Dude needs a song suggestion

rose4emily · Post by **rose4emily** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:19 am

i'm not sure whether that is meant to vague or insulting, but either way it's not terribly helpful.

"music that doesn't suck" is, quite simply, music that someone likes and (in the context of making an amv) has something to do with the piece you are producing.

the attitude that some groups or, worse, some genres are inherently and universally inferior to others is all too common in all circles of the music community. i first realized this upon reading the amazon.com user reviews of a collection of violin works, written by bach and performed by hilary hahn, and a limp bizkit album within the same hour.

the hilary hahn flame, paraphrased:

[elitist] while hahn's performance may be pleasing to the common listener, it overpowers bach's own intentions with her own, excessively emotional style. the 1938 london recording of [some past violin master] is technically superior in terms of both timing and intonation, while this modern recording is one that should be forgotten as it's sophmoric style falls out of the popular favor.

[fan] on the contrary, hahn's recordings are unique and pleasing to the ear precisely because of the delicate balance she establishes between the technical and the stylistic aspects of bach's music. as bach has not been with us for some centuries, and he rarely left any record of intended stylistic interperetation - said practice being uncommon until the classical era, and not fully established in either predominence or detail until the romantic era - there is little solid evidence of bach's intentions concerning the performance of his pieces before audiences of his own era, nevermind orders for how performance should continue before the changing audiences of new generations. one of the greatest virtues of bach's music is the fact that it can be expressed through a wide variety of instrumentation and stylistic interperetation without losing its beauty. bach wrote for the masses of his day - therefore performing his pieces in the manner most appealing to the masses of ours must be truer to his intentions than relegating him to the position of a relic that fits only within the confines of archaic instrumentation and narrow-minded views of the 'proper' interperetation of his works.

the limp bizkit flame, paraphrased:

[elitist] limp bizkit sucks. they sold out. slipknot is way f*cking heavier and faster and sh*t - and they don't have a whiny fred durst wannabe bad-ass f*ckin up their f*ckin act. sh*t bizkit should have 'stuck' with their old f*cking sound instead of becoming a bunch of f*cking 'counterfeits' and turning soft and radio-friendly and sh*t. f*ck you all.

[fan] dude, they don't f*cking suck. you suck f*cking cock you f*ckhole. if they play what their fans want to f*cking hear, then they're doing their f*cking job - not f*cking selling out. it's about the fans, isn't it? or are u 1 uv those f*cking asswipes that thinks 'artists' are those who don't give a flying ass-f*ck about the fans that support them. they should be growing up with their audience - and any of you sh*theads that are too f*cking retarded to get it can have your f*cking thrash bands.

**********************************
amazingly similer, eh? one was very intellectual, the other had quite a bit of profanity, but they both had the samn points iterated down through them over and over again as the debates went back and forth between the two camps. the point is that art, especially art with its origins in public performance and in brightening and enriching the lives of the people, is art because it was made with care to brighten and enrich the lives of the people. the fact that a band is popular, or outside of your range of preferences, or old, or new, or anything else for that matter doesn't make it inherently good or bad. that depends on whether it has to offer what those who enjoy and invest in it are looking for - whether that be technical precision, graceful interperetation, aggressive beats, or a simple, catchy melody.

i know that i'm way off topic here, but the soapbox lay there before me and i could not resist the opportunity to stand on it.

mister_freeze2 · Post by **mister_freeze2** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:09 pm

....I think the vast majority of the posters here live outside of Utah, so there's a strong chance that we've all heard naughty words before. No need to "*" the crap out of them. Just say them in all their glory...

rose4emily · Post by **rose4emily** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:50 pm

ah - but it is censorship that gives words their power. not only are people most inclined to focus upon that which is obvious but hidden from view, but they are also more likely to take notice when the cloud of censorship is for a moment or forever lifted. the one person i know who does live in utah (and yes, she is a member of the church of jesus christ and the latter day saints a.k.a. mormons) has, in all my experience, used profanity only twice - and both times you knew damn well that she meant it.

besides, the "*"s really draw attention to whatever they're used in - encouraging people to read my excessively long and off topic post.

of course - to get this thread back on topic - i've thought of a song that could be used if you want to be really explicit about eva's sexual themes:

nine inch nails - closer

or, for a more theatrical approach:

rocky horror picture show - creature of the night

MrScribble · Post by **MrScribble** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:13 pm

rose4emily wrote:nine inch nails - closer

Oh god... I still have nightmares from the period when I downloaded AMV's from kazaa. Never again will I look at evangelion the same way.

mister_freeze2 · Post by **mister_freeze2** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:23 pm

If I saw half of what I think you saw then yes, I never have looked at Eva the same way.
...
Yet I'm doing another Eva vid...wierd. Oh well, I think I have a good enough premise for mine anyway.
...
Just, far less freaked out than some other works.

rose4emily · Post by **rose4emily** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:42 am

just be happy that none of you have sat through the broken movie. that thing is fucked up - i had a friend obsessed with nails who insisted that "happiness in slavery" was the greatest video ever made. most intense, maybe, i'm not so sure about the greatest.

ithaqua · Post by **ithaqua** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 12:46 am

It did fit the song, though. I thought it was well done, despite it's atrocious content, it was watchable and thought out. The Pinion section was pretty fucked up too.

Really, Skinny Puppy's 'video' for Worlock is much harder to sit through. Somewhat pointless though, does not do the song justice.

rose4emily · Post by **rose4emily** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:00 am

didn't say it didn't fit the song - though most of the people i know who watched it completely missed the symbolism (i reallt can't imagine how, but somehow they managed to not pick up on the idea of man's voluntarily initiated but painful and inescapable consuption by the machine of society that emasculates him and makes him hollow before grinding him into so much raw material to be used and thrown away). i was just saying that it chose a hell of a way to express itself that was - to be sure - effective, but definately beyond what a viewer freaked out by an eva/closer video should probably try to handle.

of course, the second time i saw it i kept having imagery of a dentist's office and tooth-drilling popping into my head, along with possible lyrics for "happiness in dentistry" - the parady that never was but could have been. maybe i just have an unnaturally dark sense of humor.

unfortunately i'm out of song ideas for eva relationships. maybe, though, there's someone else out there who isn't.