Satriani, either. I just don't often listen to instrumental guitar stuff. My dad apparently likes his music, didn't know that until he mentioned that Al Pitrelli's soloing with TSO reminded him of it.
-
Get a life, Satch. I doubt there's a great deal of overlap between your fans and theirs, they're not exactly stealing sales from you. And how the fuck do you prove this kind of thing anyway?
This would not be the first time that Coldplay has bitten a riff directly from someone else, just in the past they've gotten permission for it.
Otherwise known as 'sampling.' It's this new fangled thing that some musicians do, not been around long, only the 70s or 80s. I wouldn't worry about it, I'm sure it won't catch on.
-
This word, I do not think it means what you think it means. Sampling is taking a portion of a sound recording and playing it within your own song. And even that, now, would require permission from the original artist, as the last major sampling case (Bridgeport Music, Inc. et. al. vs. Dimension Films et. al) found that "no substantial similarity or de minimis inquiry should be undertaken at all when the defendant has not disputed that it digitally sampled a copyrighted sound recording", meaning that, in that specific case, that the repeated use of 3 notes, lasting 2 seconds sampled from another artist did not fall under fair use. The part in question here is much long than 2 notes and 2 seconds, and would therefore almost certainly be found to be illegal.
But in any case, this is not about sampling - the court treats sound recordings (samples) much differently than the underlying compositions of the song. I would say this is almost certainly plagiarized, as both the melody, the chord progression and even the timing fits together perfectly between the two songs - but I doubt the court will award it in his favor, as not only will he be able to prove that the music is almost exactly the same, he will also have to prove that Coldplay had actually heard the song before, which would be very, very difficult.
[EDIT - Oh man, you were saying that the other 'riffs' that coldplay stole were actually just samples - not that the issue at hand has anything to do with sampling. God damn it late night, why do you have to make me misunderstand people]
-
I think plagiarising requires a measure of forethought or conscious decision-making. But it's entirely possible that whoever wrote the Coldplay song had this melody suddenly arrive in his head, thought it was great, and wrote it down. Melodies - like a lot of things - can worm their way into your head and emerge at the strangest time, and you won't even realise that they were there. Coldplay songwriting guy might now be astonished to think that he was recycling someone else's song: quite possibly for all he knew, it was just a good tune that came to him in a flash of inspiration. He may well have heard the Satriani song some time, maybe years ago, maybe only once. The fact that his brain for some reason decided to regurgitate it does not necessarily mean that he was deliberately ripping it off. Just how is a songwriter supposed to differentiate between unexpected memory and bolt-from-the-blue composition?
An example from my own life: a while ago I was trying to come up with a name for a character in a story I was writing. I had her first name, but I was struggling with the surname. Then suddenly it hit me: of course! I had the name! It sounded perfect! Several days later I was watching a T.V. show that I occasionally watch, and much to my surprise, there, in the credits, was my character's name. My brain had recycled the name of an actress from a T.V. show, without me even realising at the time that that was what was happening.
-
My thoughts exactly. Ed Zachary
-
I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_bar_blues#.22Twelve-bar.22_examples) am (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_bar_blues) just (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteen_bar_blues) saying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-two-bar_form) this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50s_progression) can't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragtime_progression) be (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borrowed_chord_progression) all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_progression) be (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passamezzo_moderno) that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythm_changes) uncommon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-chord_song)
Generic, bland progressions are a dime a dozen, and as such, they often end up all that similar. The other night I heard a jazz chart that was essentially "Children of Sanchez", was it the composer's intent? Probably not, but who gives two tits? If you're so insecure in your music or such bad enough that Coldplay would like to rip you off, there are bigger issues than you getting money for the song.
-
Crap artist rips off crap artist.
-
maybe we should open Chris Martin's head and poke around a bit with screwdrivers, see if we can find out where the song originated.
I like the way you think.
-
[EDIT - Oh man, you were saying that the other 'riffs' that coldplay stole were actually just samples - not that the issue at hand has anything to do with sampling. God damn it late night, why do you have to make me misunderstand people]
To be honest, the riff he was referring to was actually an interpolation anyway, I'm just remembering. The point is, it's not ripping off when you get fucking permission, so it was somewhat ridiculous for him to bring it up, in my eyes.
-
Note: By my understanding, chord progressions can't be copyrighted. Recordings, melodies, and lyrics can be.
Which means Satriani has a case on the first three notes.
And that's it.
-
I don't care, I never liked Coldplay, but that mashup sounds amazing. My new ringtone.
-
Inlander's post about subconscious plagiarism.
Yep, it's not uncommon at all; I've read all sorts of interviews with various artists and plenty have said that it's easy to repeat yourself or nick an idea off of someone else in the writing process. Usually it's not an entire hook or anything, but when you're trying to bridge together an entire composition you sometimes find yourself grasping for straws. Unfortunately for Coldplay, you can still be found liable for subconscious plagiarism. It happened to George Harrison when a judge found My Sweet Lord to have the same melody as the Chiffon's He's So Fine. Whether it's intentional or not doesn't really matter all that much in the long run.
