Saif 13.03.2009 13:26 |
I happen to be a BIG metalhead and Dream Theater incidentally is a band I like very much. Today I was listening to their song "Surrounded" which is by the by, a great song. What flabbergasted me was that the intro was NOTE FOR NOTE copy of the intro of Queen's "Father to Son" from Queen II. Dream Theater has acknowledged Queen as a tremendous influence on their music and has played many Queen songs live but they haven't given Queen credit for the intro... Have a listen: link I mean seriously, that's not cool. |
lalaalalaa 13.03.2009 13:37 |
Total ripoff |
Saif 13.03.2009 13:53 |
They do a great cover of "Death On Two Legs"... They've covered "Bohemian Rhapsody" as well as a plethora of Queen's harder songs. Look for them on YouTube. But this was just atrocious. They thought no one would notice since the intro was ripped off from one of the most under-rated and lesser-known albums of all-time. |
redspecialusa 13.03.2009 14:54 |
Agreed, it's a ripoff. |
The Real Wizard 13.03.2009 16:05 |
Well, it's all about how you define a rip-off... Theoretically-speaking, it's a D sus arpeggio played repeatedly. Queen probably weren't the first to think about that, either. As Brian May recently said, one can't create music from a vacuum. You're bound to be influenced by things around you. It may be the same notes, but Dream Theater do something completely different with them. Although Dream Theater often wear their influences on their sleeve, Images And Words is a superb album - one of the best rock albums ever, as far as I'm concerned. It's the one record they did that is completely focused on the songwriting. To me, this thread just sounds like yet another case of Queen fans somehow trying to justify the ever-growing view that Queen were the first band to come up with countless musical ideas and are somehow not allowed to influence others, discrediting other artists when they do. Until marketing became a big tool for music in the 50s and copyright laws came to be, it was seen as the greatest possible compliment and honour when someone quoted your song in their own. History and details aside, really, who cares if a few notes are the same as a Queen song? Queen were great, as are other bands. Peace, love, and enjoy the music. |
fernandosales 13.03.2009 16:33 |
I agreed with Sir GH. What about Pink Floyd's Arnold Lyne and Now I'm Here? |
david(galashiels) 13.03.2009 16:42 |
a rip off,or a small bit of silent praise?. |
L-R-TIGER1994 13.03.2009 16:54 |
I would say it's a "riff-off". |
doxonrox 13.03.2009 18:51 |
Sir GH was spot on with every point. Surrounded is a great song, and if the opening little arpeggio is lifted off Father to Son, I see it as more of a clever tribute than a ripoff. |
Saif 13.03.2009 20:41 |
Tribute...never thought of it that way, I guess. But it makes sense, they routinely pay tribute to Queen, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. I don't have the view that Queen was the first band to come up with every musical idea. I guess I was so shocked that this wasn't mentioned anywhere before that I decided to post it. |
thunderbolt 31742 13.03.2009 21:03 |
Look for Dream Theater's "Big Medley." It's twelve minutes long, and a medley of songs by Kansas, Queen (hard rock part of Bo Rhap and the guitar solo), Pink Floyd, and a couple other bands. It's actually a great song, and not a note of it is Dream Theater's original work. |
Saif 13.03.2009 22:21 |
I know that song and love it. The medley contains songs that otherwise I would never listen to separately. Dream Theater sometimes covers entire albums, such as Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon. In some countries, they are widely anticipated to cover A Night At The Opera but James LaBrie said in some metal magazine that they "weren't ready" but it was inevitable. Let's wait and see. Here's to hoping they cover Queen II! |
Treasure Moment 15.03.2009 07:10 |
Dream theater is a perfect example of highly skilled musicians who cant write a single decent song. |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 15.03.2009 07:47 |
^ whats your excuse then? |
thequeen 15.03.2009 10:10 |
what's yours Doxysomething ? |
thequeen 15.03.2009 10:11 |
JoxerPirat i mean |
Saif 15.03.2009 14:14 |
Get a clue, moron. Joxer isn't a musician. Joxer was referring to TM's poor musical skills. |
thequeen 15.03.2009 14:57 |
ok moron ....(didn't know this was used to greet other people on QZ, but oh ...heck....I like it already!) [img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img] |
thunderbolt 31742 15.03.2009 21:48 |
Whereas Treasure Moment is a perfect example of no-talent assclowns who can't write a single decent song. |
ziggybsas 16.03.2009 14:06 |
Dream Theater and specially John Petrucci (the guitar player) always plays little parts of other people's song in their own songs (most of all in their live shows)... so is more like a tribute... i saw them live a couple of times and they play little parts of: Whenever i may roam (Metallica), Mother (Pink Floyd), Starship Trooper (Yes) and a few more that i can remember... so in my opinion this is not a copy. Bye! (sorry for my english!) |
The_Disabled_Jester 16.03.2009 17:17 |
saif wrote : I mean seriously, that's not cool They thought no one would notice since the intro was ripped off from one of the most under-rated and lesser-known albums of all-time don't have the view that Queen was the first band to come up with every musical idea. I guess I was so shocked that this wasn't mentioned anywhere before that I decided to post it. Here's to hoping they cover Queen II ...you're just a walking talking contradiction lol, what a turnaround haha |
Yara 16.03.2009 22:56 |
I wrote this last year here on Queenzone and it's related to the topic at hand. A dear Queenzoner asked me to find the post and re-post it, and here it is. As always, I hope it helps: "Hi, Boca! I think music would be a very hard thing to do, even for the most gifted, if artists couldn't rely on other people's work, past and present, to create pieces of their own. In every piece of music there are signs of a certain, or of many, musical traditions - no one breakes new ground without being acquainted with what has already been achieved in the musical tradition. One has to start from some point. Things don't come up out of thin air or nothing. In the end of the day, however, if the composer is really imaginative, he succeeds in creating new, fresh interesting material from things he has listened to, read, remembers, and so on. I think it's very hard to tell sometimes plagiarism from influence - some songs are so strikingly similar in some respects that one tends to think that the composer did only a "copy and paste" process, but that's not so simple. Freddie's piano harmonic progressions and runs are reminiscent of dozens of classical pieces - you may find yourself listening to the introduction to "Death on Two Legs" or to the live intros to Somebody To Love in the works tour in the middle of a Liszt or Chopin composition - but then such artists as Liszt and Chopin or, as far as singing is concerned, Aretha, availed themselves of the tradition to create new ways of approaching an instrument or even vocals which turned out to be the very framework within which other artists would do their stuff. With time, their influence is so pervasive that one is just infected by it and tends to build things based on such influences unconsciously. Freddie's vocals in "Somebody to Love", especially in the 80's, seemed like a conscious effort to sound like Aretha - however, the song itself, even though it does have traditional gospel elements, is a new, fresh piece of music with a lot of innovation and creativity. The guitar introduction of Oasis' "Cigarretes & Alcohol" can be heard on Power Station's "Get it On", on about two or three Kiss' songs, and I started to try to trace it and it goes back to some basic blues progressions which happened to be developed to sound as a catchy and groovy rock n roll motive. These developments were so obvious, musically speaking, that different people made it on their own, only to find that someone else had already drawned that conclusion before. I think plagiarism, that is, the conscient reproduction of other people's work without acknolwdgement and any further significant input or innovation is very hard to prove. These things are not so clear-cut. Freddie and Brian were heavily influenced by many artists. Such influences do show up in a more striking way in some songs, but in the end of the day their own input is creative enough to produce new, fresh and interesting tunes. I can't help but remembering Robert Plant and Led when I listen to the original version of Sheer Heart Attack. There may be an influence there, but the Queen tune has a mark of its own and I like it more than any Led song. So, even though by listening to Queen I do listen partially, consciously or not, to other artists, I can't think of any song that the guys plagiarized. I know the answer turned out to be too long, but well, it's NO. I can't think of plagiarism in any Queen song - influence, even heavy influence, yes, but not really plagiarism. Cheers and take care!" |
The_Disabled_Jester 17.03.2009 15:48 |
