QueenZone discussion #1032410

Queenrocks! wrote: I think they're brilliant I mean they are the ultimate supergroup you have George Harrison the best Beatle in my opinion Jeff Lynne from ELO Bob Dylan Roy Orbison and Tom Petty Handle With Care is an excellent song

<b><font color=0066FF>Horsure Moment wrote: One of the worst craps I have ever heard in my life. I can't believe Jeff Lynne and George Harrison got involved in the writting and recording of such primitive music. It's embarrasing.

Haystacks Calhounski wrote:

<b><font color=0066FF>Horsure Moment wrote: One of the worst craps I have ever heard in my life. I can't believe Jeff Lynne and George Harrison got involved in the writting and recording of such primitive music. It's embarrasing.

I suppose you prefer Spandau Ballet?

<b><font color=0066FF>Horsure Moment wrote: I am not kidding, I literally threw the cd away.

<b><font color=0066FF>Horsure Moment wrote: I can't believe Jeff Lynne and George Harrison got involved in the writting and recording of such primitive music. It's embarrasing.

Dan Corson IX: The 800 Pound Gorilla wrote:

<b><font color=0066FF>Horsure Moment wrote: I can't believe Jeff Lynne and George Harrison got involved in the writting and recording of such primitive music. It's embarrasing.

I don't know, some of the Beatles and ELO stuff is pretty primitive by these standards. Some really GOOD stuff too. Do 'Evil Woman' and 'Here Comes the Sun' ring any bells?

iGSM wrote: Yes, Handle with Care was the B-side of...I do not know? *one wikipedia second later* Oh, This is Love.

<b><font color=0066FF>Horsure Moment wrote:

Dan Corson IX: The 800 Pound Gorilla wrote:

<b><font color=0066FF>Horsure Moment wrote: I can't believe Jeff Lynne and George Harrison got involved in the writting and recording of such primitive music. It's embarrasing.

I don't know, some of the Beatles and ELO stuff is pretty primitive by these standards. Some really GOOD stuff too. Do 'Evil Woman' and 'Here Comes the Sun' ring any bells?

Here Comes the Sun rings the bell of being a great song with some clever cool rhythm sections that aren't so noticeable. Evil Woman is a song that was written in 5 minutes, as Jeff himself stated (a simple song but well performed). Nevertheless, the rest of the disc is nothing less than great. Songs such s Fire On High, Waterfall and Nightrider are amazing works. Let alone albums like Eldordo, Out of the Blue and A New World Record. Evil Woman at least is catchy. The Travelling Shits, on the other hand, feature the incredibly horrible singer that Bob Dylan is, plus the stupid cunt of Tom Petty... a idiot-ized Jeff Lynne, poor Roy and George (whose participation on this lame project I don't know how the hell took place). Plus primitive music, with the most shitty arrangements (if there are any) you could ever imagine.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

<b><font color=0066FF>Horsure Moment wrote:

Dan Corson IX: The 800 Pound Gorilla wrote:

<b><font color=0066FF>Horsure Moment wrote: I can't believe Jeff Lynne and George Harrison got involved in the writting and recording of such primitive music. It's embarrasing.

I don't know, some of the Beatles and ELO stuff is pretty primitive by these standards. Some really GOOD stuff too. Do 'Evil Woman' and 'Here Comes the Sun' ring any bells?

Here Comes the Sun rings the bell of being a great song with some clever cool rhythm sections that aren't so noticeable. Evil Woman is a song that was written in 5 minutes, as Jeff himself stated (a simple song but well performed). Nevertheless, the rest of the disc is nothing less than great. Songs such s Fire On High, Waterfall and Nightrider are amazing works. Let alone albums like Eldordo, Out of the Blue and A New World Record. Evil Woman at least is catchy. The Travelling Shits, on the other hand, feature the incredibly horrible singer that Bob Dylan is, plus the stupid cunt of Tom Petty... a idiot-ized Jeff Lynne, poor Roy and George (whose participation on this lame project I don't know how the hell took place). Plus primitive music, with the most shitty arrangements (if there are any) you could ever imagine.

Ah well, at least I'm glad that you added this post: it is decisive evidence that you are at least as much a musical moron as Jingles (no offence Jingles, you're a great guy, but your musical knowledge, understanding and taste are so poor they are off the scale).

<b><font color=0066FF>Horsure Moment wrote: Or maybe I should listen to Bob Dylan?

Dan Corson IX: The 800 Pound Gorilla wrote: ..not all music has to be overly complex to be good.

Dan Corson IX: The 800 Pound Gorilla wrote: I love the 'simplicity' of the Traveling Wilburys. It's a nice reminder that not all music has to be overly complex to be good. 'Tweeter and the Monkey Man' is a favorite of mine. I love the lyrics. Also, Jim Keltner is a plus!

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Your taste is beyond all hope and you should do best to give it a decent burial. But it'd help if you started assessing songs and artists by their quality, and not by whether they were recorded in "five minutes" (that was, by the way, something you might have heard of called a 'figure of speech'. The song was written during a morning recording session, and probably got some two hours of work) or hours of tedious stressing about whether or not to include yet another track of harpsichord. You are clearly not capable of seeing the qualities in songs that do not fit your rather narrow-minded definition of "good". Judging by your previous posts, all "good songs" (in your humble opinion) can be summed up in "Richly arranged I-IV-Vs".

<b><font color=0066FF>Horsure Moment wrote: Does it matter if it's I-IV-V if it IS actually well performed and well arranged... and it's original?