Whether Satriani is right is something I don't want to bother investigating. It's possible though; he's a huge music nerd who's been around for a while and has influenced plenty of guitarists (for better or worse), so I wouldn't be too surprised if he understood what is likely to be considered plagiarism by now. It's not like he doesn't know the difference between a melody and a chord progression, after all. Then again, he could just have shitty legal counsel that just cares about getting paid for their time, so who knows?
-
I don't care who wins as long as the court case bankrupts Coldplay.
-
I for one will be calling for the death penalty.
-
I don't support the death penalty but I will make an exception in this case.
-
I meant for the plaintiff and the defendants.
-
Can we find Steve Vai and the band Travis guilty by association too?
C'mon! We can slippery slope guitarbators and coy British soft-rock bands out of existence in one blow!
-
I honestly don't think this is a winnable case. At best Satriani can look to get some publicity. Which may in fact be what this entire thing is all about.
You may not have heard about this, but Gary Moore just lost a plagiarism case in Germany where he was sued by an unknown German guitarist, who claimed he stole the guitar melody in Still Got The Blues. Here's a news article (http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/musik/0,1518,594279,00.html), unfortunately in german, I couldn't find an english one. The case is equally ridiculous, the melody in question being a fairly obvious lick over a standard chord progression.
-
Can we find Steve Vai and the band Travis guilty by association too?
C'mon! We can slippery slope guitarbators and coy British soft-rock bands out of existence in one blow!
Aw, not Travis. I legitimately like them.
-
http://whatafoolbelieves.tumblr.com/post/63241703/joe-satriani-sues-coldplay-over-viva-la-vida (http://whatafoolbelieves.tumblr.com/post/63241703/joe-satriani-sues-coldplay-over-viva-la-vida)
By far the best thing to come out of this ridiculous lawsuit.
-
I'm really not seeing why the general opinion on this forum seems to be against the guitar wankery, for lack of a better term.
-
Because they predominantly listen to indie rock, which is about as far away as you can possibly get. Indie rock has people that can barely play their instruments, and that's the way they like it.
That and they've never actually heard any good instrumental guitar tracks.
-
Yeah, it's eerie, but its stupid to want to stamp your name on anything that sounds similar to anything you've already stamped your name on. It really just shows how much of a sellout he is, if you think about it. Skill or no, that's just money-grubbing.
Also, anyone remember when the Verve was sued by the Rolling Stones for Bittersweet Symphony's violin track? They had permission to sample the Stones, but "not that much". Notably, they only got pissy after Bittersweet Symphony became popular.
And what about the Romantics' "What I Like About You" in Guitar Hero? Activision had all the permission they needed, and they were still sued because the cover they created sounded "too good". Also, the chords in that song are the same as the ones in "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" by the Rolling Stones, and "Wild Thing" by Chip Taylor, so the Romantics can go to hell entirely.
I guess it exposes two things; one, Coldplay would have gotten sued if they had permission anyway, I reckon; and two, nobody in this case are justified because one is copying someone elses song and the other is purely doing this for the money.
-
That and they've never actually heard any good instrumental guitar tracks.
I think I'll go listen to some Django Reinhardt right about now.
-
Jeff Beck in my opinion.
Anyway, I couldn't care less about any of this except that I want the process to be long and horrifically annoying for Coldplay. Preferably bankrupting as well, but I'd settle for serious annoyance.
-
Anyway, I couldn't care less about any of this except that I want the process to be long and horrifically annoying for Coldplay. Preferably bankrupting as well, but I'd settle for serious annoyance.
Or like when John Lennon said the Beatles were bigger than Jesus and a bunch of angry Christians burned their records. That would satisfy me, at least.
-
Because they predominantly listen to indie rock, which is about as far away as you can possibly get. Indie rock has people that can barely play their instruments, and that's the way they like it.
(http://bp3.blogger.com/_ML1WTV52NqU/R2XaMjvuDQI/AAAAAAAAAB8/en-_wnrsNdI/s400/Andy+CROC+less+dirt.jpg)
Fig. 1: Andy Cohen, Silkworm
(http://www.metalsucks.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/doncaballero001n-echo.jpg)
Fig. 2: Ian Williams, Don Caballero/Battles
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/153/422641891_4f045bbfb9.jpg?v=0)
Fig. 3: Sam Zurick, Make Believe
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Built2spill.jpg/180px-Built2spill.jpg)
Fig. 4: Doug Martsch, Built to Spill
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Ted_Leo_Coachella.jpg/220px-Ted_Leo_Coachella.jpg)
Fig. 5: Ted Leo, Ted Leo and the Pharmacists
Indie rock has its fair share of guitar heroes.
