I don't like AC/DC either, but I can appreciate why others do. It can be catchy stuff. It's just not very impressive. Personal tastes. I mean, the drummer must be the most simplest drummer on the planet. Which works fine for AC/DC, but anyway...
The only bits I like about Kashmir are the brass and strings, ie the parts that Zep didn't do themselves. I really don't know what's supposed to be so remarkable about it, maybe it was revolutionary for the time but it does nothing for me.
Well, see, that basically is the reason for it being so good. It was a song that was new and very different from pretty much all of the rock songs you'd be hearing at the time. But, y'know, I just really like the overall groove of the song, I like the originality of the riff(s), I like the innovation in the song and the unusualness of its structure. And I also really do enjoy the performance on the track. Sure there are plenty of bands who are easily capable of covering "Kashmir" picture perfect, and are probably able to run circles around it, but I think that it's Led Zep's approach to the song; the distinctive style of theirs that's strongly present in the song - I think that that's what makes it for me; that's what gives the song its unique feel and vibe that I find really appealing.
I just personally believe that it's a well-written song which was well though-out, well-performed, and has a style that I feel is exclusive to Zeppelin, cannot be emulated, and just fits the song incredibly well.
I mean, I've heard versions of the song that are a bit more complex in terms of arrangements and technicality, and are probably musically better and tighter. But they lack the style that Led Zep brought. That's what made it for me.
I don't like AC/DC either, but I can appreciate why others do. It can be catchy stuff. It's just not very impressive. Personal tastes. I mean, the drummer must be the most simplest drummer on the planet. Which works fine for AC/DC, but anyway...
Yeah, I agree. So often I just find myself wanting them to try something new; something different; try out just a few more different sorts of arrangements and structures. And yes, mix up the beats every now and then. But, in saying that, this extreme simplicity is what AC/DC is going for; that's the style that they've chosen because they like it and that's what they feel comfortable with. I'm sure they can go beyond what they're currently doing, but I get the feeling that determinedly sticking to this style is actually what allows them to come up with these catchy riffs and memorable songs, because they're working within a formula which they've refined, and which allows them to churn out quality rock songs with consistency and ease. I think they know this, and they ultimately have a reluctance to change the formula at all. And, as a fan of their output, I really can't hold it against them too much.
I don't like AC/DC either, but I can appreciate why others do. It can be catchy stuff. It's just not very impressive. Personal tastes. I mean, the drummer must be the most simplest drummer on the planet. Which works fine for AC/DC, but anyway...
It would be nice to see a deviation from his standard bass, snare, bass, snare 4/4 beat. Honestly, he hardly does any fills, he shows almost zero independence, and he displays no imagination or proficiency as a drummer. You could give somebody drum lessons for a few months, and they'd probably be fully capable of what Rudd can do (or what he bothers to do).
I know I've said I don't blame AC/DC for their simplistic approach, but that's one aspect of their music which has just annoyed me. They could make their music so much more interesting and dynamic if they were to just hire a different drummer, and it wouldn't come at the expense of their distinctive style, sound or music-making formula.
Neil Peart is unnaturally good. I have such immense respect for that guy. He's one of those sorts of drummers who's more than just a beat-keeper or a human metronome, but a guy who can bring so much to the music through the way he plays his instrument; where he adds something to the music, rather than just serving as the anchor that all the other musicians play their parts around. The same can't be said for many drummers.
So now it's drummers, eh? How do you feel about Rick Allen, Bobber?
You mean of Def Leppard? He's great. Especially because he's able to do all that drumming with the one arm! How do YOU feel about Neil Peart? What about Gene Krupa?
You mean of Def Leppard? He's great. Especially because he's able to do all that drumming with the one arm! How do YOU feel about Neil Peart? What about Gene Krupa?
I'm not familiar with Gene Krupa. Neil Peart is pretty good, and certainly makes for some of the more challenging-yet-doable drumming songs in Rock Band.
I like the stupidly named Nicko McBrain, I also like the aptly anemd Brooks Wackerman of Bad Religion and Buddy Rich. Everyone like Buddy Rich though, except supdudemeister47
Just while we're on the topic, my three personal favourite drummers are Mikkey Dee (of Motorhead), Mike Portnoy (formerly of Dream Theater) and Neil Peart.
Mike Mangini is also terrific, but I have to look into him a bit more before I properly make any decisions about him.
