[QUOTE=duffroxmysox]Oh dear K, sorry but I'm gonna give you more aggro :)

So you don't think there is any point in having a good stage show when you go to see a band? Well if so, why not just sit at home and listen to the CD or if you feel adventurous maybe even a live one?

Sure, you go to a gig to see the band play and for the atmosphere etc but how does having a good show make the experience worse? If anything it may further improve someones evening- live CD's give the music but do they give the show put on for the audience by the band? No.

Sure if a band has to rely on a stage show to draw in people then maybe they aren't necessarily the best band around, but if you're a good band who wants to give that little extra with pyrotechnics or whatever- thats just a personal choice, some do, some don't.

Um also- what the hell is your problem with rockers in their forties? Musicians in their 40s can give just as much enrgy as younger bands and just cos they're older does not mean they cannot play- sometimes this may help as they have experience and have grown as musicians...

Dont see The Rolling Stones getting too many bad reviews at the mo...they be well past the 40s....and dont bother saying second wind

What about (as Gur said) Iron Maiden, you can hardly say they cant crack it still?[/QUOTE]

**** straight.


MAAAAAAAAIDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN! WOO!


/fanboy

I was gonna chuck in VR too but thought fcuk it that'll give me stick and "they're sh!t" comments so thought, naaah we'll go for an undeniably good live "silvering" band :)

Been a while since we've had some form of contested disagreement here.

I have no stand on the matter, the 2 best live performances i've seen have been the opposite ends of the spectrum, one massive stage show, the other just 4 guys playing music

K says stage shows are crap when his bass player looks like someone pulled directly from the mid 80's...

I can see his points though, but hey - stage shows add to the entertainment of a gig.

[QUOTE=Lord Brummington]K says stage shows are crap when his bass player looks like someone [B]he [/B] pulled* directly from the mid 80's...[/QUOTE]

fixed





















*:naughty:

That was actually quite poor, I do apologise

Ho Ho Hooooo

'Bout three months too early there Brew, gotta do some fattening up before you make a convincing santa too :thumb:

Fayle.

Meh, twas between sneezes- I'm off, I've decided I canny be fooked to sit here and sneeze and cough and sneeze and cough and have a sore throat :(

Bed beckons me

Aww, get well soon*



















*back in the kitchen.

[QUOTE=Lord Brummington]Aww, get wel...







...back in the kitchen.[/QUOTE]

:lol:

so true.

But sneeze in our beer and you'll be wishing broken bottles weren't quite so sharp.

Refl

^^Its Refl's birthday today.

He is 17.

Happy Birthday kiddo.

:chug:

//

G'night thread :wave:

Thread gave me a few laughs in the last few posts.

Refl is a kewl guy, pity he's gonna miss opeth

/goes off in childish chant

Um you better not've been laughing at my expense!

:lol: Happy bday refl, still dont know this dudes real person name :confused:

I bet he has a "refl" tat on his forehead :)


Hmmm so drinking copious amounts of OJ to rid me of my sore throat has now given me a cough and a cold- wtf? :upset:

[QUOTE=duffroxmysox]
Hmmm so drinking copious amounts of OJ to rid me of my sore throat has now given me a cough and a cold- wtf? :upset:[/QUOTE]

£1 says it didn't.

Watch as I make another appearance.

So, my school has a 2-week timetable system where we have Week A and Week B.

Over the two weeks, I have 25 free lessons :cool:

[QUOTE=Lord Brummington]So, my school has a 2-week timetable system where we have Week A and Week B.

Over the two weeks, I have 25 free lessons :cool:[/QUOTE]

we're on a 2 week system

[QUOTE=moaner]we're on a 2 week system[/QUOTE]

We're on a 2 week and 6 term system.

Its not so bad, from Monday to Thursday next week I have at least two free lessons first thing in the morning.

[QUOTE=Lord Brummington]We're on a 2 week and 6 term system.

Its not so bad, from Monday to Thursday next week I have at least two free lessons first thing in the morning.[/QUOTE]

I took further maths, I'm hardly gonna get any frees.

Ha.

My insane amount of free's comes from dropping Physics and having 6 Music Tech ''study'' periods (3 a week).

Morning thread :wave:

/me goes to sleep

my school's a two week timetable

i woke up today (or, technically, yesterday) at quater to five in the afternoon


score!

[QUOTE=moaner]kkk, stop talking utter rubbish.You think that because someone's opinion differs from yours, theyhave to be wrong? You're the one without half a leg to try to hobble around on.

"There's more to being a good musician than being good at music"- pfft. sure.

Stop making excuses for the fact you know 90% of music is your technical superior and stop telling people that they're wrong to appreciate musical skill instad of your "p00nage stayge showz".[/QUOTE]

Care to back up that percentage? :rolleyes:
That's just utter bull.
You think that because someone plays high up diddly fast solos they are more adept than everyone else?
Go download some mathcore.
It's pretty much safe to say that playing mathcore, grindore e.t.c is alot harder than playing classic rock.
Not that it matters at all, because the point here is that music isn't about how fast you can play, or what time signitures you can nail. It's about art. And whether that's the white stripes writing successful simple songs or bands like sikth dropping into different time sigs every few bars.