-
Also, for all the amazing technicality, wankery does not make for good music. I like a handful of Satriani tracks, but most of it is just unengaging. This includes Malmsteen, Vai, Petrucci, and most of the other proggy asshats.
I still haven't heard a Dream Theatre song that I liked.
This is all just personal opinion, so don't attack me for it.
And I'm absolutely positive I heard a riff like the one in question as far back as 2002. Like, exactly like Satriani's version.
-
Most of Satriani's tracks aren't wankery or even particularly technical. In fact, 95% of his work is rather easy to play - look at the song in question, for example. It is relatively simple but very well executed, managing to deliver about ten times more feeling with the subtle nuances of the guitar than Coldplay did with their vocals. Just because they are capable of playing extremely fast, doesn't mean all of their stuff is just technical masturbation, and many Instrumental Guitar artists cop this criticism a lot, usually unfairly.
Feel free to dislike it, but claiming that it is bad because it is purely wank is just wrong. Sure, some artists do produce mainly wank (Malmsteen, Michael Angelo Batio), but most artists produce a wide range of things, and very rarely (if ever) put out a song that just involves them playing as fast as possible.
-
Fig. 4: Doug Martsch, Built to Spill
He and Neil Fallon need to have a beard contest.
I like some dream theatre, maybe I only hear the best songs or something. I guess I just have a lower standard for what I find engaging, like I said earlier, I find Day engaging.
-
It is relatively simple but very well executed, managing to deliver about ten times more feeling with the subtle nuances of the guitar than Coldplay did with their vocals.
Ten times zero is still zero.
-
Man, you can't tell me that If I Could Fly contains no emotion. You just can't.
-
(Hint: He already did.)
-
That was a bit of an exaggeration, but it's barely got anything I can feel at all. It came across (as well as most of G3's music) as the kind of light jazz/yacht rock/muzak you'd hear whilst shopping in Kohl's or someplace similar. I also do not much care for his guitar tone. If a good stoner riff is crunchy, then this is fried and greasy.
-
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y66/Spluff/rage.jpg)
-
Fuck that. I mean, everyone has different preferences, music is subjective, etc., etc., but some of you guys can be incredibly pretentious and haughty. I don't like Coldplay because I don't like the way it sounds or their lyrics. But I would never say that they "don't have emotion." Of course they do! If a person writes a song, no matter how cheesy and cruddy it is, it has emotion in it! If you don't like guitar wankery that's totally cool. But don't be pricks about it, and don't try to make your subjective statements into factual ones (If I Could Fly contains no emotion, to paraphrase.)
Because they predominantly listen to indie rock, which is about as far away as you can possibly get. Indie rock has people that can barely play their instruments, and that's the way they like it.
That and they've never actually heard any good instrumental guitar tracks.
I don't really believe that. I listen to Indie rock all the time. I also listen to "guitar wankers" quite a bit. I love both in equal measure. The people who don't like it just don't like it. And that's cool! That's their prerogative! However, they do not have to be assholes about it, and they unfortunately oftentimes are.
-
That was a bit of an exaggeration, but it's barely got anything I can feel at all. It came across (as well as most of G3's music) as the kind of light jazz/yacht rock/muzak you'd hear whilst shopping in Kohl's or someplace similar. I also do not much care for his guitar tone. If a good stoner riff is crunchy, then this is fried and greasy.
Disagree, I would say it is more roasted. Or baked, but baked isn't what I was thinking it was, and really sounds more fit to stoners anyways.
-
I suppose this just shows that different people have different amounts of empathy (probably not the right word) for guitar. I personally hear a whole lot of feeling in that song. And if you can't hear the feeling in guitar, there's probably no way you can enjoy music where guitar is the focal point of the composition.
-
I'm really not seeing why the general opinion on this forum seems to be against the guitar wankery, for lack of a better term.
oh my GOD
I so fucking hope we have this thread again. Not even joking, last time was a blast.
-
Sorry. I just felt a little goaded by the statement he made. It was ridiculously untrue, so I was trying to play the other angle to point that out.
To be honest, I would say that that Coldplay song probably has more emotion than If I Could Fly. But Coldplay doesn't hold a candle to Strange Beautiful Music. So it balances out.
But yeah, that bit about indie rock not having any good guitarists was bound to piss some people off anyway. I'd like pay to see a duel between Spencer Seim and Joe Satriani.
New post: I can hear the feeling in guitar just fine. It's a subjective thing.
-
To be honest, I would say that that Coldplay song probably has more emotion than If I Could Fly. But Coldplay doesn't hold a candle to Strange Beautiful Music. So it balances out.
New post: I can hear the feeling in guitar just fine.
It's a subjective thing.
All this sounds kind of ridiculous. Claiming that you can hear emotion "just fine" and then say it's a subjective thing says either the blindingly obvious or that your perception of emotion is superior to someone else's. And this is not long after you've declared that one song has more emotion than other. I get what you're saying and agree, but this post as a whole is a tad silly.