And, though he's not a favourite, I was actually pleased to find that Nickelback's drummer is actually alright at playing, which I was quite surprised at, since I didn't really expect anybody from Nickelback to actually... y'know, play their instrument very well.
People in this thread are making me partially LAWL. Complexity does not equate to quality from the average listener's perspective.
No, it doesn't. But some technicality/complexity mixed in with catchy/pleasant music is always nice. No, it doesn't directly equate to quality or enjoyment, but it can often enhance it if it's added to the music.
I technically agree. I've played music for... 24 years now? On piano, guitar, drums and a few other instruments. But Paul said the world wants simple love songs while Lennon wanted to experiment and I believe Paul was more revelatory in that respect, in the end.
People in this thread are making me partially LAWL. Complexity does not equate to quality from the average listener's perspective.
This is true, but they don't have to answer to anyones musical taste but their own.
Complexity's all well and good when it has a point other than gaudy showmanship. It obviously goes without saying that many renowned classical pieces are technical marvels, not just in terms of virtuoso musicianship but also composition, compelxity in these pieces means something and appeals to the everyman because of the rich tapesty it creates.
I technically agree. I've played music for... 24 years now? On piano, guitar, drums and a few other instruments. But Paul said the world wants simple love songs while Lennon wanted to experiment and I believe Paul was more revelatory in that respect, in the end.
That's all well and good, simple love songs are your bread and butter, but every so often you need to push boundaries to get somewhere new. Experimentation is how new genres are born, for better or worse.
I loathe Dream Theatre though whilst we're half talking about them. It's just a bunch of lads dangling their music degrees in front of the audience with not a thought for melody or musical sensibility. The band members have spawned one song I like, and it was one of Petrucci's solo affairs. Even large sections of it are quite stinky though, but I cannot fault that main hook and melody. Technical but serves a point.
I loathe Dream Theater though whilst we're half talking about them. It's just a bunch of lads dangling their music degrees in front of the audience with not a thought for melody or musical sensibility. The band members have spawned one song I like, and it was one of Petrucci's solo affairs. Even large sections of it are quite stinky though, but I cannot fault that main hook and melody. Technical but serves a point.
He's still a souless music nerd though.
I'm just curious, what of Dream Theater's music have you actually heard? Because I've heard this opinion spouted quite often, and it's rarely expressed by people who have heard little of the band beyond, say, "Pull Me Under" and "Dark Eternal Night".
I mean, I'm guessing you're basing your opinion of the band on a little more than most people do; you've probably explored them a bit more than most, since you've been able to stumble upon John Petrucci's solo work. But I just don't get the sentence "[they have no thought] for melody or musical sensibility." Because, personally, I find that they do pay attention to these things. Yes, admittedly they do take their opportunities for a bit of fretwankery, but I find that most of the soloing is generally done in a way that works with the music and lifts the song overall. And I find that even the complex, long, grandiloquent instrumental sections do hold some quite an amount of aesthetic appeal.
Yes, they're showing off, but to say that they give "no thought to melody or musical sensibility" is just wrong. It's the difference between that Animals As Leaderstrack I reviewed over in the 'Rate the Last Song(s) You Heard' thread, and one of the solos out of "Blind Faith". Sure, they're both fast and showy, but I certainly know which one has some life to it, and has an actual purpose.
And, as for the purely melodic side of things, go listen to a song like "Solitary Shell" and tell me that melody hasn't been given any consideration here.
And then there's tracks such as "These Walls", which is focused primarily on the creating a cohesive, succinct, self-contained song; it's song-orientated, rather than jam-orientated, and you'll find tracks like this scattered throughout DT's discography.
Sorry to bombard you with links and verbose counter-arguments, but I just think that what you said was unfair and... well, wrong. That, and I'm highly defensive of the things that I enjoy a lot. Sorry for that .
Sorry to bombard you with links and verbose counter-arguments, but I just think that what you said was unfair and... well, wrong. That, and I'm highly defensive of the things that I enjoy a lot. Sorry for that .
Not at all! Always good to shoot the shit with someone, even if you don't see eye to eye.
You're absolutely right, I was being unfair. DT aren't always whoring it up with indulgent showboating, they can hold back and put together a coherent song. BUT, and of course there's a but, when they do it's just not interesting. There's the odd good wee riff here and there, and even some solo's I would classify as 'good' (get me being the snob, right? ) but it's just all very so-so.