Yara wrote: I wrote this last year here on Queenzone and it's related to the topic at hand. A dear Queenzoner asked me to find the post and re-post it, and here it is. As always, I hope it helps: "Hi, Boca! I think music would be a very hard thing to do, even for the most gifted, if artists couldn't rely on other people's work, past and present, to create pieces of their own. In every piece of music there are signs of a certain, or of many, musical traditions - no one breakes new ground without being acquainted with what has already been achieved in the musical tradition. One has to start from some point. Things don't come up out of thin air or nothing. In the end of the day, however, if the composer is really imaginative, he succeeds in creating new, fresh interesting material from things he has listened to, read, remembers, and so on. I think it's very hard to tell sometimes plagiarism from influence - some songs are so strikingly similar in some respects that one tends to think that the composer did only a "copy and paste" process, but that's not so simple. Freddie's piano harmonic progressions and runs are reminiscent of dozens of classical pieces - you may find yourself listening to the introduction to "Death on Two Legs" or to the live intros to Somebody To Love in the works tour in the middle of a Liszt or Chopin composition - but then such artists as Liszt and Chopin or, as far as singing is concerned, Aretha, availed themselves of the tradition to create new ways of approaching an instrument or even vocals which turned out to be the very framework within which other artists would do their stuff. With time, their influence is so pervasive that one is just infected by it and tends to build things based on such influences unconsciously. Freddie's vocals in "Somebody to Love", especially in the 80's, seemed like a conscious effort to sound like Aretha - however, the song itself, even though it does have traditional gospel elements, is a new, fresh piece of music with a lot of innovation and creativity. The guitar introduction of Oasis' "Cigarretes & Alcohol" can be heard on Power Station's "Get it On", on about two or three Kiss' songs, and I started to try to trace it and it goes back to some basic blues progressions which happened to be developed to sound as a catchy and groovy rock n roll motive. These developments were so obvious, musically speaking, that different people made it on their own, only to find that someone else had already drawned that conclusion before. I think plagiarism, that is, the conscient reproduction of other people's work without acknolwdgement and any further significant input or innovation is very hard to prove. These things are not so clear-cut. Freddie and Brian were heavily influenced by many artists. Such influences do show up in a more striking way in some songs, but in the end of the day their own input is creative enough to produce new, fresh and interesting tunes. I can't help but remembering Robert Plant and Led when I listen to the original version of Sheer Heart Attack. There may be an influence there, but the Queen tune has a mark of its own and I like it more than any Led song. So, even though by listening to Queen I do listen partially, consciously or not, to other artists, I can't think of any song that the guys plagiarized. I know the answer turned out to be too long, but well, it's NO. I can't think of plagiarism in any Queen song - influence, even heavy influence, yes, but not really plagiarism. Cheers and take care!" You're head must be massive! |
*goodco* 18.03.2009 09:54 |
In the book 'Lifting Shadows', (a fairly good read, I must say), they readily admit, and pay homage to various artists and borrow a riff or two in the title track of 'Octavarium' (along with other tracks in their discography). For the life of me, I cannot tell what part of BoRhap is included, or where. A proper response would be appreciated. At around 2 minutes of 'Fatal Tragedy' from 'Scenes...' and 4:45 of 'Misunderstood' from 'Six Degrees....', Petrucci's lead guitar jumps out at you as if it is Brian May playing. I think of it as fitting the songs and honoring an influence, rather than 'stealing'. I love the beginning to 'Trial of Tears'. Almost a carbon copy of Rush's 'Xanadu'. Almost. But, so what. The Beatles never plagarized others' music or lyrics or book passages. Or Led Zeppelin. And the bass line of 'Another One Bites The Dust' wasn't influenced by anything previously released........... Or the beginning of 'It's A Hard Life'. Or....... I wanna thank the original poster of this thread. All these years, and I'd never thought of the 'Procession' similarities. Very cool indeed, if that's what they were doing. |
Mlaimo 18.03.2009 11:49 |
I always felt the last minute of Robbie Williams' Singing for the Lonely sounded exactly like 'Funny How Love Is': link Scroll to about 3:50 and give a listen... |
The Real Wizard 18.03.2009 13:05 |
Excellent post, goodco. |
Saif 18.03.2009 13:25 |
Yes, I know, I was wrong to jump to the conclusion that they "nicked" it. |
Treasure Moment 18.03.2009 16:07 |
Thunderbolt wrote: Whereas Treasure Moment is a perfect example of no-talent assclowns who can't write a single decent song. In your dreams retard, TM has more talent than 20 big mainstream bands put together. |
Major Tom 18.03.2009 18:09 |
Treasure Moment wrote:OMG! OMFG! LOL! ROFLMAO!Thunderbolt wrote: Whereas Treasure Moment is a perfect example of no-talent assclowns who can't write a single decent song.In your dreams retard, TM has more talent than 20 big mainstream bands put together. |
john bodega 19.03.2009 08:40 |
Treasure Moment wrote: In your dreams retard, TM has more talent than 20 big mainstream bands put together. Yeah, but which ones?? |
Winter Land Man 19.03.2009 14:39 |
Dream Theater knows their Queen. James LaBrie has sung numerous cover versions of Queen songs, both live and in the studio. |
Treasure Moment 20.03.2009 01:26 |
Major Tom wrote:Treasure Moment wrote:OMG! OMFG! LOL! ROFLMAO!Thunderbolt wrote: Whereas Treasure Moment is a perfect example of no-talent assclowns who can't write a single decent song.In your dreams retard, TM has more talent than 20 big mainstream bands put together. Keep laughing, im not being arrogant, just stating facts. |
Treasure Moment 20.03.2009 01:28 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Treasure Moment wrote: In your dreams retard, TM has more talent than 20 big mainstream bands put together.Yeah, but which ones?? They are so shitty i have a hard time remembering their names but here is a few coldplay, MCR, U2, rolling stones, jonas brothers etc i dont even know what bands are popular now because ive stopped watching mtv and other mainstream music sources because it sucks too much. |
john bodega 20.03.2009 02:38 |
Okay, I hate Coldplay, Jonas Brothers, My Chemical Romance ... but while U2 and the Rolling Stones are very overrated they've been at it for decades. They've proven themselves, man - just for staying together that long! What I want to know is how your band (that technically doesn't even exist) can have more talent than bands that are actually doing it for real? I mean come on dude... you're a couple of guys writing songs, and then only sometimes. Last time I heard you don't even have a singer? And I mean you FIRED Andreas, he was the most entertaining member of your group (judging by his complaints). Don't you guys have like, a game plan of sorts? Where do you see yourselves in a year, two years, five, ten? I submit to you that the musicians you named might not be outstanding at what they do, but that they've reached millions of people and you haven't. Writing something that people can identify with, and that people actually want to pay money to hear, IS a talent. |
doxonrox 20.03.2009 18:51 |
Yara wrote: I wrote this last year here on Queenzone and it's related to the topic at hand. A dear Queenzoner asked me to find the post and re-post it, and here it is. As always, I hope it helps: "Hi, Boca! I think music would be a very hard thing to do, even for the most gifted, if artists couldn't rely on other people's work, past and present, to create pieces of their own. In every piece of music there are signs of a certain, or of many, musical traditions - no one breakes new ground without being acquainted with what has already been achieved in the musical tradition. One has to start from some point. Things don't come up out of thin air or nothing. In the end of the day, however, if the composer is really imaginative, he succeeds in creating new, fresh interesting material from things he has listened to, read, remembers, and so on. I think it's very hard to tell sometimes plagiarism from influence - some songs are so strikingly similar in some respects that one tends to think that the composer did only a "copy and paste" process, but that's not so simple. Freddie's piano harmonic progressions and runs are reminiscent of dozens of classical pieces - you may find yourself listening to the introduction to "Death on Two Legs" or to the live intros to Somebody To Love in the works tour in the middle of a Liszt or Chopin composition - but then such artists as Liszt and Chopin or, as far as singing is concerned, Aretha, availed themselves of the tradition to create new ways of approaching an instrument or even vocals which turned out to be the very framework within which other artists would do their stuff. With time, their influence is so pervasive that one is just infected by it and tends to build things based on such influences unconsciously. Freddie's vocals in "Somebody to Love", especially in the 80's, seemed like a conscious effort to sound like Aretha - however, the song itself, even though it does have traditional gospel elements, is a