Emotion comes from the listener, anyway. There's no magic way to transfer yourself over thin air, even though music tries, and in the end it depends on how the listener feels about the music.
It makes sense for an "indie" forum to reject, to a significant degree, instrumental rock. Indie, which I think can be reasonably defined as pop-influenced rock with hard rock elements (although this can never be entirely true, but most indie artists fall under this umbrella), is quite accessible. That accessibility is interpreted by many people here as a clear method of expressing the concept or narrative of any piece of music, and music that is stereotyped as insanely technical and complex becomes the antithesis of what they see as effective musical communication.
It all comes from a kind of musical set. As someone who grew up listening to a lot of instrumental classical music, I always felt that a treble voice, like the violin (or, indeed, the high strings of a guitar) carried more effective communication than the human voice, even without the ability to form words. As such, I was rather confused the first time told me that shredders played with no emotion and had no creativity. My expectations lead me to believe that they were the finest musicians that could expect to exist, as their instrumental prowess was so powerful and they used the instrument so effectively.
The last thread showed that there's no real way to argue against musical set. Pretty effectively.
Anyway, the point is that it's kind of uncool just to assume that shred music is utter shit like a whole lot of people do. Within this forum, outside, whatever. It's pretty ignorant and is a lot like saying "death metal is random blah-di-blah". If you don't like music, there is no real point in going out of your way to diss it (although I recognise that this thread is completely reasonable place to discuss such opinions and is the place it should be done) and if you are, it's a pretty cool thing to try and learn from the experience.
I guess the last few paragraphs weren't directed at anyone in particular. While a repeat of my shred thread from a while back would be fun, I think what has to be said on the issue is pretty clear - there are no absolutes in music. Defining whole other genres when you have minimal experience with them is generally a poor idea and it happens to shred a lot, which is pretty sad.
But yeah, that bit about indie rock not having any good guitarists was bound to piss some people off anyway. I'd like pay to see a duel between Spencer Seim and Joe Satriani.
A challenger appears! (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=xohcxxt6oHo)
-
Indie rock has its fair share of guitar heroes.
All my guitar heroes seem to be teams. Tom Verlaine/Richard Lloyd, John Reis/Rick Froberg, Corin Tucker/Carrie Brownstein, J. Robbins/Bill Barbot.
Guitar posses!
-
I was responding to this bit.
I suppose this just shows that different people have different amounts of empathy (probably not the right word) for guitar. I personally hear a whole lot of feeling in that song. And if you can't hear the feeling in guitar, there's probably no way you can enjoy music where guitar is the focal point of the composition.
I am basically trying to say that the last thread we had on this subject taught me not to talk like that. I was trying to play the devil's advocate. I didn't actually mean to infer that one song was better than the other. I just do not like solo-esque material in this vein, because I was brought up with orchestral classical music. I have always thought that a really tightly-knit group was far better than a singular musician with a backup band because of the way all the different notes melded together.
I don't think shred is utter shit (well, I can't fucking stand Yngwie). It is there and it is good music, but it's very hard for me to enjoy. There can be insanely technical good music. Case in point, guitarists like the one in that video, John Maa, lots of classical guitar music in general, some of the better tech-death bands, etc.
Anyways, I have to go to bed.
-
I thought this was kind of interesting: http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/joe_satriani_talks_about_coldplay_lawsuit.html
-
This sums up what I think
1. Satriani should get over it, there are only a finite number of notes, hence chords, hence chord progressions. This is further limited by what our ears/brains tell us sounds good. Also, coldplay's song has lyrics which would further change the song...
2. Satriani is boring, as is most instrumental shred.
3. Coldplay should go back to their "Rush of Blood..." sound, so much better than the new stuff.
and finally...
I only acknowledge the existence of one Satch. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Armstrong#Personality)
This is so true.
-
2. Satriani is boring, as is most instrumental shred.
There are a few posts just above yours which explain precisely why that was a poor argument.
I am cool with opinions and all, but in the context of your post, that was pretty douchebaggy.
-
My key problem with 'guitar wankery' has evolved beyond the wankery aspect. Admittedly, that was my major problem with it for a while but it's since been pointed out to me that most of them do have some feeling in there, etc. etc. The thing is, I have to ask - would Vai, Satch or Yngwie have record deals if they couldn't play that fast? If you took away the fact that they're awesome guitar players, would their songs alone be strong enough?
As for that link to Satch talking about it, he has an interesting point, but I think the fact that someone else tried to sue them over the same song speaks volumes.
-
The thing is, I have to ask - would Vai, Satch or Yngwie have record deals if they couldn't play that fast? If you took away the fact that they're awesome guitar players, would their songs alone be strong enough?
