This is such a huge gear grinder it's not even funny. Midi is just as (I'd argue, way WAY more) powerful and difficult to master as any other analog instrument.
Last edited by polak; 02-07-2013 at 03:19 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to polak For This Useful Post:
I also think that robert DeNiro is mailing it in and he's been pretty terrible since the early 80's. .
I was thinking pretty much the same thing for the last little while and who could blame him the guy has more then enough amazing movies to sit on. I saw Silver Linings Playbook though and he totally kills it, it's a great performance by DeNiro and it was nice to see.
Several posters have dismissed the Beatles as being just another boy band. While they hardly need defending, I thought I might say why they were anything but.
The band came together organically. They were not manufactured.
The Beatles played their own instruments.
They wrote their own songs.
Their songwriting evolved and improved. Try listening to Rubber Soul, released only two years into their run, and compare it to their lightweight early hits.
They were a band, not a choreographed dance troupe.
You don't have to like their music, but putting them into the category of NKOTB, Backstreet Boys or En Sync is truly laughable.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Red Ice Player For This Useful Post:
I'm enjoying the success of Roberto Luongo this year.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
There's nothing exceptionally traditional about Italian, Irish, French etc.. food. Many of the ingredients in those foods wasn't available until very recently. This includes potatoes, peppers, tomatoes, corn, peanuts, cocoa, etc... These items weren't discovered by Europeans until the 1500s and most did not become readily available in a consumer friendly form unti the 1800s.
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
This is such a huge gear grinder it's not even funny. Midi is just as (I'd argue, way WAY more) powerful and difficult to master as any other analog instrument.
I don't disagree with that, but there is something about musicians collaborating live that I find magical. I'm not anti-technology.
Several posters have dismissed the Beatles as being just another boy band. While they hardly need defending, I thought I might say why they were anything but.
The band came together organically. They were not manufactured.
The Beatles played their own instruments.
They wrote their own songs.
Their songwriting evolved and improved. Try listening to Rubber Soul, released only two years into their run, and compare it to their lightweight early hits.
They were a band, not a choreographed dance troupe.
You don't have to like their music, but putting them into the category of NKOTB, Backstreet Boys or En Sync is truly laughable.
I agree with all that. George Martin though played a huge role in pushing them forward.
Several posters have dismissed the Beatles as being just another boy band. While they hardly need defending, I thought I might say why they were anything but.
The band came together organically. They were not manufactured.
The Beatles played their own instruments.
They wrote their own songs.
Their songwriting evolved and improved. Try listening to Rubber Soul, released only two years into their run, and compare it to their lightweight early hits.
They were a band, not a choreographed dance troupe.
You don't have to like their music, but putting them into the category of NKOTB, Backstreet Boys or En Sync is truly laughable.
None of those things disqualify them from being a boy band.
Also, the Beatles did not come togehter entirely organically (cough cough Ringo). Their music was not entirely their own creations either. They worked with many of the best producers, studio muscians, writers, etc of their time.
I see little difference in the way that the Beatles were formed and the way that N'Sync was formed. N'Sync was formed when Chris Kirkpatrick assembled a group of chidhood friends and approached Lou Pearlman. Lou then tinckered with the lineup. N'Sync also did much of their song writing.
The only real difference you've pointed out is that the Beatles can't dance. And that has more to do with what was in fashion in pop music at the time.
This is such a huge gear grinder it's not even funny. Midi is just as (I'd argue, way WAY more) powerful and difficult to master as any other analog instrument.
but midi can never provide the same amount of expression than say a wind instrument (brass, woodwind). Without that human connection you can't acheive it.
I don't disagree with that, but there is something about musicians collaborating live that I find magical. I'm not anti-technology.
After posting that I figured thats what you might have ment and that is definitely a major drawback of Midi but it is very possible to do. People like Calvin Harris and ATB have performed geniune, live shows, just like a rock band would and apparently deadmau5 is working on some sort of production rig where he will be actually making music live at his shows (I'll believe it when I see it. He is so full of himself).
Quote:
Originally Posted by rotten42
but midi can never provide the same amount of expression than say a wind instrument (brass, woodwind). Without that human connection you can't acheive it.
Think someone like Johnny Coltrane.
No it can't. Not live at least.
But there is definitely a lot of room for soul and expression when recording. You might not be physically bending the string on the guitar or throwing in a pinch harmonic but as someone who makes music in midi and can play guitar, I've felt just as much "emotion" in both. The feeling when you come up with some melody or drop or effect in midi that just blows you away is just as great as the feeling when you nail an awesome bluesy solo on guitar.