new, fresh piece of music with a lot of innovation and creativity. The guitar introduction of Oasis' "Cigarretes & Alcohol" can be heard on Power Station's "Get it On", on about two or three Kiss' songs, and I started to try to trace it and it goes back to some basic blues progressions which happened to be developed to sound as a catchy and groovy rock n roll motive. These developments were so obvious, musically speaking, that different people made it on their own, only to find that someone else had already drawned that conclusion before. I think plagiarism, that is, the conscient reproduction of other people's work without acknolwdgement and any further significant input or innovation is very hard to prove. These things are not so clear-cut. Freddie and Brian were heavily influenced by many artists. Such influences do show up in a more striking way in some songs, but in the end of the day their own input is creative enough to produce new, fresh and interesting tunes. I can't help but remembering Robert Plant and Led when I listen to the original version of Sheer Heart Attack. There may be an influence there, but the Queen tune has a mark of its own and I like it more than any Led song. So, even though by listening to Queen I do listen partially, consciously or not, to other artists, I can't think of any song that the guys plagiarized. I know the answer turned out to be too long, but well, it's NO. I can't think of plagiarism in any Queen song - influence, even heavy influence, yes, but not really plagiarism. Cheers and take care!" I can't believe I wasted my time reading that... Sheer Hear Attack sounds like "Led", as you call them? Name the song. |
Saif 21.03.2009 05:33 |
I think he meant the SONG "Sheer Heart Attack" even though I disagree even then. Anyway, since we're on the topic, James LaBrie and John Petrucci of Dream Theater have covered "Sheer Heart Attack" on a Queen tribute album but I can't remember which. Metal covers of Queen songs rule. |
Raf 21.03.2009 10:37 |
I can't see the similarities between the song Sheer Heart Attack and Led Zeppelin's standard style. But on the Sheer Heart Attack ALBUM you can hear lots of similarities - especially Brighton Rock! |
thequeen 21.03.2009 12:46 |
Led Zeppelin sucks .....most overated band ever !!! |
The Real Wizard 21.03.2009 23:26 |
thequeen wrote: Led Zeppelin sucks .....most overated band ever !!! What was the point of that? The fact that others are discussing this band doesn't mean you have to give a childishly expressed opinion that isn't going to add to the discussion. Instead of spouting your constant negativity, say something positive now and again. You might feel a bit better too. |
Yara 22.03.2009 10:02 |
Well, just to re-state what I actually wrote. :-)))) There's been some misreading, which is ok, we're on a forum, so I'd like to point out where the misunderstanding is. It's ok not to like Led Zeppelin. It's okay to think that Queen is great and Led Zeppelin sucks. All this is really ok. No problem. Saying that there's no Led Zeppelin - I'll come back to it, because I'm always careful about my wording, even though writting in a rush, it's the only way I can write - influence on Queen's Sheer Heart Attack album is just false. It's not a question of taste: it's false. I write in a rush, I don't do research before I write, it just comes up: that's the fun of being here. Now, what strikes me as particularly funny, is that I find myself "agreeing with" Freddie and Brian after someone points me out some interview done by them. I wrote that post last year without having a clue about these Freddie Mercury's interviews, one in 1975 and the other in 1977. Just copy & pasting from some links a dear user provided me, now: Freddie interviewed in April, 1975: "Led Zeppelin is the greatest. Robert Plant is one of the most original vocalists of our time. As a rock band they deserve the kind of success they're getting." Now, Freddie in a interview in 1977: "Back in the old days, we were often compared to Led Zeppelin. If we did something with harmony, it was the Beach Boys. Something heavy was Led Zeppelin. Robert Plant was always my favourite singer-and he's said nice things about me, you know. He actually said he liked "Killer Queen". We were always a sitting target in the press because we became popular so quickly. But, you know, we spent two years putting our act together. It destroys the soul to hear that you're all hype, that you have no talent, and that your whole career has been contrived. I was never too keen on the British music press. They've called us a supermarket hype, and they used to suggest that we didn't write our own songs. When the whole point of Queen was to be original. I'm the first to accept fair criticism. But the dishonest reviews-where people haven't done their homework-I just tear them up. I do get annoyed when up-and-coming journalists put themselves above the artist. I don't care what journalists say, we achieved our own identity after QUEEN II. As for the Beach Boys or Led Zeppelin comparisons: it's the combination of all those influences which means Queen. We were disliked by the press in the early days because they couldn't put their finger on us, and that was the case with Zeppelin as well." I'd like to point out that he didn't mention any Led member by name other than Plant in this interview. Maybe for the obvious reason that he was a singer and, as such, was both impressed and influenced by Plant, whose singing had quite an impact on the rock scene. And he openly recognized that Queen meant the combination of these influences - Led, Beach Boys, and so on - and that was exactly what made Queen original. Being able to filter the influence they got and create something ORIGINAL out of it, giving their own creative input, was the key. And that was exactly what I wrote. : -)) Now, let's just put some pieces together regarding the minor question, that is, the particular song "Sheer Heart Attack": 1) The song sheer heart attack wasn't meant to be sung by Freddie, but rather by Roger Taylor. 2) Freddie was then given the task - he had to record a song he wasn't meant to sing, theoretically. So he had to come up with good ideas fitting the song - and he did come with many good ideas, some of them reminiscent of Plant because it was a reference for him, a way of putting off a bluesy, glam rock singing, which was exactly the style he was developing and ended up being such an important aspect of his singing. Plant provided a framework within which he could shape his own, unique singing. He made it possible for Freddie to think about ways of singing he probably wouldn't have managed to reach and develop by himself. The way he phrases the whole thing is very similar to Plant's style, especially when he has do go through bluesy reiterations and the resolution of the verses - even the lenght and the colour of the notes (!!) are strikingly similar to many Plant's performances. It's very similar to Plant because Plant was, at that time, a huge influence: he could have borrowed the same technique from any other cat and used it and it'd sound differently from what's in the recording. It sounds the way it does, except for the chorus, I think, which is a different beast, because of Plant's influence on him - the similiarity for me is too striking. But then, again, as always: I=me=Yara=personal opinion. What's not my personal opinion is that Robert Plant and Led were huge influences on Queen back in 1975, still in 1977...because that's what Freddie himself said. So we may disagree as to where this influence lies, but denying there's one, and a very important one, would be false and foolish, I think. It's not that he plagiarized or copied anyone. It's simply that Robert Plant, one may like it or not, was part of his musical background and formation: he made a kind of bluesy, hard rock, but glam and sometimes more delicate style possible, and that did influence Freddie a lot. Denying that is just like denying Aretha's influence on him later on, I think - it's pointless. He did that without being counscious about it - Led, and specially Plant, was a kind of textbook for him, one of the basis on which he founded his singing style. And he kept listening to Led for a long, long time... And then Brian May, more recently, in an interview with Tony Iommi, bearing Freddie's statements out: "BM: Okay my third choice is Led Zeppelin and it would be impossible for my life to exist without Led Zeppelin, I think. TI: You and probably many others. BM: Yeah. It was - yeah I went to see them many times and I think with a tinge of jealousy, because we were trying to get our group together at the time now I remember. Actually I also remember hearing a Black Sabbath track and somebody saying "Oh these guys are really it you know" and I was going 'Oh, no no no no no. I'm sure they're not" and a feeling of deep jealousy that you'd got your stuff together, but . . . TI: Who told you that? (Both laugh) BM: No - it was amazing, you know. But I gotta say, Zeppelin were a model to us, not just musically but also business-wise. " And that's what he got to say about Jimmy Page, when they were talking about and listening to Kashmir: BM: Jimmy Page, of course. One of the great brains of rock of all time. So Brian May is in awe of Led and, especially Jimmy Page, as Freddie was of Robert Plant - that doesn't mean they were just pale copies of their influences, but that they took advantage of their influences to make strong, original, great-sounding material. As to the minor question - the sheer heart attack song - I think Freddie sounds, in the album, as I said, pretty much like Plant - give it a listen again, it's nothing otherwordly. The chorus, yes, is when Queen comes to the front and Plant and Led's bluesy hard rock go to the background, I think. Best regards you all, have a great, great sunday, now it's time for me to do some swimming. I hate gyms, running, and all that, but swimming and playing tenis rock. Haha. |