I'd say they would. Their compositional talent most definitely stands up on it's own - their slower, most interesting songs often become fan favorites. For example, the top two Buckethead albums on last fm are Colma and Electric Tears. These albums are slow, calming, and take their time building to powerful crescendos (in a post rock sort of vein). Sure, being able to play fast probably attracts a few listeners, but when that's all you have ,you end up in the realm of Michael Angelo Batio - renowned for his speed, but nobody actually listens to his albums.
-
Also can we please stop justifying why we don't like shred? Isn't saying "I don't like really fast guitar playing" good enough?
No, because that doesn't explain why shred is usually tedious while bluegrass is usually awesome.
-
Counterpoint:
That is explained by how bluegrass is usually cheesy and campy whilst fuck you
I liked your other post better. This forum doesn't have enough gypsy jazz.
-
Let's talk more about Django Reinhardt. Now, he was one badarse motherfucker! He lived in a caravan in the manouche part of town, and one day his caravan caught fire and the resulting injuries rendered one of his hands into a twisted claw. Then he had to re-learn how to play guitar with a claw hand, and became one of the greatest guitarists in the history of jazz, as well as bringing the hot club sound to the world. Also, the dude had a badarse moustache.
-
P.S. Everyone should listen to John McLaughlin, Jon Madof, and John Scofield if they want to hear some virtuoso guitar playing that is both interesting and lovely. Two of them were also in bands with Miles Davis. Coincidence? I think not!
-
Let's talk more about Django Reinhardt. Now, he was one badarse motherfucker! He lived in a caravan in the manouche part of town, and one day his caravan caught fire and the resulting injuries rendered one of his hands into a twisted claw. Then he had to re-learn how to play guitar with a claw hand, and became one of the greatest guitarists in the history of jazz, as well as bringing the hot club sound to the world. Also, the dude had a badarse moustache.
Word
Plus, dude had such an incredible sense of modal theory that was innate to his playing, yet he couldn't even tell you what a "B" was on his guitar. It was all pure musicality.
-
Dude couldn't even tell you what the letter B looked like
-
Also, in the Quintette du Hot Club de France, there were two other guitarists, playing rhythm. It's like Django Reinhardt's guitar had two servants. It's like it was king of the guitars.
-
Also can we please stop justifying why we don't like shred? Isn't saying "I don't like really fast guitar playing" good enough? This is a pretty subjective thing, after all - there's no use in trying to convince people who like guitar shredding that it is not good music, and there is no point in trying to convince people who do not like guitar shredding that it is good music. The entire discussion is really silly and gets old really fast.
That's not the issue.
The issue is simply the fact that people come up with ridiculous reasons as to why they don't like shred, or needlessly stereotype and judge the genre when they don't know shit about it. Both of those require justification, otherwise they're just silly.
I mean, "I don't like shred" is the best reason for not liking shred. "I don't like shred because it has no emotion" and "I don't like shred because it is meaningless" are just two arguments that are utter bull and that no-one who views music with on open mind should accept. I will stop having problems with people who give negative opinions about shred when they can either give their opinion eloquently and/or can validate any claims they make about it. Here's a good reason for not like shred:
"I don't get much out of instrumental music, and I feel that faster sections go right past me"
Those are fantastic reasons for not liking shred.
Let me apply the kind of anti-shred sentiment to another genre, just for the sake of an example.
"Country is all boring"
That seems pretty uninformed to anyone, ever. That's because I don't know utter shit about country music and don't really like it in the first place, therefore I am largely ignorant of what it is, its musicians and its nuances. Just because I like the blues, which is a fairly similar genre, doesn't give me license to talk shit about country. It seems utterly ridiculous that someone of any intelligence would say something like that.
My key problem with 'guitar wankery' has evolved beyond the wankery aspect. Admittedly, that was my major problem with it for a while but it's since been pointed out to me that most of them do have some feeling in there, etc. etc. The thing is, I have to ask - would Vai, Satch or Yngwie have record deals if they couldn't play that fast? If you took away the fact that they're awesome guitar players, would their songs alone be strong enough?
You can't just take away a musical element from a player and question their relevance. It's like asking, "Would Mozart still kick ass without a choir backing him up?". Mozart sometimes wrote music with a choir as a major articulation. Speed is just one of many musical articulations and the general thought that speed only serves as a wow factor perplexes me to no end. You wouldn't say "Well, let's drop Darkness Descends to 120 bpm and see if it still kicks ass", because the speed of Darkness Descends, like in much of thrash, relies on speed as one element of the music.
Just like anything else, preferred speed is just that - preferred and subjective. Every culture has different standards of speed in their music, so the implication that speed is a less important musical element than others is the musical equivalent of saying that maybe Renaissance art was shit. That is, completely subjective and, well, subject to the culture of the time and area.
Secondly, such a post reveals one's inexperience with the less-than-aptly named genre of "shred". It should read "instrumental hard rock/metal", because speed isn't a necessary factor in the music. Just about every recording "shred" artist can and sometimes does annihilate the fretboard, but many of their songs have a stronger relationship with pop rock than, say, progressive rock. Satch and Vai are perfect examples. Both of them are well-known for pushing technical boundaries, but plenty, perhaps more than half their songs are mid or low tempo with only short bursts of virtuosity, if any.