To me the songs are still just a platform to showcase the skillz of the band, so the content there that's more restrained is just a bit dull to me. It's probably a by-product of myself being brought up on Punk Rock and two minute songs, but every second should count!! If you don't have the content then don't pad your song out with so-so stuff.
-there's not a wasted moment
-kicks ass
-there's always something interesting happening (harmonies, octave chords, changes from minor to major, chunky riffs, drum fills, solos etc.)
-musicianship is tight
-doesn't outstay its welcome
-has that special unqantifiable quality that makes a great piece
-kicks ass
Not at all! Always good to shoot the shit with someone, even if you don't see eye to eye.
You're absolutely right, I was being unfair. DT aren't always whoring it up with indulgent showboating, they can hold back and put together a coherent song. BUT, and of course there's a but, when they do it's just not interesting. There's the odd good wee riff here and there, and even some solo's I would classify as 'good' (get me being the snob, right? ) but it's just all very so-so.
Yeah, I get what you're saying, and it's a very fair point. It's unfortunate, but a lot of their best riffs and musical ideas are mostly found in their overblown and most showboat-sy tracks like "Home" or "This Dying Soul" (feel no obligation to listen to all of these, by the way ), which sadly does make them inaccessible to less patient listeners, or listeners who're less tolerant of musical piss-around-ery.
With that being said, though, I do think that Dream Theater are capable of penning tracks that are both concise and entertaining, such as "You or Me". "These Walls", I agree, isn't an overly strong track; it was more just an example used to refute your point, rather than to give an actual good example of good song. But, then again, "You or Me" might be equally as unexciting for you, in which case it just comes down to difference in personal taste in the end.
If you don't have the content then don't pad your song out with so-so stuff.
Yeah, I can also understand this point, almost completely. But, often, I find that the 'padding out' does actually serve a purpose in the song, as it helps set the mood for a track, or helps build to a climax. For example, in "Home", it opens with a minute-and-a-half intro with very little going on, but then, slowly, more elements are added to it, and more begins to actually happen, and then finally the band dives into the main riff, and it's just so satisfying (for me personally, anyway). And I find that that riff wouldn't actually have had the same sort of impact if it wasn't for the minute-and-a-half of 'padding' that precedes it.
So, whilst not overly exciting or enjoyable in itself, it aids in enhancing the piece of music that follows/juxtaposes it.
And, as a listener such as myself, that suits me just fine, since I'm willing to sit through minutes of mediocrity for pieces of the song that I love; that's just the sort of listener I am, and is probably the main reason why I can get such an enormous kick out of Dream Theater.
-there's not a wasted moment
-kicks ass
-there's always something interesting happening (harmonies, octave chords, changes from minor to major, chunky riffs, drum fills, solos etc.)
-musicianship is tight
-doesn't outstay its welcome
-has that special unqantifiable quality that makes a great piece
-kicks ass
See, I like songs like this too. I actually think this is great, and the particular style of the song benefits from being short, quick and to-the-point. But, the thing about DT's music is that it actually often does benefit from having a certain degree of extravagance, overblown-ness and convolution, because it's just a very different style. But I can appreciate both, since I was brought up on quite a range of rock music, which is why I can jumps from listening to, say, Motorhead to Yes and enjoy both just as easily, because I can get just what makes both of those styles/sub-genres great.
Bobber, you've been asked before. Don't make derogatory comments without an argument to back them up. Otherwise, you come off as a troll, and there will be punitive action.
Comments
Well, see, that basically is the reason for it being so good. It was a song that was new and very different from pretty much all of the rock songs you'd be hearing at the time. But, y'know, I just really like the overall groove of the song, I like the originality of the riff(s), I like the innovation in the song and the unusualness of its structure. And I also really do enjoy the performance on the track. Sure there are plenty of bands who are easily capable of covering "Kashmir" picture perfect, and are probably able to run circles around it, but I think that it's Led Zep's approach to the song; the distinctive style of theirs that's strongly present in the song - I think that that's what makes it for me; that's what gives the song its unique feel and vibe that I find really appealing.
I just personally believe that it's a well-written song which was well though-out, well-performed, and has a style that I feel is exclusive to Zeppelin, cannot be emulated, and just fits the song incredibly well.
I mean, I've heard versions of the song that are a bit more complex in terms of arrangements and technicality, and are probably musically better and tighter. But they lack the style that Led Zep brought. That's what made it for me.