thequeen 22.03.2009 19:32 |
Sir GH wrote:thequeen wrote: Led Zeppelin sucks .....most overated band ever !!!What was the point of that? The fact that others are discussing this band doesn't mean you have to give a childishly expressed opinion that isn't going to add to the discussion. Instead of spouting your constant negativity, say something positive now and again. You might feel a bit better too. Oh sorry , It wasn't meant to be childish at all. I just don't lik LZ at all! other than that ...what's there to be positive about ? it's not here ...it's not around the corner of the street either so ....tell me : what positive things - if I may call them that - should we discuss ? |
john bodega 22.03.2009 23:32 |
You could exercise the better part of valour and just not post in the thread. |
The Real Wizard 24.03.2009 03:14 |
thequeen wrote: Oh sorry , It wasn't meant to be childish at all. I just don't lik LZ at all! Ahhh... that's quite different from "they're the most overrated band ever." >other than that ...what's there to be positive about ? Look around without judgement, and you'll see plenty. Start by posting in places where you state things you like about music instead of dislikes. Negative statements about art don't get anyone anywhere, whereas positive statements will create positive conversation. |
*goodco* 24.03.2009 13:41 |
just adding an additional comment and critique or two.......... for the life of me, why do people post comments that have nothing to do with a thread? And then add nothing to it? One could say that Led Zep suxx on this particular note, and then place a comment regarding Dream Theater. Or the end of 'Procession' that relates to 'Surrounded'. But.........we end up with SHA and Zep and another poster (poser) simply saying a band stinks. Why? It's all across the board. I simply do not understand. Relate your comments to the thread, or just ignore it. Moving on........many a track that the band, originally named 'Majesty', place on an album are NOT to my liking. The 'cookie monster' vocals on various tracks of 'Train' and 'Chaos' are annoying. Certain songs are over-indulgent, but that is my point of view. I record parts of them, or skip all together. 'Images', 'Scenes', 'Six Degrees', and 'Ocatavium' are CDs that are strong as hell from start to finish. Wish Brian and Roger would do something as complex and musically rewarding. To GH: thank you for the compliment of a previous post. And, thank you, for being a guide for Queen bootleg concerts that I have purchased in recent years. To Saif: once again, kudos for spotting the riff 'borrowing'. Well done. Following comments were understood. I am looking forward to seeing DT once or twice this summer. Since they never play the same tunes from night to night (unlike Queen), I hope I like the set lists and their new album. Loved what they did in Baltimore in 2007, absolutely adored what they played in DC in 2008. The violin version only of various 'Scenes' tracks while waiting for the band to appear on stage, followed by the 'Psycho' chase scene music, leading into their videos and then the fabulous 'Ant Odyssey', was the best beginning of any concert since seeing Queen in '78 (the '80 and '82 shows used too much current music and was too loud IMHO). I probably won't enjoy the warm up bands except for 'Zappa Plays Zappa', but it will be a fun night or two. We will do one night within 20 rows of the stage on the floor, the other night in the far upper bowl, directly facing the stage. A repeated question: what part of BoRhap, and where, does it appear in 'Octavarium'? Thanks in advance. in closing........to zebonka..............for referencing my signature without knowing it. Falstaff should be quoted more often on this board. |
The Real Wizard 24.03.2009 14:04 |
*goodco* wrote: A repeated question: what part of BoRhap, and where, does it appear in 'Octavarium'? Thanks in advance. It's a reference to the piano theme, between the first two verses, at 6:30. It's subtle, but it's there. |
Yara 24.03.2009 14:39 |
@ *godco* Hi! Hope you're doing fine. I hope these help: link Musical References: - 0:00 - 3:48 draws from Pink Floyd's "Shine On You Crazy Diamond," Tangerine Dream, and Queen's "Bijou" - 3:49 - Spock's Beard theme - 4:33 - Änglagård flute "Godfather" theme similarities - 6:33 - Bohemian Rhapsody piano theme - 9:00 - During the bass groove the guitar arpeggio plays Anna Lee's verse vocal melody - 12:15 - Marillion keyboards with Wakeman flourish - 12:17 - Styx's Sequential Circuites Prophet 5 synth part - 17:47 - Jingle Bells on keyboards - 17:55 - Spock's Beard / Neal Morse acoustic guitar break - 18:43 - Dave Mustaine vocal style with "Forgotten Sons" prayer feel - 19:55 - Godfather theme reprise - 21:30 - Guitar tone is very Brian May AC30ish and the phrasing is very similar to his - A vocal harmony is Razor's Edge is also used in "Get Back" by The Beatles (which interestingly enough is referenced in Full Circle) Nuggets: - 14:03 - A sample of someone saying "This is where we came in" plays. This sample is most likely referencing Pink Floyd's "The Wall." At the end of The Wall someone says "So this is where..." and at the beginning some says "...we came in." This is probably emphasis of Octavarium's focus on how things go in cycles and repeat, the end is the beginning. This also is a reference to their influences growing up as the coming lyrics signify. There's a website (!!!!!!!!!!!) dedicated only to a lengthy analysis of Octavarium: http://dt.spatang.com/octavarium.php It's a treat for DM fans. I like Image and Words, it's a great album. And I loved the live set in Budokan - it was a great buy, it was really worth getting. ---As for SHA and Led, the thread naturally developed to a broader question about plagiarism, copy and influence - I posted something I wrote last year and many people liked, a user asked me to post again, and I did it. An user misunderstood the whole thing, just picked that line drawing the comparison between SHA and Led out of context and insisted on it - he didn't even understand I was refering to sheer heart attack the song; and, more, that it was only an illustration of a broader issue that had been brought up. Then came the guy saying that Led stinks, and I showed him, who's a Freddie lover, that Freddie not only loved Led Zeppelin, but had Robert Plant as one of his favorite singers - and he said so at least in two occasions: 1975 and 1977 - that is, encompassing both SHA the album, which Brian thinks is quite "dirty" and influenced by Led, by the way, and Sheer Heart Attack the song, where I think Freddie drew heavily, apart from the chorus, on Plant's bluesy, hard rock but at the same time more glam, grooved and delicate style. In that way, I tried, so to speak, to contribute in a helpful way answering to the "led stinks" phrase by presenting, I hope, a simple helpful reasoning made in the context of the thread and as a result of a misundersating of what I had actually written. So people can always try to undermine helpful, or well-intentioned tries to make helpful inputs by focusing, and wrongly so, on a single phrase, and so on. It's kind of usual here and I just try to make the best out of what I think isn't helpful at all. Best regards and I wish you good, P.S.: I'd like to kindly ask people who may agree or disagree with whatever phrase I've written to do so, if you feel like doing, of course, in another thread, to avoid spoiling this one. Cheers! |
Saif 25.03.2009 10:46 |
Yara wrote: Then came the guy saying that Led stinks, and I showed him, who's a Freddie lover, that Freddie not only loved Led Zeppelin, but had Robert Plant as one of his favorite singers - and he said so at least in two occasions: 1975 and 1977 - that is, encompassing both SHA the album, which Brian thinks is quite "dirty" and influenced by Led, by the way, and Sheer Heart Attack the song, where I think Freddie drew heavily, apart from the chorus, on Plant's bluesy, hard rock but at the same time more glam, grooved and delicate style. I thought Roger sang "Sheer Heart Attack"? |
Yara 25.03.2009 11:36 |
In the demo version, yes. It was meant for him to sing, but they share duties in the final version. Freddie ended up taking the largest chunk of it and gave it a distinctive mark, on which I commented above. The chorus, I think, is a different beast: it's a vocal harmony which puts forward the Queen trademark and the other elements go to the background. It's a great combination. Brian May said once: "Well, it's mixture - a compromise, as often happened in these cases. Roger had done a demo, and our usual practice was to use the demo's as a bed for the final track. Roger had sung it all, but the decision was made to get Freddie to the job for the record. Roger was keen that Freddie sing it pretty much like the demo to retain the (kind of Punkspoof?) atmosphere. Freddie didn't find it that easy since it wasn't his natural style. But it's Freddie you hear doing the verses - double tracked." And that's my point, but it could be developed in another thread...I guess it's better. I think Freddie didn't go well with Roger's take and added a Robert Plant mark there - It's my opinion. Brian made other remarks which lead me to believe it's not an absurd opinion, but it is, of course, my own personal opinion. Best regards, Yara |