P.S. To DynamiteKid: I think you are one of the cooler people on this forum. I am saying this because I disagree with everything you have to say about music, but I like you personally. Just in case you think I'm on your case or something, but I can see how you might think that.
-
Django Reinhardt also inspired Tony Iommi to pick the guitar up again after the machine accident he lost his fingertips in.
-
I don't care, I never liked Coldplay, but that mashup sounds amazing. My new ringtone.
Word. That is a legitimate statement
-
Well, I felt like that post was aimed at me, so I guess I just agree with you then.
-
You can't just take away a musical element from a player and question their relevance. It's like asking, "Would Mozart still kick ass without a choir backing him up?". Mozart sometimes wrote music with a choir as a major articulation. Speed is just one of many musical articulations and the general thought that speed only serves as a wow factor perplexes me to no end. You wouldn't say "Well, let's drop Darkness Descends to 120 bpm and see if it still kicks ass", because the speed of Darkness Descends, like in much of thrash, relies on speed as one element of the music.
Just like anything else, preferred speed is just that - preferred and subjective. Every culture has different standards of speed in their music, so the implication that speed is a less important musical element than others is the musical equivalent of saying that maybe Renaissance art was shit. That is, completely subjective and, well, subject to the culture of the time and area.
I kind of realised while I was writing it, but wrote it late at night and posted it anyway for reasons that escape me. It's kind of like saying 'would The Beatles have got signed if John Lennon wasn't John fucking Lennon?'
Secondly, such a post reveals one's inexperience with the less-than-aptly named genre of "shred". It should read "instrumental hard rock/metal", because speed isn't a necessary factor in the music. Just about every recording "shred" artist can and sometimes does annihilate the fretboard, but many of their songs have a stronger relationship with pop rock than, say, progressive rock. Satch and Vai are perfect examples. Both of them are well-known for pushing technical boundaries, but plenty, perhaps more than half their songs are mid or low tempo with only short bursts of virtuosity, if any.
This is just stemming from a misunderstanding, as I thought I mentioned in my post that these guys don't spend their whole time playing as fast as they can, but clearly I didn't. My point still was that I reckon that was probably a key reason for them having record deals, though, and I stand by that, honestly.
P.S. To DynamiteKid: I think you are one of the cooler people on this forum. I am saying this because I disagree with everything you have to say about music, but I like you personally. Just in case you think I'm on your case or something, but I can see how you might think that.
Thanks man, I appreciate that - you do virtually always disagree with me, but we never bullshit around, it's always thrashed out properly and I appreciate that.
-
Absolutely no record exec signs artists on technical merit alone. There's thousands of supremely technical guitarists out there to equal Malmsteen, except Malmsteen actually writes acceptable-to-actually-quite-good music. A complete focus on technicality leaves no room for creativity, and every shred guitarists I've heard talk on the subject says that. Satch, check. Vai, check. Friedman, check. Malmsteen, check. Every single one urges their musician fans to develop phrasing over technique (and guys like Kiko Loureiro do both at the same time), and the implication there is that these guitarists could have more technical skill than they already do - they preferred to spend that time developing other areas of musicianship.
But I can see why you wouldn't give much credit to record execs.
-
A Thought Occurs. (Well, one cross-posted from the PRF.)
Apparently there are at least three other songs that share a similar chord progression and melody to "If I Could Fly" and "Viva La Vida", the list is as follows:
1) 1981 - Marty Balin "Hearts"
2) 1992 - Babik Reinhardt "Histoire simple"
3) 2002 - Enanitos Verdes "Frances Limon"
4) 2004 - Joe Satriani "If I could Fly"
5) 2008 - Coldplay "Viva la Vida"
I was actually thinking about it the other day: if you take 100 musicians/songwriters who have never heard either "If I Could Fly" or "Viva la Vida", give them the chord progression to both songs and asked them to write a melody over it, how many of them would write a melody that resembles the one in either song?
I think this would be a rad experiment to try out. Quick, someone hail a scientist.
-
It came across (as well as most of G3's music) as the kind of light jazz/yacht rock/muzak you'd hear whilst shopping in Kohl's or someplace similar.
Oh man I never realized how much this is true of Vai/Satriani. I mean, the yacht is moving very quickly, but it's still a yacht.
-
According to some report I read today, Satriani claims to have spent ten years writing the tune in question.
Ten. Years.
-
If it took him ten years to write that piece of crap he deserves to lose the case.
-
Joe satriani is... PROUD of writing that turd?
-
2. Satriani is boring, as is most instrumental shred.
There are a few posts just above yours which explain precisely why that was a poor argument.
I am cool with opinions and all, but in the context of your post, that was pretty douchebaggy.
