The Chick Factor in Metal

Vlad86 · Post by **Vlad86** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 7:03 pm

Set_Abominae wrote:I'll say this and only this... take music theory and use a little logic and you'll understand why I consider them to bad band. Until then, anything you say against me in this topic will be taken with a grain of salt.

Finally got it right?

It appears we both misunderstand each other, as I don't quite see where you're pulling your logic from, and you don't seem to understand where I'm getting mine.

Set_Abominae wrote:And no, I'm not trying to be condescending. If you think something done by Robert Fripp and something done by whatever his name is from Evanescence is on the same level because everyone's taste is different, then you simply just an idiot.

Your words say otherwise, as every reply to me seems to be an angry one.
Are you becoming the angst you hate?

Sadly, I have not heard Robert Fripp to comment on his music.

And I never said Evanescence was my favorite band.
Can't someone play the devil's advocate once in awhile?

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 7:16 pm

That was quite funny, hats off.

***

As for the level question...

...there are obviously different ways of comparing music. One good way is not to; another good way is to compare it using objective terms such as its' speed, choice of scales/chords, rhythm patterns, etc. Then there's the trickier questions of musical quality.

If we don't compare Evanescence with Fripp, then it's all good. They are, after all, different beasts with different audiences and different aims. They got different sounds, at that...

If we talk in objective terms, Dear Old Uncle Bobby can outstrip virtually any guitarist in the world when it comes to technical skill and unusual choices of musical phrases, patterns and textures. This is the reason why many giutarists and beard-scratching music elitists see him as an influence, and/or a source of amusement/wonder.

If we talk in terms of musical quality... that's a bit subjective.

I'm prepared to admit that Evanescence might speak better to an average person than some old man on a stool. Theatrically, I bet Evanescence is a bit more interesting. Now, if we're talking how far their music goes...

***

But, personally, I wouldn't hold it against anyone if they listened to Evanescence. They had my attention the first time I heard them... though that faded pretty quickly, I can see a lot of outward appeal in them. I haven't found them inwardly satisfying too much, but, if a good package with fairly clean sound and plausible harmony is what you're looking for - by all means.

I'd say they're passable musically. Not great or anything but, for a popular band - quite passable.

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 7:21 pm

PS: Great....

... I need a kick now

ithaqua · Post by **ithaqua** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 7:32 pm

Vlad86 wrote:Are you becoming the angst you hate?

Clever.

nailz · Post by **nailz** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:03 pm

Just remember though that while she sometimes might be the center of attention, there is another group of people there, one of which is the composer of every hit song the band has had (*cough*Tuomas Holopainen *cough*).

hahaha.

nailz · Post by **nailz** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:31 pm

Set_Abominae wrote:And no, I'm not trying to be condescending. If you think something done by Robert Fripp and something done by whatever his name is from Evanescence is on the same level because everyone's taste is different, then you simply just an idiot.

But not everyone takes music theory.

Set_Abominae · Post by **Set_Abominae** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 9:36 pm

nailz1000 wrote:
Set_Abominae wrote:And no, I'm not trying to be condescending. If you think something done by Robert Fripp and something done by whatever his name is from Evanescence is on the same level because everyone's taste is different, then you simply just an idiot.
But not everyone takes music theory.

I recommend it. It's quite fulfilling.

I may seem angry but that's really just the way I talk. I do feel like I'm being held back by most people and am constantly frustrated by it. But... whatever.

I really wouldn't call Evanescence a different beast than King Crimson. Both are rock, even though King Crimson is prog. I just see it as almost common sense now.

Simplistically written music takes less talent to play than complicated written music. I don't see how anyone could argue with that.

Now I feel that the more talented someone is the better musician than are. I don't see how anyone could argue with that.

Evanescence is simplistically written music, therefore, they are less talented and not very good musicians.

Sure, if you like simplistic music, that's all good. But realize that they aren't that talented of a band.

People connect themselves too much with their favorite band. You might tell them that their band is untalented and they take it as if you said they, themselves are horrible people.

nailz · Post by **nailz** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:18 pm

By your just stated standard then, you're saying that Ac/Dc isn't talented?

Set_Abominae · Post by **Set_Abominae** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:15 pm

nailz1000 wrote:By your just stated standard then, you're saying that Ac/Dc isn't talented?

As a whole, they're pretty average. If it wasn't for the awesome solos and grand stage presence, they would really suck.

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:59 am

*nod*

Besides...

Evanescence is much more approachable from the music theory front. There are many things Fripp that theorists would best describe as 'demented'.

(two words: Spider Fingers)

Evanescence on the other hand is nicely explainable and even dare I say correct and interesting musicologically.

Unless they'd like a headache, I strongly recommend people keep away from looking at Fripp's work too musicologically

/gets kicked, again.