*goodco* 26.03.2009 12:09 |
Yara, thanks for the Octavarium link and your thoughtful posts.......... btw, when trying to hear BoRhap in the title track, I'd heard the 'now I've gone and thrown it all away' ......piano/guitar lick over and over and over again (includes the flute/synth part just before the lyrics begin as well). Maybe I should add that comment to the site. |
doxonrox 26.03.2009 20:55 |
Yara wrote: In the demo version, yes. It was meant for him to sing, but they share duties in the final version. Freddie ended up taking the largest chunk of it and gave it a distinctive mark, on which I commented above. The chorus, I think, is a different beast: it's a vocal harmony which puts forward the Queen trademark and the other elements go to the background. It's a great combination. Brian May said once: "Well, it's mixture - a compromise, as often happened in these cases. Roger had done a demo, and our usual practice was to use the demo's as a bed for the final track. Roger had sung it all, but the decision was made to get Freddie to the job for the record. Roger was keen that Freddie sing it pretty much like the demo to retain the (kind of Punkspoof?) atmosphere. Freddie didn't find it that easy since it wasn't his natural style. But it's Freddie you hear doing the verses - double tracked." And that's my point, but it could be developed in another thread...I guess it's better. I think Freddie didn't go well with Roger's take and added a Robert Plant mark there - It's my opinion. Brian made other remarks which lead me to believe it's not an absurd opinion, but it is, of course, my own personal opinion. Best regards, Yara Yeah, I've read that multiple times. But I don't buy it. I know Roger's voice when I hear it. Freddie and Rog mixed - maybe. But definitely not Freddie alone. It's pretty obvious. |
Saif 08.04.2009 06:13 |
*goodco* wrote: Yara, thanks for the Octavarium link and your thoughtful posts.......... btw, when trying to hear BoRhap in the title track, I'd heard the 'now I've gone and thrown it all away' ......piano/guitar lick over and over and over again (includes the flute/synth part just before the lyrics begin as well). Maybe I should add that comment to the site.Actually it's only the piano section just before "Mama, just killed a man..." that's present... Anyway, BUMP! I now completely subscribe to Sir GH's theory about the "nicking" being the result of a simple arpeggio... because I've found the same "riff" in a song by another progressive metal band I love: Symphony X! Their song "Through the Looking Glass" starts with the "Father to Son" riff... link One more thing, the bass sounds like it's hesitating to play the "Another One Bites The Dust" bassline... Great song though... But I wouldn't be surprised if Dream Theater and Symphony X actually DID "borrow" it directly because Dream Theater are big Queen fans(all of them) while Symphony X are Queen wannabes(not in a bad way). |
thomasquinn 32989 08.04.2009 12:48 |
Sir GH wrote: Well, it's all about how you define a rip-off... Theoretically-speaking, it's a D sus arpeggio played repeatedly. Queen probably weren't the first to think about that, either. As Brian May recently said, one can't create music from a vacuum. You're bound to be influenced by things around you. It may be the same notes, but Dream Theater do something completely different with them. Although Dream Theater often wear their influences on their sleeve, Images And Words is a superb album - one of the best rock albums ever, as far as I'm concerned. It's the one record they did that is completely focused on the songwriting. To me, this thread just sounds like yet another case of Queen fans somehow trying to justify the ever-growing view that Queen were the first band to come up with countless musical ideas and are somehow not allowed to influence others, discrediting other artists when they do. Until marketing became a big tool for music in the 50s and copyright laws came to be, it was seen as the greatest possible compliment and honour when someone quoted your song in their own. History and details aside, really, who cares if a few notes are the same as a Queen song? Queen were great, as are other bands. Peace, love, and enjoy the music. Just entered this discussion, and this post by Bob says it all. A riff by itself is just a series of intervals. No one 'owns' those. It's the context in which it is used that makes it either a new or a 'stolen' passage. |
Treasure Moment 08.04.2009 13:52 |
Valensia tried to copy the bohemian rhapsody formula exactly. |
thomasquinn 32989 08.04.2009 13:57 |
You tried to copy every synthetic, unimaginative '80s rip-off band. Doubly ironic. |
Treasure Moment 08.04.2009 19:43 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: You tried to copy every synthetic, unimaginative '80s rip-off band. Doubly ironic. We dont copy anything, what we do however is to create music better than anything 50 mainstream bands could do put together. |
john bodega 08.04.2009 20:45 |
Treasure Moment wrote: We dont copy anything, what we do however is to create music better than anything 50 mainstream bands could do put together. And you do it without a permanent line-up. That IS impressive! When are you going to upload it? |
Treasure Moment 09.04.2009 03:59 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Treasure Moment wrote: We dont copy anything, what we do however is to create music better than anything 50 mainstream bands could do put together.And you do it without a permanent line-up. That IS impressive! When are you going to upload it? the songs on the myspace is already better than all the mainstream bands music put together. |
Winter Land Man 09.04.2009 07:31 |
doxonrox wrote:Yara wrote: In the demo version, yes. It was meant for him to sing, but they share duties in the final version. Freddie ended up taking the largest chunk of it and gave it a distinctive mark, on which I commented above. The chorus, I think, is a different beast: it's a vocal harmony which puts forward the Queen trademark and the other elements go to the background. It's a great combination. Brian May said once: "Well, it's mixture - a compromise, as often happened in these cases. Roger had done a demo, and our usual practice was to use the demo's as a bed for the final track. Roger had sung it all, but the decision was made to get Freddie to the job for the record. Roger was keen that Freddie sing it pretty much like the demo to retain the (kind of Punkspoof?) atmosphere. Freddie didn't find it that easy since it wasn't his natural style. But it's Freddie you hear doing the verses - double tracked." And that's my point, but it could be developed in another thread...I guess it's better. I think Freddie didn't go well with Roger's take and added a Robert Plant mark there - It's my opinion. Brian made other remarks which lead me to believe it's not an absurd opinion, but it is, of course, my own personal opinion. Best regards, YaraYeah, I've read that multiple times. But I don't buy it. I know Roger's voice when I hear it. Freddie and Rog mixed - maybe. But definitely not Freddie alone. It's pretty obvious. I've read things like that many times, how can someone be so deaf to not hear Freddie singing on 'Sheer Heart Attack'??? |
The Real Wizard 09.04.2009 15:40 |
Treasure Moment wrote: the songs on the myspace is already better than all the mainstream bands music put together. Then why don't you put together a PK and send it to the major labels and get yourself a record deal? The radio and shops aren't going to take the songs off your myspace page. |
Treasure Moment 09.04.2009 17:33 |
Sir GH wrote:Treasure Moment wrote: the songs on the myspace is already better than all the mainstream bands music put together.Then why don't you put together a PK and send it to the major labels and get yourself a record deal? The radio and shops aren't going to take the songs off your myspace page. we will contact labels soon, we are going to film a video for that swedish song soon. |
thomasquinn 32989 10.04.2009 07:52 |
I can just imagine the faces of the poor people at those labels who have to listen to demo tapes. "Good god! I didn't know Milli Vanilli were high on DMT!" |
Treasure Moment 10.04.2009 08:05 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: I can just imagine the faces of the poor people at those labels who have to listen to demo tapes. "Good god! I didn't know Milli Vanilli were high on DMT!" those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them. |
i-Fred 10.04.2009 08:23 |
Sir GH wrote: Well, it's all about how you define a rip-off... Theoretically-speaking, it's a D sus arpeggio played repeatedly. Queen probably weren't the first to think about that, either. As Brian May recently said, one can't create music from a vacuum. You're bound to be influenced by things around you. It may be the same notes, but Dream Theater do something completely different with them. Although Dream Theater often wear their influences on their sleeve, Images And Words is a superb album - one of the best rock albums ever, as far as I'm concerned. It's the one record they did that is completely focused on the songwriting. To me, this thread just sounds like yet another case of Queen fans somehow trying to justify the ever-growing view that Queen were the first band to come up with countless musical ideas and are somehow not allowed to influence others, discrediting other artists when they do. Until marketing became a big tool for music in the 50s and copyright laws came to be, it was seen as the greatest possible compliment and honour when someone quoted your song in their own. History and details aside, really, who cares if a few notes are the same as a Queen song? Queen were great, as are other bands. Peace, love, and enjoy the music. Summed it up very well. |