Basically you're being douchebaggy. My second bullet point was just an opinion. There's far more people in this post trying to prove theirs as fact.
And there's a simple solution to the whole thing. Listen to something better :)
-
As a general point, Satch writes all his songs over a long period of time. He probably had the chord progression or melody written down for a long time before he used it to record anything.
I'd assume Satch spends a little time on many concepts, considering that he's continued to put out music fairly regularly over his career.
NO U
Listen to something better :)
Man. Jus' sayin', y'know?
-
I like Coldplay because they're boring. It's great sleepy time music. I'm serious.
But I don't get the hype of Viva ta Vida. Probably because I find it boring.
EDIT: Dangit, I changed the incorrect capital L in 'la' to a friggin' 't' when making this post.
-
Wait, lemme get this straight. You like Coldplay because they're boring, but yet you don't like the new album because it's boring. That no make sense.
-
Well, people also use white noise machines for getting to sleep at night, but white noise machines don't get record deals and critical cred, so I sort of see what he's saying.
An analogy: If I were to use a copy of Atlas Shrugged to level my coffee table and it performed the task admirably, I still wouldn't understand why so many people have boners for Ayn Rand's writing.
-
Well, people also use white noise machines for getting to sleep at night, but white noise machines don't get record deals and critical cred, so I sort of see what he's saying.
An analogy: If I were to use a copy of Atlas Shrugged to level my coffee table and it performed the task admirably, I still wouldn't understand why so many people have boners for Ayn Rand's writing.
You just made me so sad. I am a few chapters into Atlas Shrugged and the writing is just mesmerizing. Different people like different things. Me trying to explain to you why I like Ayn Rand would be similar to a physicist trying to explain the String Theory to me (they have tried it before). No matter what, it is just a difficult concept to grasp. ::shrug::
-
Well, people also use white noise machines for getting to sleep at night, but white noise machines don't get record deals and critical cred, so I sort of see what he's saying.
An analogy: If I were to use a copy of Atlas Shrugged to level my coffee table and it performed the task admirably, I still wouldn't understand why so many people have boners for Ayn Rand's writing.
Your analogy makes me happy.
-
white noise machines don't get record deals and critical cred
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/Metal_machine_music.jpg)
Which I would listen to rather than Coldplay or Joe Satriani.
-
Well, people also use white noise machines for getting to sleep at night, but white noise machines don't get record deals and critical cred, so I sort of see what he's saying.
An analogy: If I were to use a copy of Atlas Shrugged to level my coffee table and it performed the task admirably, I still wouldn't understand why so many people have boners for Ayn Rand's writing.
You just made me so sad. I am a few chapters into Atlas Shrugged and the writing is just mesmerizing. Different people like different things. Me trying to explain to you why I like Ayn Rand would be similar to a physicist trying to explain the String Theory to me (they have tried it before). No matter what, it is just a difficult concept to grasp. ::shrug::
Everyone on QC seems to not like her very much. I haven't figured out why. I don't like her either, because once she presents you with an idea she bashes you over the head (there is a speech towards the end of the book that is 50 pages long and takes up 3 hours in the timeline of the novel. No descriptors in between, just one dude talking for 50 pages) with it repeatedly/her protagonists have no flaws/I could go on and on. But I don't know why the board doesn't like it.
-
I disagree a bit with the String Theory analogy (I don't understand String Theory either though). I have a good handle on Rand's body of work; mostly I just think she should have stuck to essays. As Dimmukane pointed out, her characters are such thinly veiled vehicles for the ideas she's peddling that I would rather have had her abandon the narrative conceits and get right down to business. As it is, her stories are couched in such absolutes that I find them a bit ridiculous whenever I read them-- there is after all, a happy medium between charity and martyrdom. Plus, she was too quick to demonize people who didn't go along with her mindset for my tastes. That reputation was a bit hard for me to shake when I was reading her books, since, after all, they exist only as vehicles for expressing her philosophy.
-
Yeah, if I am going to read something chock-full of someone's philosophy, I am going to pick one that I agree with. I would mention Pratchett here, but he manages to fit convincing and entertaining characters in with his jokes and philosophy, so it isn't really an author tract like hers.
-
they exist only as vehicles for expressing her philosophy.
Isn't that largely the point?
I mean, literature isn't always about explaining one's philosophy, but if there's nothing to express via the book then what's the point?
-
My problem is with the execution as a whole, not any one facet of what she's attempting. Her characters are thin enough that it's hard for me to approach the book as anything but an expression of her views, and since I often disagree with her, the whole narrative just becomes harder and harder for me to accept as the story heads to its conclusion. As I said before, I just feel like she should have stuck with an essay, since that merely requires me to read her ideas and then base an opinion, not slog through her shoddy narrative.
Anyway, all I'm trying to say with my posts on Rand is that I dislike her work due to my own personal tastes, not because I have failed to grasp her message.
-
Well, I have no particular like or dislike for the author either way. I understand more clearly now.