Yeah, I agree. So often I just find myself wanting them to try something new; something different; try out just a few more different sorts of arrangements and structures. And yes, mix up the beats every now and then. But, in saying that, this extreme simplicity is what AC/DC is going for; that's the style that they've chosen because they like it and that's what they feel comfortable with. I'm sure they can go beyond what they're currently doing, but I get the feeling that determinedly sticking to this style is actually what allows them to come up with these catchy riffs and memorable songs, because they're working within a formula which they've refined, and which allows them to churn out quality rock songs with consistency and ease. I think they know this, and they ultimately have a reluctance to change the formula at all. And, as a fan of their output, I really can't hold it against them too much.
Phil Rudd is a lame drummer.
Haha! Yes, got to agree.
It would be nice to see a deviation from his standard bass, snare, bass, snare 4/4 beat. Honestly, he hardly does any fills, he shows almost zero independence, and he displays no imagination or proficiency as a drummer. You could give somebody drum lessons for a few months, and they'd probably be fully capable of what Rudd can do (or what he bothers to do).
I know I've said I don't blame AC/DC for their simplistic approach, but that's one aspect of their music which has just annoyed me. They could make their music so much more interesting and dynamic if they were to just hire a different drummer, and it wouldn't come at the expense of their distinctive style, sound or music-making formula.
Neil Peart is unnaturally good. I have such immense respect for that guy. He's one of those sorts of drummers who's more than just a beat-keeper or a human metronome, but a guy who can bring so much to the music through the way he plays his instrument; where he adds something to the music, rather than just serving as the anchor that all the other musicians play their parts around. The same can't be said for many drummers.
You mean of Def Leppard? He's great. Especially because he's able to do all that drumming with the one arm! How do YOU feel about Neil Peart? What about Gene Krupa?
Well, are there any that you at least enjoy or admire?
I'm not familiar with Gene Krupa. Neil Peart is pretty good, and certainly makes for some of the more challenging-yet-doable drumming songs in Rock Band.
2) Jeff Beck
3) Jeff Beck.
These are my first 3.
Nope.
Oh. Well... thanks for bringing such... interesting points to the discussion.
Jeff Beck is good, but compared to SRV, Jeff Beck ain't sh*t!
Mike Mangini is also terrific, but I have to look into him a bit more before I properly make any decisions about him.
And, though he's not a favourite, I was actually pleased to find that Nickelback's drummer is actually alright at playing, which I was quite surprised at, since I didn't really expect anybody from Nickelback to actually... y'know, play their instrument very well.
Oh, HELL yes. Getting to see him play live with Avenged Sevenfold was an incredible experience.
No, it doesn't. But some technicality/complexity mixed in with catchy/pleasant music is always nice. No, it doesn't directly equate to quality or enjoyment, but it can often enhance it if it's added to the music.
This is true, but they don't have to answer to anyones musical taste but their own.
Complexity's all well and good when it has a point other than gaudy showmanship. It obviously goes without saying that many renowned classical pieces are technical marvels, not just in terms of virtuoso musicianship but also composition, compelxity in these pieces means something and appeals to the everyman because of the rich tapesty it creates.
That's all well and good, simple love songs are your bread and butter, but every so often you need to push boundaries to get somewhere new. Experimentation is how new genres are born, for better or worse.
I loathe Dream Theatre though whilst we're half talking about them. It's just a bunch of lads dangling their music degrees in front of the audience with not a thought for melody or musical sensibility. The band members have spawned one song I like, and it was one of Petrucci's solo affairs. Even large sections of it are quite stinky though, but I cannot fault that main hook and melody. Technical but serves a point.
He's still a souless music nerd though.
I'm just curious, what of Dream Theater's music have you actually heard? Because I've heard this opinion spouted quite often, and it's rarely expressed by people who have heard little of the band beyond, say, "Pull Me Under" and "Dark Eternal Night".
I mean, I'm guessing you're basing your opinion of the band on a little more than most people do; you've probably explored them a bit more than most, since you've been able to stumble upon John Petrucci's solo work. But I just don't get the sentence "[they have no thought] for melody or musical sensibility." Because, personally, I find that they do pay attention to these things. Yes, admittedly they do take their opportunities for a bit of fretwankery, but I find that most of the soloing is generally done in a way that works with the music and lifts the song overall. And I find that even the complex, long, grandiloquent instrumental sections do hold some quite an amount of aesthetic appeal.
