LIVEROCKS REVIEW, the one that matters... Options

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I was just expressing my opinion, I didn't mean it as definite. Why do you have such a big problem when someone disagrees with you?

I like the structure of Honest Man and Crying Time more, easily. Is that better?

This post has been edited by thefunkyredcaboose: Sep 16 2010, 12:15 pm

[alexou]

I was thinking that we haven't discussed really about the music for about 10 years...song structures, chord progressions..I mean this was over for so long because of the simplicity of Live's music, particularly since V.

TGF's album is doing it to and we can listen to it many times still discovering some new sounds or chords or drum patterns. It's awesome. We can,t do that to a lot of rock records these days!

[LiveRoCkS77]

I was just expressing my opinion, I didn't mean it as definite. Why do you have such a big problem when someone disagrees with you?

I like the structure of Honest Man and Crying Time more, easily. Is that better?

Don't have a problem with anybody disagreeing with me buddy, do you?

I simply stated that I think your view of a tunes structure is narrow minded, is that so hard for you to take or do you always get your panties in a bunch?

I think your view seems very limited in this regard, get over it pal. It's people like you that really annoy me in the worst way because when somebody does disagree with you, they're taking it too seriously or they've got such a "big problem" as you laughably put it. Get over yourself.

So don't try and put it a different way in order to justify yourself, because it's not what you said in the first place. You said the structures of those songs were easily more complex and I disagreed and gave you several VALID reasons why. That's what debate is about dude. So don't dare try and turn it around and make it out as if I have some big issue with it or something.

What I do have an issue with is people like you who are hell bent on justifying themselves, resorting to using sarcasms and such in order to back themselves out of it and make the other person look like they're carrying on irrationally. If you don't want to debate the subject without using those bullsjit tactics, stay the fuck out of the thread, plain and simple.

This post has been edited by LiveRoCkS77: Sep 16 2010, 9:42 pm

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I'm sorry that my position offended you. You are right in that I should have phrased my initial post in a more opinionated matter, and I apologize for that. I will stand by the other things I said, because they are my opinion on why Sing doesn't strike me as a special track and I gave a lot of valid reasons for that.

For what it's worth and not that it will convince you otherwise, but I wasn't trying to back out of the debate. Sorry if it came off that way. I thought the issue had been discussed as far as it would go, and that we both made all the points we were going to make.

I also readily acknowledged that we seem to have different ideas about what is important in song structure. I don't think your views are narrow, so why do you have to accuse me of that? I was having fun debating with you until you decided to take a swipe at my views on music. I think it was unnecessary and uncalled for, and made things heated when they didn't have to be.

In my honest opinion none of the song structures on this album really get my attention. They rarely (and then barely) deviate from a standard structure, but that isn't what I listen to this album for. If I want an interesting song structure I will listen to classical, jazz, or prog. rock. I listen to TGF to rock the fuck out and not have to think about it, not to pick apart the musicality of each song. I think it would be silly to debate that because it is my opinion, but a song really needs time changes, key changes, and multiple movements to really impress me with its structure.

That is just my taste and it isn't what TGF wants to do. So, honestly, entering into this debate in the first place was a mistake, and I apologize again.

This post has been edited by thefunkyredcaboose: Sep 16 2010, 10:21 pm

[LiveRoCkS77]

I'm sorry that my position offended you. You are right in that I should have phrased my initial post in a more opinionated matter, and I apologize for that. I will stand by the other things I said, because they are my opinion on why Sing doesn't strike me as a special track and I gave a lot of valid reasons for that.

For what it's worth and not that it will convince you otherwise, but I wasn't trying to back out of the debate. Sorry if it came off that way. I thought the issue had been discussed as far as it would go, and that we both made all the points we were going to make.

I also readily acknowledged that we seem to have different ideas about what is important in song structure. I don't think your views are narrow, so why do you have to accuse me of that? I was having fun debating with you until you decided to take a swipe at my views on music. I think it was unnecessary and uncalled for, and made things heated when they didn't have to be.

In my honest opinion none of the song structures on this album really get my attention. They rarely (and then barely) deviate from a standard structure, but that isn't what I listen to this album for. If I want an interesting song structure I will listen to classical, jazz, or prog. rock. I listen to TGF to rock the fuck out and not have to think about it, not to pick apart the musicality of each song. I think it would be silly to debate that because it is my opinion, but a song really needs time changes, key changes, and multiple movements to really impress me with its structure.

That is just my taste and it isn't what TGF wants to do. So, honestly, entering into this debate in the first place was a mistake, and I apologize again.

None of them strike me as amazing or nothing I've never heard neither, but that wasn't really the point I was trying to make. I was referring to this album only and not comparing it to anything else period.

Either way, no need to apologize. I call it like I see it and people aren't used to that.

But again, you mention chord progression in your initial argument and nothing else. That's narrow minded in the nature of the compsotion of a songs structure. Just now, do you actually start to make sense and mention things such as time changes and movement. That's why I said your initial assertion was narrown minded, and by all definitions, it was exactly that.