thomasquinn 32989 10.04.2009 11:15 |
Treasure Moment wrote:ThomasQuinn wrote: I can just imagine the faces of the poor people at those labels who have to listen to demo tapes. "Good god! I didn't know Milli Vanilli were high on DMT!"those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them. They don't care about taste. All they care about is money, and they know very well what they can market and what not. And you, indeed, are not marketable. |
Treasure Moment 10.04.2009 15:08 |
ThomasQuinn wrote:Treasure Moment wrote:They don't care about taste. All they care about is money, and they know very well what they can market and what not. And you, indeed, are not marketable.ThomasQuinn wrote: I can just imagine the faces of the poor people at those labels who have to listen to demo tapes. "Good god! I didn't know Milli Vanilli were high on DMT!"those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them. of course we are not marketable because we actually make awesome music, marketable music is something so lacking of talent that its a joke. |
Major Tom 10.04.2009 17:04 |
Treasure Moment wrote:WOW...Now who's in denial? YOU ARE THE SHEEP. Haha...just the fact that you exist, sickens me. Let alone that you think you're the most awsome and talanted musician in the universe. I feel like throwing up.ThomasQuinn wrote:of course we are not marketable because we actually make awesome music, marketable music is something so lacking of talent that its a joke.Treasure Moment wrote:They don't care about taste. All they care about is money, and they know very well what they can market and what not. And you, indeed, are not marketable.ThomasQuinn wrote: I can just imagine the faces of the poor people at those labels who have to listen to demo tapes. "Good god! I didn't know Milli Vanilli were high on DMT!"those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them. |
Treasure Moment 10.04.2009 18:26 |
Major Tom wrote:Treasure Moment wrote:WOW...Now who's in denial? YOU ARE THE SHEEP. Haha...just the fact that you exist, sickens me. Let alone that you think you're the most awsome and talanted musician in the universe. I feel like throwing up.ThomasQuinn wrote:of course we are not marketable because we actually make awesome music, marketable music is something so lacking of talent that its a joke.Treasure Moment wrote:They don't care about taste. All they care about is money, and they know very well what they can market and what not. And you, indeed, are not marketable.ThomasQuinn wrote: I can just imagine the faces of the poor people at those labels who have to listen to demo tapes. "Good god! I didn't know Milli Vanilli were high on DMT!"those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them. How am i a sheep, im just stating facts, record companies these days give contracts to the most aweful worthless talentless crap possible. Vi ska spela in en video med nordman snart :D |
thomasquinn 32989 11.04.2009 07:26 |
They've been contracting worthless crap since the dawn of their existence, because making main-stream chart-pop is just so easy; it doesn't require a band, just a competent producer who doesn't care about artistic merit. Ironically, a significant proportion of the manufactured bands whose music was created solely by producers with samplers, gates and synthesizers are on YOUR list of "great music". |
The Real Wizard 11.04.2009 12:24 |
Treasure Moment wrote: those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them. Absolutely. But that is just part of the picture, as quickly consumable music is only one aspect of what is marketable. There are plenty of quality artists who have gotten record deals as well. You just don't recognize them for the good they're providing, because you choose to label them as talentless as well... artists like Oasis, Foo Fighters, Radiohead, Muse, Feist, Kings of Leon, the Arcade Fire, Rufus Wainwright, and the Cat Empire. Tastes aside, few sensible people (let alone serious musicians) would group in any of these artists with disposable pop like Britney Spears. Or do you know better than them, too? Unless you start broadening your horizons and understand why these kinds of artists get record deals, you haven't got a chance. But again, you might get signed to become an 80s parody band. In that case, be sure to read the fine print very carefully. |
thomasquinn 32989 12.04.2009 13:54 |
Sir GH wrote:Treasure Moment wrote: those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them.Absolutely. But that is just part of the picture, as quickly consumable music is only one aspect of what is marketable. There are plenty of quality artists who have gotten record deals as well. You just don't recognize them for the good they're providing, because you choose to label them as talentless as well... artists like Oasis, Foo Fighters, Radiohead, Muse, Feist, Kings of Leon, the Arcade Fire, Rufus Wainwright, and the Cat Empire. Tastes aside, few sensible people (let alone serious musicians) would group in any of these artists with disposable pop like Britney Spears. Or do you know better than them, too? Unless you start broadening your horizons and understand why these kinds of artists get record deals, you haven't got a chance. But again, you might get signed to become an 80s parody band. In that case, be sure to read the fine print very carefully. Still, to be marketable, a band must make a commercial, populist kind of music, by which I mean that it is appealing to the largest possible number of people. In order to be just that, the music needs to conform quite rigidly to stylistic features popular at the time, as well as to the norms of tonal harmony. Thus, the 'bandwidth' for commercially viable music as a section of all possible music is very narrow. |
The Real Wizard 13.04.2009 19:50 |
Fair play. That said, who says an artist needs to make commercially-viable music? Plenty of artists very do well outside of the mainstream without having to adhere to its demands et all... thank goodness. |
Yara 13.04.2009 22:22 |
Hi Thomas, how are you? I hope you're doing fine. To be marketable a band or a musician must only create something that people can enjoy, regardless of being in or completely outside of the mainstream, in my humble opinion. There's barely a piece of music which is not marketable - even what's considered the most uncompromised kind of music has proven to be over time totally marketable. Why? Because there are people like you, that is, people who don't want to listen to what's been offered in the mainstream, looking out for it - economically speaking, there's demand for very different kinds of music other than mainstream by people like you. If there's demand, there are people willing to meet it. Except maybe for Queen Productions, a case study. lol My point being: your relation to music isn't direct. It's mediated by the market. Even what's most advanced in music, say the Second Vienna School, or the most uncompromised, say Cecil Taylor or Tony Braxton, make their way into your ears through the market: there are people who study years and years and are trained to play Alban Berg's, Messiaen's or Boulet's pieces - these people study in institutions and they make contracts with record companies to release their product, which is what we get to listen to. Cecil Taylor may sound unacessible to some, but it's a hero for many others - that's why he's marketable and has sold a lot of recordings under many labels. The guy even managed to tour with his music - he played in Brazil some years ago to a massive audience if you take into account the kind of music he does. Let's take a more simple example: John Coltrane, which it seems you like a lot, rightly so, I love it too. Is he marketable? Yes, absolutely! Why? Because there have always been, since he was alive, people who wanted to listen to what he wanted to play; and there were record labels willing to hire the guy and his band. Olé, an album which you say you appreciate, is Coltrane in one of its most simple phases - it has nothing or very little to do with the sound he ended up making in such albums as Ascension. The title-track isn't particularly complex, but it's thrilling and very accessible, by the way: it has a lot of groove because Coltrane's soloing is quite catchy, Dolphy's flute is a joy to listen to, apart from adding an excentric and exquisite element to the track, and, above all, Tyner's piano bass lines, which are exhilarating and turn a song which runs for more than 15 minutes, I think, into something listenable, accessible, groovy and exciting. Still, it's a theme-solo-theme track with a very strong tonal center: it's not out of the spectrum in terms of complexity, for sure, and not very original in terms of composition techniques, but it works, it's a great song. It doesn't come to me as a surprise that Olé is one of Coltrane's most commercially