MUSIC: the official thread.

:atu:

 

IMO queen is the bomb.. For some reason live been listening to them lately

 

Yet, both bands have something that no jazz artists do: actual songs.

hno: Don't fucking dispute this, arsehole, it's your own opinion when going off on one about Prog-Rock: something about "great musicianship but you need to have songs...and they don't have those"

Ditto, pretty much every doodler in jazz. opcorn:

 

Hi, I'm Hut & I like Captain Beefheart. Allot.:love:

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/p0Iy71Qwe6E" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

 

Lonnie Smith?

 

total nonsense

there are songs galore in jazz music and one of the principle purposes of jazz is the interpretation of those songs ... Duke Ellington shat out more memorable melodies than all of the total works of Deep Purple and Queen combined

Queen and Deep Purple have SHITTY songs, loads of them... they then filter those songs through their bad-taste machines where they are then rendered suitable for YOUR listening pleasure... On its own, "Killer Queen" is a shit song derivative of the cutest of Paul McCartney... After it is composed, Freddie Mercury adds the type of Streisand ambience to it that would make Harvey Fierstein cream his pants and the crowd goes wild... you must love musicals. If someone told me they hated musicals but loved Queen, I'd be baffled. It's the same thing with less distorted guitar with overdubbed distorted guitar harmonies. I loathe musicals, so by extension I loathe Queen.

Deep Purple... oh my god... horrible... the singer should have been shot to death numerous times... No, the organ doesn't sound particularly good through the Marshall Stack. I always hear about how "innovative" that was. Sometimes things haven't been done before or after because no one thinks they are a good idea. That's a perfect example. Ritchie Blackmore managed one guitar solo that I actually like (the one on Smoke on The Water) ... "but, but... he had quasi-classical technique!" ... so do the shredders Z loves to listen to, they all do Ritchie Blackmore better than Ritchie Blackmore ever could at 15 times the speed... who fucking cares? Paganini's 24 caprices are little more than technical showcases on the instrument they were meant to be played on (the Violin), never mind on a distorted guitar. That shit is corny as fuck. Great, you play fast and precise... who cares? you've got fuck all to say.

I have sat through every single one of Deep Purple's supposedly "classic" albums and they are shit. Third-rate, toss-off heavy rock songs with two guys who weren't skilled enough to play with a real symphony orchestra lording over the proceedings while an incredibly annoying asshole shrieks away "I LOVE IT! I NEED IT!!!" fuck that shit, it's Spinal Tap

 

Does your amp go to 11 Cdogg?

 

yup... a little extra "kick"

 

Good post, cdogg.
　
However, I can't see how you hate Deep Purple? They never exactly fitted into the standard 'heavy metal' pattern.
You claim to like Led Zeppelin, but they represented this genre's 'kingship', with their mystical, overblown epics, occasional dips into the world of the occult, blatant cock-rock attitudes and a pretentiousness that could hardly find any equals.
The 3rd band of this original genre, Black Sabbath took to its ultimate 'height', to the point where it was already verging on the border of gross, with practically nothing but Iommi's riffs to save them from a total downfall into gothic banality; 99% percent of their followers were stupid and trashy, soon to enter the wastebin of history.
Deep Purple were never stupid or blatant enough to pretend that what they were playing was something bigger than just rock'n'roll with a little bit more distortion than usual.
So, I don't see your point at all.
You hate Ritchie Blackmore - okay, fine. He is often credited as one of the best guitar players in existence, and, while this statement is certainly OTT, I'd no doubt say that he's at least the best 'fast' guitar player in existence. Clean-tone, not really a shredder.
I'll give up on one thing: their main flaw, is that for such a great band they have way too few classic albums. Three or four, and the rest is mostly flak. Oh, and they weren't totally original or diverse.
Not really reasons to hate!

Re: Queen. I can't see how they are a bad band. A band with quite a unique and unparalleled style of their own that's among the most significant styles of the 70s.
IMO, they are especially attractive for the 'pseudo-intellectual' music fans, that is, the kind of dudes who are way too slow, close-minded and poor-educated to recognize really 'advanced-rock-music' music like Yes, King Crimson, or Jethro Tull, but which are quick to jump on the Queen bandwagon because... because, after all, the music of Queen is quite suitable for those people:
1) They rock: at times, harder than Led Zeppelin, and that makes up for some great headbanging
2) They're arty: they tackle opera and other classical subgenres, and so they must be a 'clever' band
3) They are accessible: their songs aren't too long, they are great to sing along with, and they do not overabuse weird instrumentation or eerie special effects to distract the listener.
This is based on my real and objective observations: I know lots of people who like Queen for these reasons, but are basically ignorant of rock music in general.


BTW, I do hate muscials but like Queen.

 

Never been a massive Queen fan or anything, and I'd never buy a song or album of theirs, but there's no denying they've written a few great songs down the years. Cdogg is just being difficult again.

 

Of course he's being difficult.
Everyone/thing he claimns to hate - he has either a) listened to all of, or b) has rarther too much knowledge of.
Bit strange, that...





But hang on, didn't I used to work with someone exactly like him (and strangely enough, also a massive jazz/Miles Davis/Steely Dan fan...although everyone would say he only bought that stuff to make himself appear like was musically intelligent and above everyone when in fact, he was just a music-wanker of the highest order, who, because he actually played an instrument, thought that qualified him to make such comments) ?


Yes, I believe I did.