Again, I'm not making anything heated, I just call it like i see it and don't waste any time pussy footing around like most idiots are famous for. Saying it's uncalled for is just fucking childish. If I think something you're saying is vague, unfounded or narrow minded, I'm going to tell you so.

So I'll tell you yet again, simply stating that chord pregression is mostly responsible for the structure of a song is asinine and it is. That's not my opinion, it fact. You mentioned one of about 10 to 12 things that comprise the structure of a song and based the merit of your argument on that.

After saying I took a swipe at you, you now mention things such as movement, time change...etc?? Come on dude, now your backpedalling and justifying at the same time and I don't even think you realize you're doing it.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I'm not trying to backpedal, I am trying to explain my perspective. If I were backpedaling I would be trying to change what I initially said about the structure of this song, and I'm not. The only thing I took back was the way I phrased my initial comment because I should have phrased it differently.

When I talk song structure, I am talking the structure of the time signature, key(s), instrumentation, chord progression, drum parts, bass lines, rhythm guitar, lead guitar, and vocal structure. In Sing, the only things that grab me are the lead guitar and the vocals. From my perspective of hearing that a ton of times even involving these two musicians, I just don't find it all that interesting.

Ultimately, the debate is pointless because the song really struck you and it didn't strike me at all. That is something that is entirely taste and experience based, and will cause us to see the merits and the demerits of the song entirely differently. I really like the structure of Crying Time because it hits me emotionally, and because of the nifty two tiered bridge. Ultimately, I probably give the song more credit than it might deserve because it really hit me.

I appreciate it that you call it like you see it and was really glad to see you back on the boards, I also appreciate my right to defend myself from being called "narrow minded" because well, that's bullshit. Having a different idea than you about what is important in the structure of a song isn't narrow minded.

This post has been edited by thefunkyredcaboose: Sep 16 2010, 11:36 pm

[Merica]

Honest Man...

Getting better, much better. This song is just about the perfect rocker from top to bottom. The solo by CT at the end fits the song perfectly and Km's vocals are again as utterly fantastic as they can get.

8/10

You really think the solo fits? It's the one part I'm not fussed about because I thought it felt really stunted and like, capped off or something. I wanted it to fly but it never did.

[michael39]

Excellent review Liverocks......really enjoyed reading it.

Love this album the more i listen to it.

Keep rocking

[thefunkyredcaboose]

You really think the solo fits? It's the one part I'm not fussed about because I thought it felt really stunted and like, capped off or something. I wanted it to fly but it never did.

That solo is actually performed by Sean, and I don't really consider it to be as much of a solo as a nice instrumental addition. It isn't really mixed like a solo, if it were it would be kind of lame.

[LiveRoCkS77]

I appreciate it that you call it like you see it and was really glad to see you back on the boards, I also appreciate my right to defend myself from being called "narrow minded" because well, that's bullshit. Having a different idea than you about what is important in the structure of a song isn't narrow minded.

Again bud, you're not listening and only trying to justify yourself. I have no problem with your last post where you finally explained yourself. I can appreciate and respect that with no problem or argument at all man.

What I do have a problem with is your original argument, are you listening? From your intitial argument, you were being narrow minded in your view of a songs structure. It's not about having different ideas, so don't try and shove that nonsensical, self justifying bullshit in my face ok? I'm way too smart for that dude.

We're not dealing with a subjective matter here for the most part. While different people might find different areas of a songs structure more prominent in regards to its' complexity, fact is that there is NO DISPUTING that there are AGAIN at least 8-12 areas to be considered. You mentioned ONE in your original argument and I CALLED THAT NARROW MINDED. Because it is, plain and simple.

Sorry for typing in caps, but it seems you're incapable of understanding what I'm saying, and what you're missing here dude. Your last post went a lot further and stated different areas of composition as to why you feel the way you do. That was a great post that I can respect and understand.

Your original argument consisted of...."honest Man and Crying time are the most complex. Easily." Foolowed by giving simple chord progression as a reason why. That's narrow minded, don't give a fuck what you say. Calling it bullshit makes me think you're nowhere near man enough to admit when you're wrong. So stop arguing about it. Your original argument was simplistic, narrow minded, and ignored at least 10 different points of a songs musical structure. Jesus, grow up and admit when you're wrong dude, it's not the end of the world.

[LiveRoCkS77]

You really think the solo fits? It's the one part I'm not fussed about because I thought it felt really stunted and like, capped off or something. I wanted it to fly but it never did.

I think it fits perfectly and i love the way it winds back into a short verse riff and hammers right into the chorus immediately afterwards. It's a small and rather insignificant structural part, but it's very clever and well executed in my opinion as well.

Start bridge.....leading into solo, performed by CT and not Sean....driven overtop of that reverse driving verse riff.......right back into bridge........followed bychorus......very well executed.

Don't know if you can technically count that as a solo. The rhthym guitar verse riff underneath denotes that it probably can't be called that. But I don't agree at all. I don't think that a solo has to be stand alone. It's just that usually, the section underneath usually isn't as heavy and prominent as we see here.

But CT's guitar here is very prominent and the work occurs during a break in the song, usually where a technical solo occurs. I would classify it as a solo and a decent one at that. It just ends a little abruptly. Another 10 seconds probably would have sufficed in order to complete it without leaving the listener wanting more.