There's a vast difference between 'appreciating musical skill' and slagging off and denouncing any band who doesn't play to the same standard you expect of classic rock bands. If you get a bassist, drummer and guitarist who all play to grade 8. It doesn't mean they will write a [I]better[/I] song than the same amount of musicians at grade 5.
The difference is realising that technical ability isn't the defining factor ot a songs musicallity.

But like I said, if you want to tout on with the ignorant, 'I like in 1980' elitist music outlook, then go download some mathcore and grindcore bands. (Seen as you only judge music on technical skill) You'll realise that very few classic rock bands will meet the same level of technical skill as mathcore and grindcore bands.

[QUOTE]
So you don't think there is any point in having a good stage show when you go to see a band? Well if so, why not just sit at home and listen to the CD or if you feel adventurous maybe even a live one?[/QUOTE]

There's nothing wrong with a good stage show. But I have much more respect for artists who can put on a good show with just their emotion and passion. Than people who need to spend thousands of pounds on cheesy gimmicky sets.
I'd rather see someone be moved by the music than see someone emerge from a goofy looking spaceship set.
If you want to be wowed by special effects and theatricals, then go see a movie or go see a play.
A band should be able to put on a good show with their music and not gimmicks.

[QUOTE]
Sure if a band has to rely on a stage show to draw in people then maybe they aren't necessarily the best band around, but if you're a good band who wants to give that little extra with pyrotechnics or whatever- thats just a personal choice, some do, some don't.[/QUOTE]

Why do you need pyrotechnics in the first place?
It doesn't give anything extra. In fact, it makes things WORSE for the fans.

1. In the case of pyrotechnics, you get even more heat issues. Gigs are hot enough without people playing with fire.

2. With general effects, and I'm talking fancy pyrotechnics, stage set ups e.t.c. it pushes the ticket price up for the fan.
Fans shouldn't have to pay more money because the artist can only express their passion through expensive stage sets.

I've seen bands play gigs with nothing more than the P.A. and a basic lighting rig and they moved the crowd and delivered alot more passion to me than seeing bands who have spent money on gore suits, or mock up scenery.

[QUOTE]Um also- what the hell is your problem with rockers in their forties? Musicians in their 40s can give just as much enrgy as younger bands and just cos they're older does not mean they cannot play- sometimes this may help as they have experience and have grown as musicians...[/QUOTE]

I don't have a problem with any age group of 'rockers'.
I'm just attacking the general root of this entire argument.
It happens when classic rock fans feel the need to get elitist and decide that because a few punk bands they see on MTV don't play as technicly as Iron Maiden, that all modern music sucks and is going down hill and takes no talent to create. It's an entirely retarded outlook especially seen as it ignores the fact that bands like Iron Maiden don't actually come close to the technical abilities of modern bands like the berzerker.

[QUOTE]pffff, Maiden put on a better live show than any other band right now - including yours. Even if they have 10 foot monsters, robotic devils, pyrotechincs and a walkway for the singer to run about on.

pffff[/QUOTE]

A better show is subjective really. To be honest, I'd be bored out of my mind if the gig seemed to entail people bigging themselves up with mock up scenery.
And seen as the original point made was that modern bands suck, why do classic rock bands need the elaborate stage show if they're obviously so far above all these modern bands?

Ok K really I think your real issue is that you severly dislike classic rock form that and your previous post.

[QUOTE=KKKKKocaine]There's nothing wrong with a good stage show. But I have much more respect for artists who can put on a good show with just their emotion and passion. Than people who need to spend thousands of pounds on cheesy gimmicky sets.
I'd rather see someone be moved by the music than see someone emerge from a goofy looking spaceship set.
If you want to be wowed by special effects and theatricals, then go see a movie or go see a play.
A band should be able to put on a good show with their music and not gimmicks.[/QUOTE]
What? You just said exactly what you said before pretty much. You personally don't like "cheesy" stage shows but that doesn't mean to say they don't still move people- different things do it for different people :thumb:

What's to say bands with big stage shows aren't moved by their music- maybe they just want to make the experience more intense and memorable and add to it. Music is a display of creativity- why not add it with art- afterall they do with album art and promotional stuff dont they? What's wrong with onstage too to further theirs and the audiences enjoyment.

They may actually be able to put on a good show with just their music, but feel they actually [I]want[/I] to give that bit extra. This isn't always necessary but if they wanna- why not?

Also what about people whose music revolves around fantasy or mythical stuff- this may come across better some may say with some kind of extra props or dry ice or whatever than just a band standing singing about unicorns- not gonna get you believing as much as if there was visual maybe (wouldn't have a clue I'm not into this but I'm just arguing all sides...)

[QUOTE]Why do you need pyrotechnics in the first place?
It doesn't give anything extra. In fact, it makes things WORSE for the fans.