He got cunted as well. opcorn:

 

"He seems to be very familiar with the music he hates"

well, yeah, that's the idea

I don't make snap judgements... I am willing to give anything a good listen or ten... It would be more admirable to hear "Tie Your Mother Down" once and say "that is fucking gay" and cease to hear any of Queen's other work? That's more valid? People who hate a particular artist without fully reviewing that artist's output are cunts... I don't make a judgement until I have had a very good overview of the subject... that's not "odd", it is the logical thing to do...

 

NO, Ginger...the idea is for you to make a judgement call after hearing a couple of songs...or, if you're a fucking genius like me, a mere glance at the fucking album-cover!!
:fightme:

 

Led Zeppelin had excellent SONGS, man. Excellent melodies, harmonies, etc. Their absurd lead singer and his often more absurd lyrics are in most cases not enough to drown out the inevitable truth of the band: the MUSIC was fucking great and the band sounded like no one else. Three individuals who stamped every track with their own inimitable sounds. Led Zeppelin's sounds were so good that they often made their obnoxious lead singer IRRELEVANT. There could be no greater compliment to them than that. No amount of Plant's ridiculous nonsense can drown out how fucking GOOD they sound and how signature their sound is. Why is Led Zeppelin great in spite of themselves? Because the sound of Page/Jones/Bonham is fucking WONDERFUL.

As for Deep Purple not being pretentious... surely you jest... this is a group where the keyboardist composed grade-Z CONCERTO for them to play with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra... these men whose auditions for a real professional orchestra would be over in 15 seconds with a polite "we're sorry" and a quick point toward the exit, starring as the soloists of same... what greater pretense could there be? You must be a big Procul Harum fan. Deep Purple playing a fucking Concerto with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra would be like Chris Wood of Traffic sitting in with Count Basie's band. The RPO thought "ugh... this music is total, derivative shit... still, the money's good so we will humor these phony fucks and play their little music 101 piece and then go get hammered"

as for Queen... again, there is no discernible difference between Queen and Liza Minelli... you can turn up the volume as much as you want, but it still sounds like "Cabaret"... and talk about over the top... has there EVER been a rock singer more over the top than Freddie Mercury? It's a flamboyantly homosexual British guy's version of a flamboyantly homosexual New York jewish guy's broadway show. "Clever"? so what... The Guess Who were clever, too; nobody puts them on a pedestal

 

you just hate the fact that I am right about Freddie Mercury... he's Liza Minelli with a mustache and an English accent, ye Limey bastard
:fightme:

 

Freddie Mercury with a spandex one piece and a cock in his ass is still about one twentieth as gay as Robert Plant

 

Oh Im not really knocking Zeppelin – I had their entire catalogue before you’d even got past kindergarten, but I digress: we already debated over them a few months back re: Physical Graffiti so I’m not re-treading over old ground.</SPAN>
Let’s re-focus over Purple’s so-called pretentiousness with ‘Concerto For Group And Orchestra’: Quite simply, a revolutionary album.
Actually, the truth is, Jon </SPAN>Lord simply mentioned the idea of a 'group and orchestra concert' while the band were somewhere on a cruise, and the management caught the idea and booked the Royal Albert Hall the next day - so really, he was pushed into the whole shebang</SPAN></SPAN>
You are coming across like all the critics did back in the day: hating and condemning the whole affair as, naturally, self-indulgent, snub-nosed, dirty-minded, and big-headed.
So what? I’m really not that big a connoisseur of classical music to tell whether Lord's score is all derived and totally unoriginal, or whether there are some interesting new ideas here, on the contrary.
One thing I know for sure: the movements of this concert contain sections that can be indeed called 'classical music' – but I'll even go as far as to say that it reveals influences of Tchaikovsky, Beethoven and...I guess Wagner also has to be one of the influences. And probably a couple dozen lesser known composers that I've never even heard - after all, it's Jon Lord who's had a classical musical education.</SPAN></SPAN>
However, the work's total originality, though - and there's no point trying to get away from it - is that this is indeed a 'concerto for group & orchestra'. Sometimes the orchestra plays alone, sometimes the group jams alone, but quite often, the sound is combined, and this is indeed the kind of sound that nobody dared to experiment with at the time…experimentation. Something badly missing in music over the last 20 years.</SPAN>

 

Pedo-Plant, you mean.

 

WTF are you on with...'proper' orchestra - that's just being cuntish for the sake of it.

Mind you, cdogg...Purple's attempt pales into utter insignificance when Emerson, Lake & Palmer played and toured with a 70-piece orchestra on the 1977 'Works: Vol 1" tour.

:bears:

 

:fist: IT"S FUCKING TERRIBLE

 

Even worse

 

Interior Decorators think Freddie Mercury is a faggot:nono:

There is nothing gayer

 

Freddie's aiight. It all had a little art to it. Led Zeppelin is west midlands to the max.

 

Medieval recreationists who meet up in black country fields listen to Led Zeppelin on the coach there. I imagine.

 

Zepplin was and is awesome
to this day i listen to them..

i have had a thing over the years working different jobs where i'd play a song to death and make people SICK of it.
i worked at a chuck-e-cheese years and years ago.. i was maybe 15-16 or something..

i'd open up the place.. and i'd put Kasmir on the sound system at a ridiculous volume. It got so bad that people would complain and complain to me.. i'd say "i don't care.. this is what we listen to every morning" LOL

later when i managed the movie theatre it was James Brown "the big payback" the LONG version
i'd tell my consessionist that they'd have to have it basically set up and popping fresh corn before the payback finished


Zepplin had so many great songs..
Queen IMO did too.. YES they are totally over the top and Mecury was over the top but one of the best voices in rock history IMO and just a very talented band

 

Yeah, like Barry Manilow had art

 

in-fucking-deed

 

I don't deny the talent of Queen or even Deep Purple, for the record