the most technically impressive song?

every song of liquid tension experiment

 ^ good call..  other guitar ones;

'Celebration on the Planet Mars' (Ron Jarzombek)
'Mystical Potatohead Groove Thing' (Satch)
'Sails of Charon' (Uli Roth)
'Sequencer' (Di Meola)
'Attitude Song' (Vai)

Trademark wrote: Technicality is NOT impressive. BTW, the meter signature changes you list are NOT, in actual fact, meters at all. The definition of meter according to the Harvard Dictionary of Music is "the pattern in which a steady succession of pulses is organized." Since the example you've given is neither steady nor forms any kind of repeated succession it, by definition, is NOT METER. It is music written without meter to be more specific. Since the mallest beat value in the sequence listed is a 16th note, all that can be said for the passage in question is that it proceeds with a 16th note "pulse". It has no meter and therefore no meter changes. Additionally meter signatures with a number of beats larger than 7 or 9 also really don't exist. they can all be broken down into samller repeating beat groupings which would make them much easier to read. The first thing any self-respecting musician does when faced with a piece written in these "false" meters is break down the beat groupings and re-draw the bar lines.   15 or 15/16 doesn't exist in musical reality. So-called complex meters are just another way for the moderately musically educated to "feel superior" about our abilities or knowledge.

That has got to be the most arrogant and pretentios dribble I ever read in this forum.

Have you even listened to this piece of music? If not please do yourself a favor and do so ... it actually makes a *lot* of sense to note it this way.

And about meters like 15/16: Of course they exist. Only yesterday I was listening to such a track: Ivanhoe - Bless My Soul. It's clearly 15/16 and not an alternating sequence of 8/8 and 7/8, since the snare drum is at 2 and 4:

       1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . . 4 . .
bass   x     x       x   x   x     x       
snare          x               x

to me it must be:

1.Watchtower - Energetic Disassembly
2.Soul Cages - Steps
3.Psychotic Waltz - A Social Grace

Edited by toolis - October 14 2007 at 03:11

micky wrote: fuxi wrote: What's the use of technique without emotion? depends...  you can get  Dream Theater... but you also get King Crimson emotion is nice but not  necessary same with technique

I would like not to get Dreamtheater very much, please...

Art Bears or This Heat are examples of perfect balance. That said, I prefer the horribly executed "Bananamoon" to any perfectly delivered music performance.

Asphalt wrote: Trademark wrote: Technicality is NOT impressive. ... So-called complex meters are just another way for the moderately musically educated to "feel superior" about our abilities or knowledge. Wel there you have it. The musically non-educated feel, thus dwarfed, or at least impressed by the ability of those with - at least - moderate music knowledge. For most of us, who don't know about the fine mechanics of making and playing music, the concepts of constantly changing pulses may be impressive. After all, this concept - being impressed/impressive - is a subjective one, and not even Harvard dictionaries can decide what is and what is not impressive to each and everyone of us. Lighten up!

rileydog22 wrote: MUST...RESIST....DT FANBOY SPEAK....

I said that EXACTLY in a different thread. I'm having deja vu.

MUST...RESIST....DT FANBOY SPEAK....

Trademark wrote: BTW, the meter signature changes you list are NOT, in actual fact, meters at all. The definition of meter according to the Harvard Dictionary of Music is "the pattern in which a steady succession of pulses is organized." Since the example you've given is neither steady nor forms any kind of repeated succession it, by definition, is NOT METER. It is music written without meter to be more specific. Since the mallest beat value in the sequence listed is a 16th note, all that can be said for the passage in question is that it proceeds with a 16th note "pulse". It has no meter and therefore no meter changes.  Additionally meter signatures with a number of beats larger than 7 or 9 also really don't exist. they can all be broken down into samller repeating beat groupings which would make them much easier to read. The first thing any self-respecting musician does when faced with a piece written in these "false" meters is break down the beat groupings and re-draw the bar lines.   15 or 15/16 doesn't exist in musical reality. So-called complex meters are just another way for the moderately musically educated to "feel superior" about our abilities or knowledge.

Edited by Sckxyss - October 15 2007 at 02:10

Technicality is NOT impressive.

BTW, the meter signature changes you list are NOT, in actual fact, meters at all. The definition of meter according to the Harvard Dictionary of Music is "the pattern in which a steady succession of pulses is organized."

Since the example you've given is neither steady nor forms any kind of repeated succession it, by definition, is NOT METER. It is music written without meter to be more specific. Since the mallest beat value in the sequence listed is a 16th note, all that can be said for the passage in question is that it proceeds with a 16th note "pulse". It has no meter and therefore no meter changes.

Additionally meter signatures with a number of beats larger than 7 or 9 also really don't exist. they can all be broken down into samller repeating beat groupings which would make them much easier to read. The first thing any self-respecting musician does when faced with a piece written in these "false" meters is break down the beat groupings and re-draw the bar lines.   15 or 15/16 doesn't exist in musical reality. So-called complex meters are just another way for the moderately musically educated to "feel superior" about our abilities or knowledge.

Edited by Trademark - October 13 2007 at 18:19