[QUOTE=Permanent Solution]Heh, it was supposed to be tongue in cheek. Oops :-\[/QUOTE]

Oh, yeah, I know that. I just feel bad for Riker. :)

...:-/

This little non-incident sort of sheds new light on your taking the internet too seriously thread. :p

[QUOTE]But yeah, Picard was in a nutshell a fantastic character and well acted. Stewart is a very talented actor.[/QUOTE]

I wish I could see him in more things that work for his strengths rather than roles where he uses his strengths to make a bad role stonger than it should be. The Star Trek movies he's been in have been cases in point.

He's got one of the warmest British voices I've heard, as well. It's so pleasant listening to him speak. Why hasn't he made it into a Harry Potter movie yet? :mad:

[QUOTE=Cain]Oh, yeah, I know that. I just feel bad for Riker. :)

...:-/

This little non-incident sort of sheds new light on your taking the internet too seriously thread. :p[/quote]
Yeah...Spock was better than Riker. First mate shaft.

Hehe, it's funny it got bumped and is getting lots of posts. It was more applicable last night. Heh. As is, Shane is cooled down now and we're having a nice chat in Pop-Punk heh.
[quote]
I wish I could see him in more things that work for his strengths rather than roles where he uses his strengths to make a bad role stonger than it should be. The Star Trek movies he's been in have been cases in point.

He's got one of the warmest British voices I've heard, as well. It's so pleasant listening to him speak. Why hasn't he made it into a Harry Potter movie yet? :mad:[/QUOTE]
Hahaha, I can't see him as a Harry Potter character really. Except one of the real non-essential ones that would kinda be a wasted role. But yeah, I'm sure he could be better in roles catering to him. All the big actors get roles like that and that's why their movies usually are enjoyable.

ugh. I've been awake 33 hours guys, g'night.

[url]http://www.myspace.com/spindrift000[/url]

My band's myspace that I made just five minutes ago.

gnight. im sure youll have a wonderful sleep.



Tommorows monday :upset:

[QUOTE=Moses][url]http://www.myspace.com/spindrift000[/url]

My band's myspace that I made just five minutes ago.[/QUOTE]
Pretty quality recording, I'm impressed.

I added you.

Wowzerz you added me fast. You guys are awsome! Are you the guitar player?

Thanks. I used it for the thrash comp even if it is noway thrash. I had a part repeated and made it a little repetitive and was probably the downfall of it. That and Toaster's recording was excellent and way better than mine.

I sing and play keys. On that song I recorded all the instruments though, except the drums which were a machine.

Awsome. When i get recording gear im gonna try and make my own music. I gots a bass and guitar, and ill prolly use drum loops.



Does your guitar player use a 7?

No, it's just drop C.

[QUOTE=Moses]No, it's just drop C.[/QUOTE]
Is there any particular reason you guys drop that low?

it's the new "in."

just came back from a church youth revival thing.
third night in a row, and i was a little miffed for church wasting my whole weekend so i randomly whipped out some improv solos in the middle of songs, getting weird looks from my bandmates...

[QUOTE=guitrguy]Is there any particular reason you guys drop that low?[/QUOTE]

Actually it's the old "in".

Gives a cool sound.

[QUOTE=Moses]Actually it's the old "in".

Gives a cool sound.[/QUOTE]
So you do it for the heavy sound.

Guitrguy what are you tryin to get at exactly :confused:

[QUOTE=guitrguy]So you do it for the heavy sound.[/QUOTE]
We also use it for different types of chords. Is there a problem with tuning low?

If we lose any credibility with tuning low I suggest that you listen to the music because it's not like it's simple nu-metal stuff.

tuning low is boring

[QUOTE=Eggo]tuning low is boring[/QUOTE]
It's not like we're tied down to a specific tuning. I liked the sound that I got when I wrote the song. Also it goes with the piano parts which I wrote in the key of C minor/diminished.

[QUOTE=Moses]It's not like we're tied down to a specific tuning. I liked the sound that I got when I wrote the song. Also it goes with the piano parts which I wrote in the key of C minor/diminished.[/QUOTE]
C dim???? I would to love the know the notes in that scale.

Just start on C and go up in terms of steps like this:

Half/Whole/Half/Whole/Half/Whole/Half/Whole

It's used in jazz alot.

[QUOTE=Moses]Just start on C and go up in terms of steps like this:

Half/Whole/Half/Whole/Half/Whole/Half/Whole

It's used in jazz alot.[/QUOTE]
I'll ask my theory teacher about it.


Edit: I just played it on my piano and it doesnt end on tonic.

[B]C[/B] C# D# E F# G A Bb [B]C[/B]

The first keyboard run that I do in my bands song is using that scale.
[url]http://www.myspace.com/spindrift000[/url]

[QUOTE=Moses][B]C[/B] C# D# E F# G A Bb [B]C[/B][/QUOTE]
For some reason I ended on C#

keys sounds like somethin fun to mess around with, and it could add some style to my band. I should look into gettin a cheap keyboard

[QUOTE=Moses]It's not like we're tied down to a specific tuning. I liked the sound that I got when I wrote the song. Also it goes with the piano parts which I wrote in the key of C minor/diminished.[/QUOTE]

Don't worry, Eggo's just an elitist snob. He needs to be reminded of the flower-sniffing perfume-laden niceness of the R+Mers. :)

C diminished is cool, I love opening up the harmony by introducing dissonance that makes "sense." I hate dissonance that's intended to sound harsh: rather I like making the listener adjust his/her ears to new melodic paths opened up by an outright change. The piano outro to Opeth's "Leper Affinity" is a good example of the sort of thing I'm going for.

One thing I like in my acoustic songs lately is to open up the harmony by chromatically shifting a suspended or open chord shape. For instance, moving down chords in ways that make sense in certain related keys but which don't make any sense in any diatonic way: nevertheless the listener's innate "musical logic meter" latches on to the resolutions that ARE happening and adjusts to the outright changes in tone. Like this shape for instance:

10
8
7
7
X
8

I move that one around a lot in an acoustic-cello duet I wrote for theory class, and the cello solos over the changes in a way that sounds surprisingly logical.

One of the most fluid-sounding "changes" I've ever written, that I think just sounds so wonderful and tense, is the change from playing this:
Cadd9#11
e e e e e e e e e e e q e e e
E-----------------------------------------------------
B------------8-----------------------8~~-----------
G--------------11----------------11-------11-------
D-----12----------12--------12--------------12----
A---10---10----------10-10---------------------10-
E-8-----------------------8--------------------------

to this:
Bmaj7
e e e e e e e q. e e e e e e e
E------------------2vvvv--------------------
B-----------0-----------------0----------0--
G------3------3------------3---3------3-----
D----1---1------1-------------------1-------
A--2-------------------------------2---------
E--------------------------------------------

I just think it resolves perfectly, even though it shouldn't really.

[QUOTE=Spat Out Plath]Because you did it wrong?[/QUOTE]
Nice job, +1 to your ability to point the obvious.


I just dont like how the scale sounds.
I also haven't gotten in 20th century chords structures either.

Romance is starting to piss me off right now.

[QUOTE=guitrguy]

Romance is starting to piss me off right now.[/QUOTE]

Do go on...

[QUOTE=leppermessiah]Do go on...[/QUOTE]
Its classical guitar piece. Being the smart guy that i am I procastinated for 3+ weeks to learn the song. I need to have it leanred by tomorrow. Im so tired right now Im reading notes wrong.

How does procrastinating make you smart?

i've always been a fan of more subtle uses of dissonance and pantonality:

120 bpm:

[url]http://i1.tinypic.com/mhaurb.jpg[/url]