successull album nowadays in many countries. Take the complete "Live! At The Village Vanguard", a staple in Coltrane's catalogue. It's a wonderful album. It's been listened by hundreds of thousands of people and is appreciated and sold all over the world - you're only able to listen to all this music because a record label got to release it and make it available in the market. Nowadays, the complete set is sold with a very informative booklet which gets people to know much more about the man and his music. To sum it all up: the question is ill-posed. The fact that a piece of music is marketable doesn't mean it's inferior or bad - it means only that there are people willing to listen to it and buy it. The market is segmented, for sure: some artists sell more, some less, but ultimately there's room for anyone, as weird as one's music may sound. The possible music is the music we get to listen to or imagine based on what we have listened to - and its boundaries are pretty much those of the market. I honestly can't CONCEIVE a music which has never been marketed in a way or another: technically speaking, nothing out of the league has really happened in music, technically speaking, after such composers as Schoenberg, Messiaen, Boulet or Stravinsky. Schoenberg, and the Second Vienna School in general, as well as Boulet, Messiaen and other great composers widened the realm of possibility in music in such a way that I can't think of something more challenging. Ironically, there have been releases of these guy's works performed by some great artists which have sold more than The Cosmos Rock. Yes. One can aim at the mainstream and fail or aim to a very limited audience and be more successfull than he thought he could be. The market is endless. There's room for many different kinds of artists - in a world with such a huge population with access to music there's really no way of telling what's the limit to or the contraints on music. And the market, divided along its many segments, it's been, and it's still, the primary way we get to appreciate music - it's a channel we can't avoid. Maybe that's going to change. But up until then, it will often come across as quite weird the claim that an artist fails to make his way because there's no room for challenging music in the market. There is. Sooner or later the market catches up with even those artists we deem most daring. Coltrane and Dolphy are famous. They were already respected and marketable musicians in their own time and had already a significant audience. That's been increasing over time. Coltrane became an icon. If this guy, or Sonny Rollins or Thelonious Monk have been able to make their way into the market without sacrificing their music - on the contrary, they played to a marketable audience, having in mind the contours of the media ( discs or tapes ) they had to record on, and which they got to sell, and the taste of their enthusiastic and often fanatic audience. From Schoenberg to Charlie Parker, some of the best 20th centuries musicians or interpreters (say, Horowitz as a pianist) made a mint. They manage to earn big, real money, and they didn't want to appeal to the largest number of people, but to certain people who they knew were able to appreciate their sound. It's the way the market works: some products are already targeted for a limited, though substantial, audience. Neil Young has been marketable as well as Bob Dylan - really, does one expect to listen to better or more challenging music than this outside the market? I don't. Dylan's lyrics and Young's musicianship are gifts I fail to get in my everyday life or in music conventions, seminars or schools - there are a lot of wannabe artists, that's for sure, but people who have what made those real artists with an universal appeal possible I really fail to meet. There's no way of breaking with all conventions in music, for various reasons. The most simple being the very fact that some of them empower, rather than put constraints on, artists. Even if there were, one could still do it and sound like rubbish. Total rubbish. There has been room to groups or performers ranging from, I don't know, Rachmaninov, Ravel, Muddy Waters, Zappa, Blind Guardian, Judas Priest, Sonic Youth, Björk or Queen to Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears and Ashlee Simpson - if one fails to make it as an artist, that's hardly because he's too challenging; it's very likely that he's unlucky or even the people who do appreciate much more daring kinds of music can't relate to his music. So maybe it's the case he's just bad at whatever he does. Big hug! Yara. |
thomasquinn 32989 14.04.2009 08:23 |
Sir GH wrote: Fair play. That said, who says an artist needs to make commercially-viable music? Plenty of artists very do well outside of the mainstream without having to adhere to its demands et all... thank goodness. Very true. So long as an artist is willing to settle for less than filling stadiums, he/she can steer clear of the mainstream and its demands. Major record labels, however, are increasingly unwilling to invest in those kinds of artists. That is by no means a career-ender, but it does mean that they will remain with small labels (which is by no means a bad thing), and smaller venues (also, no bad thing per se). |
thomasquinn 32989 14.04.2009 08:57 |
This post is so big, I have to split it into two.
Yara wrote: Hi Thomas, how are you? I hope you're doing fine.Just fine, thanks. What about yourself? To be marketable a band or a musician must only create something that people can enjoy, regardless of being in or completely outside of the mainstream, in my humble opinion. There's barely a piece of music which is not marketable - even what's considered the most uncompromised kind of music has proven to be over time totally marketable. Why? Because there are people like you, that is, people who don't want to listen to what's been offered in the mainstream, looking out for it - economically speaking, there's demand for very different kinds of music other than mainstream by people like you. If there's demand, there are people willing to meet it. Except maybe for Queen Productions, a case study. lolThat is true. But the large record companies do not wish to provide much of that demand, instead focussing on established names and mass-market new groups. Thus, smaller labels, often with a more localized scope (a country rather than a continent) sign those artists, who thus reach a smaller section of the audience receptive to them than more extensively marketed groups. Not inherently a bad thing, I must say. Also, the decentralizing effect of the internet is allowing 'small' artists to get in touch with their audience more directly, so that will greatly benefit the 'outsider' music. My point being: your relation to music isn't direct. It's mediated by the market. Even what's most advanced in music, say the Second Vienna School, or the most uncompromised, say Cecil Taylor or Tony Braxton, make their way into your ears through the market: there are people who study years and years and are trained to play Alban Berg's, Messiaen's or Boulez's pieces - these people study in institutions and they make contracts with record companies to release their product, which is what we get to listen to. Cecil Taylor may sound unacessible to some, but it's a hero for many others - that's why he's marketable and has sold a lot of recordings under many labels. The guy even managed to tour with his music - he played in Brazil some years ago to a massive audience if you take into account the kind of music he does.I agree, but must also point out that, interestingly, you name Cecil Taylor and Tony Braxton as some of the "most uncompromised" music in their genre. But groups like the Instant Composer's Pool (ICP) and Willem Breuker Collective, as well as many even less known groups, manoeuvre in that same musical niche, providing even more radical music, and fail to outgrow the smallest possible audience (although that audience is, interestingly, thoroughly international). My point is simply that such things as "uncompromising" are very relative, too. Let's take a more simple example: John Coltrane, which it seems you like a lot, rightly so, I love it too. Is he marketable? Yes, absolutely! Why? Because there have always been, since he was alive, people who wanted to listen to what he wanted to play; and there were record labels willing to hire the guy and his band. Olé, an album which you say you appreciate, is Coltrane in one of its most simple phases - it has nothing or very little to do with the sound he ended up making in such albums as Ascension. The title-track isn't particularly complex, but it's thrilling and very accessible, by the way: it has a lot of groove because Coltrane's soloing is quite catchy, Dolphy's flute is a joy to listen to, apart from adding an excentric and exquisite element to the track, and, above all, Tyner's piano bass lines, which are exhilarating and turn a song which runs for more than 15 minutes, I think, into something listenable, accessible, groovy and exciting.Ah, but it is important to note that, at the time of release (1961), Coltrane and Dolphy were being accused of making anti-jazz, and sales were very poor. It took some years before the album started becoming the sales success it is today (around '65-'66, I think, when free jazz became the new 'anti-jazz'). It took time for albums like this one to reach the more mainstream audiences. Still, it's a theme-solo-theme