Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Sounds like ..... Gosh
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedSounds like ..... Gosh

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Message
The Miracle View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: May 29 2005
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 28427
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 18 2007 at 16:39
Originally posted by Walker Walker wrote:

Originally posted by The Miracle The Miracle wrote:

All music sounds like something previoulsy recorded. All music is made of seven notes, therefore every new song is a ripoff of all previous ones. I just enjoy music for what it is. 
 
7 notes? Confused
 
In western music there are 12 notes, sir.
 
If you add eastern music, you get more because instruments like sitars are tuned to have something like 18 notes (not sure of the exact number).


Whatever, that's not the point... I thought of the Russian system, there's 7.Embarrassed
Back to Top
Dieu View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 26 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 112
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 18 2007 at 18:58
Originally posted by Glueman Glueman wrote:

What do you mean by "bulbous"?
 
LOLLOLLOL it's lyrics from captain. Got me?
Only sick music makes money today.
- Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Forum Guest Group
Forum Guest Group
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 18 2007 at 19:50
Originally posted by Dieu Dieu wrote:

Originally posted by Glueman Glueman wrote:

What do you mean by "bulbous"?
 
LOLLOLLOL it's lyrics from captain. Got me?
 
Ooooooooooooooooooh. All becomes clear! I should have worked it out - it was meaningless (to me).........therefore, must have come from Beefheart! Duh!Embarrassed
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Forum Guest Group
Forum Guest Group
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 18 2007 at 19:59
Originally posted by ViolinCyndee ViolinCyndee wrote:

People always tend to categorize things, even music..  I guess they feel comfortable with a sense of familiarity.. 
 
Exactly. If people wrote reviews and stated that it "was unique" - what would that indicate to a prespective listener? Nothing - no help at all. Now, of course, this would be somewhat remakable - anything that REALLY was unique - unlikely. So then we have... "it is quite unique" or "partially unique" which is ridiculous as both statements are oxymorons. So, we are left with using other artists to try and give a feel for the piece. The trouble with that is that two people will hear different things. Some will hear Genesis influence, some will hear Marillion influence etc etc. An example could be a keyboard trio - often compared to ELP - especially if min-moog and Hammond proliferate. I often do NOT hear what other people cite as being a similarity. So what - does it matter? Ultimately we all have to make our own minds up.
 
It's just a guide - that must be taken with every other pinch of salt that we take when reading any critic's work.
Back to Top
Freak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 12 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 304
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 18 2007 at 21:10
I really do believe that it's possible to describe a band to an audience without saying the band sounds like another band. Descriptive writing can paint wonderful pictures, or give the reader a sense of the style or tone of an album. It doesn't always have to be, "Well, it sounds sorta like Genesis, but with a dash of King Crimson." That doesn't help very much either! I'm all for the power of words.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Forum Guest Group
Forum Guest Group
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 18 2007 at 22:28
Originally posted by Freak Freak wrote:

I really do believe that it's possible to describe a band to an audience without saying the band sounds like another band. Descriptive writing can paint wonderful pictures, or give the reader a sense of the style or tone of an album. It doesn't always have to be, "Well, it sounds sorta like Genesis, but with a dash of King Crimson." That doesn't help very much either! I'm all for the power of words.
 
In an "ideal world" - yes. Sadly, most people do not have a strong vocabulary or the power of descriptive writing. Reading some of the reviews some are barely literate!Wink
There are also reviewers on here for whom English is not their native tongue. A grand example being Mandrakeroot. (I thought language translators were supposed to be vetoed? Does anyone understand a word of his reviews?LOL). It is far easier to cite comparisons to existing artists than to describe accurately what is being heard. Besides, as I have stated before, no two people hear things in the same way.
 
Both arguments have their merits.
 
I rarely give any creedence to another listener's review . To do so implies an understanding or empathy of the other's taste - plainly unrealistic. Even someone like Dag Erik Asbjornsen, whose opinion coincides with mine frequently, can lead me up the proverbial garden path if I'm not careful. In his book "Scented Gardens Of The Mind" he describes Saint Just's Jenny Sorrenti thus......."...highlighting Jenny Sorrenti's beautiful voice (comparible to Annie Haslam..)".  That's what he hears. I hear this awful wailing woman who can barely hit a note, whose range is, perhaps, one and a half octaves. Her voice has prevented me from ever playing the album since purchase!
 
This is partly why I am reluctant to post a review of an album. I feel that I can rarely do it justice anyway, certainly at my first bash. It generally takes a stinker for me to put pen to paper and that's not exactly constructive. Although it is healthy to hear all differing opinions. If that were not so, then all reviews would be of praise and that would hardly paint an accurate picture.
 
I'm not entirely sure what compels me to buy any particular new album. I would surmise that half of the CDs I buy are of new artists (to me). I know a lot of my purchases are serendipitous in nature and some are based on hearing a soundfile on the artist's site. A lot have been chosen from the book previously mentioned ("Scented Gardens Of The Mind" ). Some even, have been selected on the basis that they either use a lot of Hammond or Mellotron!
 
It's all pot luck when it comes down to it.
 
 
Back to Top
anthamatten View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: February 06 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 14
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 19 2007 at 01:34
For me, as the thread-starter, it doesn't kick me to a new group on the prog horizon, when I readd "... sounds like YES, but the organ Solo is pretty much GENESIS ...". It stops me from wanting to listen to that music - in general.

When first listening to SPOCKS BEARD (SB) "Beware of darkness" (a cover of George Harrison) one of the tracks had a passage that sounded exactly like GENTLE GIANT. This for me is a kind of plagiat - or - only boring. Ok, SB like Gentle Giant. But they  use a typical fragment that could be an original. This kicks me out of the box. It's close to ridiculousness - in my eyes. And then a critic writes: "... sounds like GENTLE GIANT...". I do listen this SB album, but I cannot help. They are more or less eclectics, using forms that exists - pretty close.

It's weird but I don't appreciate that kind of music very much. But I can accept the argument that everybody has a predecessor. Even Beethoven had one. So Prokoffiew with his "Symphonie classique". And I can accept that a newbie does not have to know that the music he is listening to has already been made by others - earlier. He will find that out by himself.

To end my thought - and perhaps this thread - I found an example of a pretty fresh access to Pop-Music by a group called PHOENIX. Their album "Alphabetical" sounds new to me. I like that style - that sound. Perhaps someone can tell me, who had done similar before.

The new album ("It's never been like that" !!!!!!!) sounds staightly like their last album. They copy their own songs. One uses an analog Synth chord as introduction. It's like a quotation of a previous song of theirs. - Don't like that album too much. It's not inventive.

A
Be the one of my dreams
Back to Top
A B Negative View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 02 2006
Location: Methil Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 1594
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 23 2007 at 11:41
There is nothing new in music, nothing sprung forth fully-formed.
 
It's very rare for me to hear something that doesn't remind me of something else but, as the saying goes, if you copy one person, that's plagiarism; if you copy more than one, they're influences.
 
Also, it depends on how wide your musical experience is. the more you know, the more likely it is for "new" music to sound like something you've already heard.
"The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time."
Back to Top
progismylife View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2006
Location: ibreathehelium
Status: Offline
Points: 15535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 24 2007 at 08:54
I like to think Rush has their own style which developed around Caress of Steel. AS for something sounding like something I don't think that is possible unless it is a cover band trying to sound like the band they are covering. You might here influences but unless it is a cover band no band should sound like another band in its entirety.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.148 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.