This post has been edited by LiveRoCkS77: Sep 17 2010, 12:52 pm

[thefunkyredcaboose]

Again bud, you're not listening and only trying to justify yourself. I have no problem with your last post where you finally explained yourself. I can appreciate and respect that with no problem or argument at all man.

What I do have a problem with is your original argument, are you listening? From your intitial argument, you were being narrow minded in your view of a songs structure. It's not about having different ideas, so don't try and shove that nonsensical, self justifying bullshit in my face ok? I'm way too smart for that dude.

We're not dealing with a subjective matter here for the most part. While different people might find different areas of a songs structure more prominent in regards to its' complexity, fact is that there is NO DISPUTING that there are AGAIN at least 8-12 areas to be considered. You mentioned ONE in your original argument and I CALLED THAT NARROW MINDED. Because it is, plain and simple.

Sorry for typing in caps, but it seems you're incapable of understanding what I'm saying, and what you're missing here dude. Your last post went a lot further and stated different areas of composition as to why you feel the way you do. That was a great post that I can respect and understand.

Your original argument consisted of...."honest Man and Crying time are the most complex. Easily." Foolowed by giving simple chord progression as a reason why. That's narrow minded, don't give a fuck what you say. Calling it bullshit makes me think you're nowhere near man enough to admit when you're wrong. So stop arguing about it. Your original argument was simplistic, narrow minded, and ignored at least 10 different points of a songs musical structure. Jesus, grow up and admit when you're wrong dude, it's not the end of the world.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, I already admitted I was wrong to phrase my initial post the way I did.

My point about chord structure was NOT that the chord structure is too simple. If that was it then why would I be posting on a Live board in the first place? They aren't exactly known for mind bending chord sets.

My point was that the song uses the chorus chord progression for that entire last section where the second solo happens and the melody changes. That is a big part of the structure we were discussing, and I highlighted that it is really just the chorus on repeat. This is what I said:

"Yeah there is a big dynamic change heading into the bridge section, but then the song rolls right back into the same chord progression from that point until the end. Different stuff happens over it but it is still the chorus of the song on repeat. I enjoy that part of the song a lot, but it isn't really what I would call complex."

My point wasn't that the chords aren't remarkable, but that I can't call the song structure great because at the heart of it all it is just verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus. That ain't exactly rocket science right there. It is the chorus because the chord structure, the drums, bass, and rhythm guitar don't change.

I also don't think you are capable of "telling it like it is" without sounding like a complete asshole. You've been on the attack ever since my initial comment and I don't really feel like dealing with it any longer. I've been willing to try and explain my initial point, but enough is enough from my end.

This post has been edited by thefunkyredcaboose: Sep 17 2010, 1:02 pm

[Merica]

I think it fits perfectly and i love the way it winds back into a short verse riff and hammers right into the chorus immediately afterwards. It's a small and rather insignificant structural part, but it's very clever and well executed in my opinion as well.

Start bridge.....leading into solo, performed by CT and not Sean....driven overtop of that reverse driving verse riff.......right back into bridge........followed bychorus......very well executed.

Don't know if you can technically count that as a solo. The rhthym guitar verse riff underneath denotes that it probably can't be called that. But I don't agree at all. I don't think that a solo has to be stand alone. It's just that usually, the section underneath usually isn't as heavy and prominent as we see here.

But CT's guitar here is very prominent and the work occurs during a break in the song, usually where a technical solo occurs. I would classify it as a solo and a decent one at that. It just ends a little abruptly. Another 10 seconds probably would have sufficed in order to complete it without leaving the listener wanting more.

Fair play, sir. I'm going to listen through the album again tonight, and will pay special attention to the way it connects from and back into the verses etc.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I think it fits perfectly and i love the way it winds back into a short verse riff and hammers right into the chorus immediately afterwards. It's a small and rather insignificant structural part, but it's very clever and well executed in my opinion as well.

Start bridge.....leading into solo, performed by CT and not Sean....driven overtop of that reverse driving verse riff.......right back into bridge........followed bychorus......very well executed.

Don't know if you can technically count that as a solo. The rhthym guitar verse riff underneath denotes that it probably can't be called that. But I don't agree at all. I don't think that a solo has to be stand alone. It's just that usually, the section underneath usually isn't as heavy and prominent as we see here.

But CT's guitar here is very prominent and the work occurs during a break in the song, usually where a technical solo occurs. I would classify it as a solo and a decent one at that. It just ends a little abruptly. Another 10 seconds probably would have sufficed in order to complete it without leaving the listener wanting more.

I thought you guys were talking about the solo at the very end of the song that Sean plays, my bad.

As for the CT solo, that is one of my favorite parts of the album.

[Infrequent Poster]

I call it like I see it and people aren't used to that.

Quotation snipe of the day.

The vast, vast majority of the people I interact with on a daily basis call it like they see it. I'm not bullshitting either. You're mashing "calling it like I see it" with "abrasive." There's a difference. Not that I particularly disagree with any other points you've made though.