Last edited by polak; 02-07-2013 at 04:03 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to polak For This Useful Post:
None of those things disqualify them from being a boy band.
Also, the Beatles did not come togehter entirely organically (cough cough Ringo). Their music was not entirely their own creations either. They worked with many of the best producers, studio muscians, writers, etc of their time.
I see little difference in the way that the Beatles were formed and the way that N'Sync was formed. N'Sync was formed when Chris Kirkpatrick assembled a group of chidhood friends and approached Lou Pearlman. Lou then tinckered with the lineup. N'Sync also did much of their song writing.
The only real difference you've pointed out is that the Beatles can't dance. And that has more to do with what was in fashion in pop music at the time.
They weren't the first band to make a lineup change. Bringing in Ringo was a band decision. They paid their dues playing In Germany and Liverpool clubs. George Martin saw their potential and gave them a chance. He was the defacto fifth Beatle. The Rolling Stones started off playing covers as well, albeit more in a blues vein. Were they a boy band too?
I can see where the Beatles could be dismissed in this day and age as being a boy band. Boy bands over the decades have largely copied the Beatles. As for the dancing, it had nothing to do with the era. If the Beatles formed in this century they wouldn't be dancing on stage. They were never about that. They actually quit performing live very early on to concentrate on songwriting and honing their sound. They got sick of the hype and having their performances drowned out by screaming girls.
Last edited by Red Ice Player; 02-07-2013 at 04:16 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Red Ice Player For This Useful Post:
The only real difference you've pointed out is that the Beatles can't dance. And that has more to do with what was in fashion in pop music at the time.
Dancing while performing was absolutely in fashion in the mid 60's. Here's a pretty popular musician/dancer in 1964...
The Beatles aren't my cup of tea, but they were in no way a boy band. Here's a mid 60's boy band...
The Following User Says Thank You to Plett25 For This Useful Post:
There's nothing exceptionally traditional about Italian, Irish, French etc.. food. Many of the ingredients in those foods wasn't available until very recently. This includes potatoes, peppers, tomatoes, corn, peanuts, cocoa, etc... These items weren't discovered by Europeans until the 1500s and most did not become readily available in a consumer friendly form unti the 1800s.
So, how many hundred years does a food have to be used in an area's cusine before it becomes traditional by your standard? Are Canada and the United States excluded from having traditional food simply because they are young countries?
So, how many hundred years does a food have to be used in an area's cusine before it becomes traditional by your standard? Are Canada and the United States excluded from having traditional food simply because they are young countries?
More just a statement about how Italians, French, etc... can be so snobbish about the tradition involved in their food. You'd think it would go back 1000s of years, when in reality most of it originated in the late 1800s. If food that is only 120 or so years old is considered "traditional", then why not a McDonalds hamburger that is 60-70 years old. A&W has been around since 1919...
I'm not saying that you shouldn't define or associate foods with your culture. You just need to drop the snobiness. The attitude that North American cuisine is "new" and should, therefore, be less regarded is the main issue I have with this false sense of traditionalism. I quite like Italian food.
More just a statement about how Italians, French, etc... can be so snobbish about the tradition involved in their food. You'd think it would go back 1000s of years, when in reality most of it originated in the late 1800s. If food that is only 120 or so years old is considered "traditional", then why not a McDonalds hamburger that is 60-70 years old. A&W has been around since 1919...
I'm not saying that you shouldn't define or associate foods with your culture. You just need to drop the snobiness. The attitude that North American cuisine is "new" and should, therefore, be less regarded is the main issue I have with this false sense of traditionalism. I quite like Italian food.
Pizza and pasta was eaten in Italy way before the introduction of tomatoes. They used olive oil instead.
(not that Pizza and pasta is all there is to Italian cooking)
Pizza was intially the name given to flatbread sold to the poor on street corners. It did no intially contain cheese, oil, or tomatoes.
Anything remotely resembling a modern pizza was not produced until the late 1700s. The dish commonly called pizza today, which has bread, tomato sauce, and importantly cheese, was not created until 1889.
Spreading some oilve oil on bread is hardly a novel concept that belongs to any one culture. That's where the roots of modern day pizza come from, but there's little in common with that and a modern pizza. That's more a history of the term "pizza" as oppossed to the modern food, which was created in 1889.