track with a very strong tonal center: it's not out of the spectrum in terms of complexity, for sure, and not very original in terms of composition techniques, but it works, it's a great song.That we could debate about. "Olé" is one of Coltrane's modal compositions, in which he was stretching the concepts of Miles Davis' "Kind Of Blue" to their extremes. He abandoned chord-progressions completely, and rigid tonality was traded for more flexible modalism. While earlier modal compositions like "So What" were still based around chords and triadic harmony (though, admittedly, in a more liberal approach to them), "Olé" abandoned all conventional harmonic notions and left a mode and a theme as the only structural elements of the composition. In its time (again, this is 1960-61), that was extremely radical. It doesn't come to me as a surprise that Olé is one of Coltrane's most commercially successull album nowadays in many countries.Agreed, but had Coltrane not been signed with Atlantic already at the time, it would be unlikely to have found its way to the presses in the first place (if Impulse!, a marginal and new label at the time, to which Coltrane would switch directly after "Olé", would have released it, it would not have reached such a large audience, I think). Take the complete "Live! At The Village Vanguard", a staple in Coltrane's catalogue. It's a wonderful album. It's been listened by hundreds of thousands of people and is appreciated and sold all over the world - you're only able to listen to all this music because a record label got to release it and make it available in the market. Nowadays, the complete set is sold with a very informative booklet which gets people to know much more about the man and his music. Yes, true, but the label that released it (Impulse!) was marginal at the time. I agree completely that small labels are the ones who give avant-garde artists the chances they need and deserve, but it's the big labels, who don't, that reach the big audiences. Remember that Coltrane was a big name already, due to his association with Miles Davis, and that it was his name that got the Impulse! label up and running in the first place. |
thomasquinn 32989 14.04.2009 08:58 |
To sum it all up: the question is ill-posed. The fact that a piece of music is marketable doesn't mean it's inferior or bad - it means only that there are people willing to listen to it and buy it.I agree that marketability say nothing of quality. I do maintain that, the more conventional the music is, the more easily it will reach an audience. The market is segmented, for sure: some artists sell more, some less, but ultimately there's room for anyone, as weird as one's music may sound.That I can and will not argue with. The possible music is the music we get to listen to or imagine based on what we have listened to - and its boundaries are pretty much those of the market. I honestly can't CONCEIVE a music which has never been marketed in a way or another: technically speaking, nothing out of the league has really happened in music, technically speaking, after such composers as Schoenberg, Messiaen, Boulet or Stravinsky. Schoenberg, and the Second Vienna School in general, as well as Boulez, Messiaen and other great composers widened the realm of possibility in music in such a way that I can't think of something more challenging.Ah, but to be philosophical about it: you cannot conceive of a kind of music that has never been marketed, because you have never heard it. Something "out of the league" might have happened in music, but we'd never find out about it, as it would not have been recorded. I can imagine ways in which musical boundaries could have been stretched further than the composers you mention (for instance, by applying the basic concepts of harmony to series of tones outside the chromatic system), but I would not, admittedly, know where to take it from there. Ironically, there have been releases of these guy's works performed by some great artists which have sold more than The Cosmos Rock. Yes. One can aim at the mainstream and fail or aim to a very limited audience and be more successfull than he thought he could be.True, but for all of the above, the success came many years after writing/recording the music. Perhaps great music that we'd fully appreciate now has been written in the '20s, but never got published because it was not understood at the time. The market is endless. There's room for many different kinds of artists - in a world with such a huge population with access to music there's really no way of telling what's the limit to or the contraints on music. And the market, divided along its many segments, it's been, and it's still, the primary way we get to appreciate music - it's a channel we can't avoid.Endless is a big word. I do agree that the market is huge, and I think the internet will stretch it further, which I consider a good thing. I do think that the time of large record companies is finished, for the reason I hinted at above: they refuse to invest in future music. Maybe that's going to change. But up until then, it will often come across as quite weird the claim that an artist fails to make his way because there's no room for challenging music in the market. There is. Sooner or later the market catches up with even those artists we deem most daring.True, but only if we are willing to give them the time they need. That might be decades after recording. Coltrane and Dolphy are famous. They were already respected and marketable musicians in their own time and had already a significant audience. That's been increasing over time. Coltrane became an icon. If this guy, or Sonny Rollins or Thelonious Monk have been able to make their way into the market without sacrificing their music - on the contrary, they played to a marketable audience, having in mind the contours of the media ( discs or tapes ) they had to record on, and which they got to sell, and the taste of their enthusiastic and often fanatic audience.That is true, and goes to show that a great enough artist can still stretch the boundaries of art. From Schoenberg to Charlie Parker, some of the best 20th centuries musicians or interpreters (say, Horowitz as a pianist) made a mint. They manage to earn big, real money, and they didn't want to appeal to the largest number of people, but to certain people who they knew were able to appreciate their sound. It's the way the market works: some products are already targeted for a limited, though substantial, audience.I agree, but these artists increasingly fall outside the scope of the big labels. Therefore, again, thank the internet for giving these kinds of artists a window to the world. Neil Young has been marketable as well as Bob Dylan - really, does one expect to listen to better or more challenging music than this outside the market? I don't. Dylan's lyrics and Young's musicianship are gifts I fail to get in my everyday life or in music conventions, seminars or schools - there are a lot of wannabe artists, that's for sure, but people who have what made those real artists with an universal appeal possible I really fail to meet. There's no way of breaking with all conventions in music, for various reasons. The most simple being the very fact that some of them empower, rather than put constraints on, artists. Even if there were, one could still do it and sound like rubbish. Total rubbish. There has been room to groups or performers ranging from, I don't know, Rachmaninov, Ravel, Muddy Waters, Zappa, Blind Guardian, Judas Priest, Sonic Youth, Björk or Queen to Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears and Ashlee Simpson - if one fails to make it as an artist, that's hardly because he's too challenging; it's very likely that he's unlucky or even the people who do appreciate much more daring kinds of music can't relate to his music. So maybe it's the case he's just bad at whatever he does. Big hug! Yara. I largely agree, but I do think that time is the most important factor in the plight of misunderstood artists. I believe that every musical convention can be challenged, so long as the artist has a good reason for doing so. There are no dogmas in art as far as I am concerned, only self-imposed limitations, which are good, so long as they are imposed for a reason. However, sometimes the world is just not ready for the challenging of a convention, and in such cases, an artist's work needs time to be rediscovered in a later age. I hope that music of that kind will keep finding a means to be recorded and preserved. Big hug back! Thomas |
*goodco* 17.04.2009 15:17 |
with everything....................there is a black cloud and a silver lining.......... good name for a hopefully good album |
Yara 17.04.2009 16:01 |
*goodco* wrote: with everything....................there is a black cloud and a silver lining.......... good name for a hopefully good album Hi, dear. Sorry for going off-topic. I'm really sorry. The discussion over Dream Theather was interesting and I'd like to learn more about it but this other topic came up and I felt like...writing a huge post, as always. Mea culpa, totally mea. :) Thankfully, this time, however, dear Thomas Quinn prevented the boat from sinking and wrote a wonderful, thoughtful reply which was really an honor for me to read. So I wanna thank you both - goodco, for the interesting comments, and Thomas Quinn again for the thoughtful and helpful reply. It's friday!!! Yeah! Hope you guys have a good time. :-) Take care. |