1. In the case of pyrotechnics, you get even more heat issues. Gigs are hot enough without people playing with fire.

2. With general effects, and I'm talking fancy pyrotechnics, stage set ups e.t.c. it pushes the ticket price up for the fan.
Fans shouldn't have to pay more money because the artist can only express their passion through expensive stage sets.[/QUOTE]


You do not [I]need[/I] pyrotechnics in any case

1- Yes so gigs are hot, fire will add heat, thats part of what fire does- but it'll also add to the show etc so fans might be willing to ignore the extra heat factor if they're getting into this
2- Okay so higher ticket prices aren't always welcomed by fans and I agree that if the band can subsidise the fancyness themselves then perhaps they should- but maybe these bands that feel it necessary to produce such an extravagant show- maybe their fans would enjoy it a hell of a lot more WITH the extras so would understand and wouldn't mind paying extra- obviously there will be some who wouldn't want to but that's their choice.


[QUOTE]I've seen bands play gigs with nothing more than the P.A. and a basic lighting rig and they moved the crowd and delivered alot more passion to me than seeing bands who have spent money on gore suits, or mock up scenery.[/QUOTE]
That is down to your personal preference, you prefer bands who staright up play with no silly buisiness- and perhaps the fancy stuff wouldnt lend itself to the stuff you're into- fact is: it doesn't go with all styles of music.

But you were only moved more by the "normal" bands because thats what you are into- that isn't to say the others did not move double the people these other bands did.

Also- the bands you may've seen may not've been the most passionate or may not have seemed as "in the zone" as you may have wished but again- people react to stuff in different ways.


IMO :)

[QUOTE]I don't have a problem with any age group of 'rockers'[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=KKKKKocaine]And that, is how you put on a show my child.
With music and energy, [B]not[/B] cheesy gimmicks and [B]40 year old musicians[/B]:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

:thumb:

[QUOTE=duffroxmysox]Ok K really I think your real issue is that you severly dislike classic rock form that and your previous post.
[/QUOTE]

I severely dislike it, yes, the same way you might severly dislike mathcore.
I don't have a problem with it though, you can like whatever you like. Because if at least 1 person likes it, then by defacto it cannot be sh[COLOR=White]i[/COLOR]t or talentless, or any of the other labels people throw on music just because they don't like it.
My big [COLOR=White]a[/COLOR]ss thing about classic rock stereotypes was just an attempt of 'getting one over' the person who posted about modern music being talentless. Not very appropriate or mature, but that's what it was.
And my other stereotype was a fairly true one, it isn't representative of everyone who likes classic rock, but alot of people I've met into classic rock tout the approach that new music isn't as good as it was whenever the bands they liked were around, or that it's talentless, or the musicians can't play their instruments or whatever.
My main gripe and the reason I got uber ****ed [COLOR=White]o[/COLOR]ff was that the person who said it, said something about modern indie and punk musicians not being able to play their music, and no-one had seemed to kick a fuss up about it, with the exception of moaner who jus said that not all indie is bad.
I know alot of MxUKers like classic rock, so I jumped to the conclusion that you all agreed with him. Whether that's true or not I don't know.
I just didn't particularily like someone slagging off alot of modern music on some silly stereotypes that aren't even true. So I attacked back by throwing stereotypes at them.
I know that classic rock doesn't suck, and I know that wearing tight latex pants doesn't mean you suck, or anything negative.
The same way not having a lead guitar solo in a song doesn't mean you suck.
So I was just throwing stereotypes back at the poster because if you're going to denounce an entire genre, (or in fact, modern music) on a few stereotypes, it's a bit silly when the genre you're bigging up is full of true and untrue stereotypes.
Hopefully that explained it better than last nights post because I got back from two gigs, with no sleep, and both gigs needing organising, and for me to be at them from about 11am-11pm.

In closing, I'll agree that alot of my post was put across in the wrong manner and quite a bit of what you're saying is true. (i.e. personal preference on stage shows e.t.c.) So I'll apologise for launching into one that seemed like I was bashing classic rock, because I really just don't like that kind of stage show and I was using that opinion as a launch point to attack the poster on the above mentioned factors about stereotypes.

There we go kids.

K, you're getting me all wrong. Obviously being grade 8 at your instruments isn't any guarantee of writing a great song, and no-one thinks that. But to say that its better not to be talented musically than to be able to play fast, exciting, intresting solos and to do so is utter bollocks.

As to the pyrotechnics and such- if the fans of Rammstein find they enjoy shows more with pyrotechnics, who are you to critisise them for it? You know very well putting on a great show that people appreciate and enjoy is what playing gigs is all about, whether they do it with "raw emotion and energy" (you big emo pansy) or with lightshows and a respectable but conservative performance.

You break mic cables and scream a lot- I act calm and give music all I have to give. If the outcome is the same- i.e., the punters go home entertained, moved by the show as a whole and excited, who are you to say that our way of doing things is "a gimmick" and yours "from the (bleeding? :lol:) heart"?

CDs are all about moving people musically, and making intresting, exciting music demonstrating your talent. Gigs are all about putting on an all round performance, that performs musically and in other ways- be it the band breaking mic cables and walking up and down the stage, or with light shows and a much deeper set type of "emotion" that we don't show by screaming, but by wrenching every single note out of our fingers?

ah, k compromised.


/is perfectly prepared to leave the whole thing.