-
they exist only as vehicles for expressing her philosophy.
Isn't that largely the point?
I mean, literature isn't always about explaining one's philosophy, but if there's nothing to express via the book then what's the point?
What's wrong with just telling a good story?
-
I was going to post something about Coldplay, but the thread of this thread has derailed.
-
What's wrong with just telling a good story?
Just about every good story I can think of has a point to it. It's not just there and back again without any changes - it chronicles values at the very least.
-
Agreed. It's rather hard if not impossible to create and define a meaningful character without touching upon the things that they value, at least superficially.
-
I think what Dark Flame was saying is that sometimes authors write novels without any strictly defined discursive master plan and just mean to tell a good story. I do agree that it's rare to create characters and stories without there at least being some sort of message hidden in the words, but those things can often be unintentional. I think that is actually the most interesting part about reading, finding little unintentional things that make me think "Hehe, your ideology is showing".
-
Rather that than "Your id is showing" (Mr. Anthony? Mr. Ringo?)
-
If a guitarist is shredding in the forest, and no one is listening...is he really fast?
-
My God, we have some awesome newbies today.
-
Has anyone kept track of how often threads are derailed into Rand bashing?
I'm sure it happens every other month, or something like that.
-
I'm a repeat offender.
-
I don't think anybody was offended.
-
If a guitarist is shredding in the forest, and no one is listening...is he really fast?
The only way this could be better is if black metal was a shreddy kind of music.
-
Well, apparently this should be a class action lawsuit. Cause Gunther totally wrote that shit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxSIAXGakuk
-
Most of that is pretty damn different.
-
Eh, Coldplay is alright, and I don't think you should wish them harm just for being popular, there's no reason to hate really, or for being generic. Who cares? If you like something else, go listen to that instead.
However, it's nice to see that someone who stole a song is actually going to probably get their ass handed to them for once.
-
I like Coldplay, perhaps I should go to hell or the "Guilty Pleasures" thread?
-
I think theres gonna be a point when all the good riffs are going to be taken anyways, you shouldn't be able to sue because of that shit.
-
I think you're discounting quite a lot of possibility there.
-
Besides, it isn't an issue of a single riff, it is an issue of the same melody.
-
This is the worst fucking thread
-
Then don't post in it.
-
I think theres gonna be a point when all the good riffs are going to be taken anyways, you shouldn't be able to sue because of that shit.
I thought so too, but they let Jay-Z copyright a color, even though we pretty much know of every color, and I've heard of cases of people attempting to sue others over rights to a prime number because of who 'found' it first.
Sure we'll never run out of numbers, but what gives me the right to go say "1,000,024 is copyright (R) Random Fag". Same thing with instruments, only so many possibilities, even if there are about a undecillion(1^36), with the number of songs being produced, mainstream alone they'd all be taken in 100 years easily.
-
I'm very doubtful of that. You're ignoring repeated notes, chords and their alterations, interaction between instruments an a bazillion other variables.
-
Then don't post in it.
Yeah, you'd think so, wouldn't you.
Actually, Khar was probably (at the very least) drunk, to be fair.
-
Yeah, Khar was drunkenly mourning Pinter the other night. Give him a pass.
-
Same thing with instruments.
Oh Really (http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/industry_news/gibson_vs_prs.html)
-
Can I not contribute to the subject at all and say two little things.
One, MadassAlex is my new forum hero for not ever being guilty of bullshit and always articulating his points very constructively.
And Two, Atlas Shrugged is such an epically titled book that I dont think I have ever heard topped.
-
What's so epic about an atlas shrugging?
Also, I blame Ayn Rand for BioShock
-
(http://www.bo.infn.it/atlas_rpc/images/atlas2.jpg)
-
Yeah, Bioshock was a good game. Also, Atlas Shrugged is a hell of a good book title. It's also wouldn't be surprised if it's subconsciously one of the major reasons I keep ripping on Ayn Rand. If the title had been merely typical, I probably would have forgotten about the whole thing by now.
And what, are you just going to start praising every poster named Alex now? (Madass Alex is pretty awesome though).
-
One, MadassAlex is my new forum hero for not ever being guilty of bullshit and always articulating his points very constructively.
This made my day, a lot. Thank you.
-
It's true. Whilst Alex - as he himself has said - is opposed to me on pretty much everything ever, he articulates the points well and a discussion with him is always interesting, instead of a 'yo momma so fat' contest.
-
PFFT WHATEVER MAN YO MAMMA SO FAT SHE HAS TWO MYSPACE ACCOUNTS
-
WHEN YOU PUT THEM NEXT TO EACH OTHER YOU CAN SEE HER WHOLE PHOTO
-
Wow the quality is simply increasing exponentionally, huh?
-
And what, are you just going to start praising every poster named Alex now? (Madass Alex is pretty awesome though).
As long as you Alex's can keep up the quality of your posts