I love complex music, but the well performed kind. But I love melodies much more than that. And a good melody can be found anywhere, what I look in a melody is the originality, the performance is not actually part of the melody, therefore I don't give a shit whether the song is simple or complex.

In the case that you can't find in the melody, something you haven't heard a million times before by a hundred million bands... well, maybe we could find something in the chord progressions that might be harmonically interesting. At least the song would not be another song of the endless bunch.

Chords progressions can repeat themselves over and over again thru a million songs but a melody can't.

If you can't find a good melody that doesn't sound like everything else, you can't find anything remotely interesting in the chord progressions... you can barely hear an arrangement and the ones you find are not even half decent... plus Bob Dylan is singin. Then it's shit, not even worth the disc on which they're recorded.

On the other hand, I love the way that you tell people that they are "musical morons" though you haven't proved being the musical genius you claim to be (by judgin your posts) yet. You're a guy that says he's a great student, praised by his teachers, sucessful musician and you obviously think you can tell anything to anybody... but where's the proof of your genius?

You're some kind of non-retarded (or at least not that much) version of Atheist.

Alright, I can say I am everything I'd like to be, if I don'

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

<b><font color=0066FF>Horsure Moment wrote: Does it matter if it's I-IV-V if it IS actually well performed and well arranged... and it's original?

Well, no, it doesn't *matter*, however, it will never be original, as I-IV-Vs have been played to death. The least you'd need to to was turn it into a modal composition to achieve the least bit of originality. And originality is the most important thing about music, IMHO. Recording something that's been done before is a waste of time and space.

I love complex music, but the well performed kind. But I love melodies much more than that. And a good melody can be found anywhere, what I look in a melody is the originality, the performance is not actually part of the melody, therefore I don't give a shit whether the song is simple or complex.

YOU dragged in complexity, not me. I like simple songs as much as complex songs, so long as they are well-written. You might know that melodies are derived from the harmonic structure of the song (chordal tones, or avoiding of chordal tones, embellished with passing notes), or the other way around. Either way, it is not possible to separate the chords and the melody in a song. Unless one is creating atonal music (bad term, btw, as it is tonal just the same), it is therefore necessary to stick to one of only a few keys that can be used over a chord progression, or to stick to one of only a couple of chord-progressions that can be fitted to a melody. Therefore, if you stick to the same progression over and over again, the number of possible melodies is (when we take out passing tones, which have no function other than connecting the core notes) very much limited.

In the case that you can't find in the melody, something you haven't heard a million times before by a hundred million bands... well, maybe we could find something in the chord progressions that might be harmonically interesting. At least the song would not be another song of the endless bunch.

Read the above.

Chords progressions can repeat themselves over and over again thru a million songs but a melody can't.

You will see that it does. Most melodies are based around important chordal tones, with only the passing tones really varying. Again, see the above.

If you can't find a good melody that doesn't sound like everything else, you can't find anything remotely interesting in the chord progressions... you can barely hear an arrangement and the ones you find are not even half decent... plus Bob Dylan is singin. Then it's shit, not even worth the disc on which they're recorded.

You forgot about lyrics, which is the one part where a I-IV-V standard song can redeem itself artistically. However, if you abide by the rules you stated yourself above, you should like the Wilburys. Plus, Dylan only sings on a limited number of songs.

On the other hand, I love the way that you tell people that they are "musical morons" though you haven't proved being the musical genius you claim to be (by judgin your posts) yet. You're a guy that says he's a great student, praised by his teachers, sucessful musician and you obviously think you can tell anything to anybody... but where's the proof of your genius?

I've posted music here before; also, I've never claimed to be a genius, as I'm not. I am, however, a good student, because I am MOTIVATED to LEARN. Apart from that, you should have been able to derive that I am quite capable of handling myself musically from the more technical explanations I have given in the past and still do. But by all means, if you wish to question me, go right ahead. I'm mail-able.

You're some kind of non-retarded (or at least not that much) version of Atheist.

I'm going to forgive you that remark just

<b><font color=0066FF>Horsure Moment wrote: It is a waste of time if you can't manage to make an original melody. Not all the combination have been tried before, some things are still unique without using more than 4 chords. It's the creation not the knowledge. Knowledge only gives you the tools, if you can't write a (good) song... you won't write a good song, no matter how complex harmonically or rhythmically it could be.

The number of notes you can use in a melody over a chord progression is just the number of notes of the scale you're using.

If you're gonna stick to 1º's, 3º's and 5º's it is your problem.

A voice and and instrument can mix together very well regardless of the intervals they create.

You can add the minor third of any major chord and you might not even notice (as something alike happens during the middle slow section of Nights On Broadway by the Bee Gees). So you can also use sixths, sevenths, ninths over a triad or whatever takes your fancy.

There's the genius, creating things that others can't create. If nobody can come up with a melody that creates other kind of tensions over a common chord progression other than the very ones that are always used... well, it's their problem.

It won't be the first time we hear something weird. "Worse" things have been done in the past and some of them proved to work out quite well.

As I said, the Travelling Morons are one of the most primitive bands I've ever heard.

I don't wanna ask you anything, I don't wanna talk to you either. Did you upload your music? Well, upload it again.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: When I get round to it, I'll upload something new. I'm having a jam-session tomorrow, so if something nice comes up, I might be kind enough to let you hear. Just remember that I owe you *nothing*.

Donna13 wrote: That said, I love the part where Roy Orbison sings