Yes, they're showing off, but to say that they give "no thought to melody or musical sensibility" is just wrong. It's the difference between that Animals As Leaders track I reviewed over in the 'Rate the Last Song(s) You Heard' thread, and one of the solos out of "Blind Faith". Sure, they're both fast and showy, but I certainly know which one has some life to it, and has an actual purpose.
And, as for the purely melodic side of things, go listen to a song like "Solitary Shell" and tell me that melody hasn't been given any consideration here.
And then there's tracks such as "These Walls", which is focused primarily on the creating a cohesive, succinct, self-contained song; it's song-orientated, rather than jam-orientated, and you'll find tracks like this scattered throughout DT's discography.
Sorry to bombard you with links and verbose counter-arguments, but I just think that what you said was unfair and... well, wrong. That, and I'm highly defensive of the things that I enjoy a lot. Sorry for that
Not at all! Always good to shoot the shit with someone, even if you don't see eye to eye.
You're absolutely right, I was being unfair. DT aren't always whoring it up with indulgent showboating, they can hold back and put together a coherent song. BUT, and of course there's a but, when they do it's just not interesting. There's the odd good wee riff here and there, and even some solo's I would classify as 'good' (get me being the snob, right?
To me the songs are still just a platform to showcase the skillz of the band, so the content there that's more restrained is just a bit dull to me. It's probably a by-product of myself being brought up on Punk Rock and two minute songs, but every second should count!! If you don't have the content then don't pad your song out with so-so stuff.
To me this is an example of the perfect rock song. The style may not be for everyone but it meets my criteria
-there's not a wasted moment
-kicks ass
-there's always something interesting happening (harmonies, octave chords, changes from minor to major, chunky riffs, drum fills, solos etc.)
-musicianship is tight
-doesn't outstay its welcome
-has that special unqantifiable quality that makes a great piece
-kicks ass
I dunno. This is a better rock song in my opinion.
JedExodus doesn't want to sound like a total tit, but he has something of an eclectic musical taste.
"Made from pressure heat and water" is stuck in my head now.
Daishi just ain't hXc enough. Sorry brah!
But aye, ye couldn't listen to hardcore all day, would drive ye spare. It's good for exercise music or if ye needa let off steam.
I'm a sucker for really fast punk
Yeah, I get what you're saying, and it's a very fair point. It's unfortunate, but a lot of their best riffs and musical ideas are mostly found in their overblown and most showboat-sy tracks like "Home" or "This Dying Soul" (feel no obligation to listen to all of these, by the way
With that being said, though, I do think that Dream Theater are capable of penning tracks that are both concise and entertaining, such as "You or Me". "These Walls", I agree, isn't an overly strong track; it was more just an example used to refute your point, rather than to give an actual good example of good song. But, then again, "You or Me" might be equally as unexciting for you, in which case it just comes down to difference in personal taste in the end.
Yeah, I can also understand this point, almost completely. But, often, I find that the 'padding out' does actually serve a purpose in the song, as it helps set the mood for a track, or helps build to a climax. For example, in "Home", it opens with a minute-and-a-half intro with very little going on, but then, slowly, more elements are added to it, and more begins to actually happen, and then finally the band dives into the main riff, and it's just so satisfying (for me personally, anyway). And I find that that riff wouldn't actually have had the same sort of impact if it wasn't for the minute-and-a-half of 'padding' that precedes it.
So, whilst not overly exciting or enjoyable in itself, it aids in enhancing the piece of music that follows/juxtaposes it.
And, as a listener such as myself, that suits me just fine, since I'm willing to sit through minutes of mediocrity for pieces of the song that I love; that's just the sort of listener I am, and is probably the main reason why I can get such an enormous kick out of Dream Theater.
See, I like songs like this too. I actually think this is great, and the particular style of the song benefits from being short, quick and to-the-point. But, the thing about DT's music is that it actually often does benefit from having a certain degree of extravagance, overblown-ness and convolution, because it's just a very different style. But I can appreciate both, since I was brought up on quite a range of rock music, which is why I can jumps from listening to, say, Motorhead to Yes and enjoy both just as easily, because I can get just what makes both of those styles/sub-genres great.
And you're a troll, pure and simple. And a really obvious and bad one at that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRN39ao_PYk
Screw them if they think they can cover AC/DC!
What, shi*ty AC/DC rip-off bands not good enough for you?
I think you may have wandered into the thread for getting hit over the head. Arguments are in the Rate the Last Song you Heard thread.