Jump to content

_jr_

Members
  • Posts

    2492
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by _jr_

  1. I listened to some of each track.

    It's not too shabby, but that isn't the type of music I listen to, so I'm probably not the best person to get an opinion from.

    I think it's kind of like some of today's music, but his voice is clearer. I've never been a fan of the 'white guy sounding soulful' thing, though.

    But that's not to say it isn't good. The guy can definitely sing. It's just not my cup of tea.

  2. I think I may swing down to Owatonna to catch them here in Minnesota.

    Bootleg it and send me a copy.

    Any idea who they got to replace Danny Joe Brown? I was surprisingly upset when I'd read that he passed away.

  3. fitzgeraldpic_sm.jpg

    On November 10, 1975, the S.S. Edmund Fitzgerald broke in half and sunk in Lake Superior. The storm she was caught in reported winds anywhere from 35 to 52 knots, and waves anywhere from 10 to 35 feet high.

    She was loaded with 26,116 tons of taconite pellets at the Burlington Northern Railroad, Dock #1. Her destination was was Zug Island on the Detroit River.

    Her Route:

    animation_still.gif

    There were 29 crew members who perished in the sinking.

    I found a really great site with loads of info. Here is the timeline of the Edmund Fitzgerald, from it's inception to it's demise. I was surprised to discovered what a string of bad luck the E.F. had before it's last voyage.

    The last two days of the timeline, complete with transmissions transcripts, are chilling.

    Her last voyage

  4. Ok, I thought I would start this thread for folks with questions about classic rock. However, it's not confined to just classic rock only.

    The reason I started this thread is because I have a question:

    Does anyone know who originally sang "I'm in the Mood For Love"

    I know Rosemary Clooney and Julie London both did it. I'm pretty sure Sinatra covered it as well. I know the original is from way, way back, because I remember Alfalfa singing it on the Little Rascals.

    Any help would be appreciated.

  5. I think we're getting off off the track, here.

    As far as keeping it in perspective, true, they didn't rock the societal aspect of the world.

    But, as far as the perspective of music, they did change things, that cannot be denied.

    I guess it all depends on what 'perspective' you're talking about.

  6. If anyone recieves a pm that is offensive, of any kind, please notify a moderator or administrator immediately.

    There have been instances of people registering, and never making a single post, and yet, have sent a pm to one Songfactor or another, attacking that person.

    This leads me to believe that maybe the person in question knew the Songfactor beforehand. I hate to think it is one of our own simply being mean to another. But it has happened.

    We need to be notified at once, and the person will be banned.

  7. Typical view of a close-minded Beatles fan. A true music fan listens to the music. A music fan is an artist, not a connasiure(sic). A true music fan doesn't view the music through a template, or in a context. When you listen to music, Time and Place should not exist. If you are still in reality when you listen to a song, you will have a skewed view. For instance if you say "Strawberry Fields Forever is revolutionary because it uses backmasking and a mellotron", or "yer birthday is fun song to dance to or to play at a party", you have a skewed view of the music. You shouldn't think about anything other than the music when you listen to it (for example: how different it was than music of that time, what cool instruments it used, how cool the concept was, how cool some technical aspects were). That doesn't make it good music. All those things are a direct reflection on the musician himself and not the music. A cool instrument or new sound makes him an innovative thinker, a cool concept makes the artist creative, fast technical riffs make the musician a talented or fast player. None of those make the music any better (or worse, for that matter). The music is all about feeling. When bands started using mellotrons and vibratones and synthesizers and theremins and whatnot, they may have been doing it to seem innovative, or they may have really been doing it because they felt that conveyed the emotion of the song. But the problem with these new instruments, and the songs they are used in, is they are widely viewed by the general audience as an innovative stepping stone, rather than a well written and moving (or bad and poorly written) piece of music. So if you listen for innovativeness and cleverness when you hear a song, you don't have the right to comment on it. Frankly, I think the Beatles on a lot of music spent more time on being different and technologically innovative than worrying about the music. Don't get me wrong, There's a lot of great stuff on the White Album, and Abbey Road is one of my all time favorites. But things like Sgt. Peppers, the music is pretty good. Not amazing. The producing and effects and instrumentation is amazing. But we're focusing on the music, and not the producing, effects, and instrumentation. So if you are focusing on those things, you have no basis to argue with a person who is actually listening to the music, rather than the producing.

    You make some pretty good points here. However, I don't think anyone ever claimed the Beatles were great musicians. That's not the issue here, I don't think.

    I have to disagree though, when you say you should only think about the music when you listen. Music also evokes emotions, reninds you of a certain time in your life, of that special person.

    No, music isn't just about the instruments and the chords and whatnot. It's much deeper than that.

×
×
  • Create New...