they just can't get no satisfaction in this thread

12/4/2010 8:47:19 PM

Quote :

"Using sound samples isn't anywhere near the same as autotune."

They're both instruments/effects that are used to create unnatural sounds.

If one were using Auto-tune or Melodyne to pitch correct, you'd be right, but Kanye does it to simulate a vocoder.

12/4/2010 8:51:02 PM

12/4/2010 8:51:03 PM

^^ A mellotron is an actual instrument. Don't try grouping them together by saying they're a "instrument/effect." The two categories are exclusive.

And I always felt that a vocoder was a piece of shit too. Both are annoying and devoid of any type of artistic talent. If he's trying to create a sad, somber, mood, then I suggest he learn how to fucking sing to reflect that mood, rather than relying on a computer to do it for him.

12/4/2010 8:58:49 PM

A vocoder is a synthesizer that uses a specialized system of high-pass filters to modulate voltage. An instrument, you might say.

Anyway, the Stones were a rock band and the Beatles were a pop band. They shouldn't even be compared.

12/4/2010 9:03:51 PM

I may agree with you a bit about the vocoder, but just because Kanye is using auto-tune as one, doesn't make him talented, or that auto-tune is suddenly an instrument either. If that's the case, then the program, Garage Band for Mac OS X, is an instrument too, and therefore, I know how to play the guitar because Garage Band can synthesize one.

But I think that you will agree that just because I can make guitar sounds on my computer, my computer isn't suddenly some instrument, or that I'm talented.

And of course the Stones and Beatles can be compared. I just did. I think people use the term "shouldn't be compared," or "can't be compared" too freely. Of course there are differences. Identifying differences is a part of the comparing process.

12/4/2010 11:07:10 PM

Beatles kind of destructed after big fame

Stones did not

12/5/2010 12:08:15 AM

You're right, the Stones just kind of faded into obscurity because they had no one else to leech off of.

12/5/2010 12:09:33 AM

Not fade away

12/5/2010 8:48:48 AM

The Shitty Beatles? Are they any good?
They suck!
Then it's not just a clever name.

12/5/2010 9:09:00 AM

Quote :

"Anyway, the Stones were a rock band and the Beatles were a pop band. "

that's an insipid statement, and I'm surprised someone who professes to know so much about music would say such a thing.

no band, especially ones as varied as either of those two, fit neatly into one music category. genres such as "pop" and "rock" are artificial constructs, manufactured by record companies for marketing purposes. The Stones could (and have) been classified as a blues or R&B band at various points in time.

anyhow, even if you allow label marketers to and retail outlets to define your understanding music, you're going to be seriously hard pressed to find any Beatles records in the "pop" category.

12/6/2010 12:03:17 PM

Quote :

"The Stones could (and have) been classified as a blues or R&B band at various points in time."

And where does rock & roll come from?

Quote :

"you're going to be seriously hard pressed to find any Beatles records in the "pop" category."

What? Clean guitars, lyrics about holding hands, and three part harmony? You couldn't get MORE pop if you tried.

12/6/2010 12:05:28 PM

Dad rock ITT

I'm AstralAdvent and i approved this message.

12/6/2010 12:38:46 PM

NICKELBACK


[/thread]

12/6/2010 1:01:03 PM

^^^ I suggest you listen to the White Album. Yer Blues definitely has 3 part harmony, lyrics about holding hands and clean guitars. Yup... Yeah, and Cry Baby Cry definitely falls into the same category, and Rocky Raccoon too (never mind that it has more of a country sound than a pop sound).

Yeah, and Come Together, it definitely fits your definition of "pop." I think "Come Together" was code for holding hands, and the 3 part harmony was so subtle you couldn't hear it.

Yeah, Revolution was SOOO pop. Dem guitars was so clean!

12/6/2010 6:27:22 PM

yeah, he really self-pwnd on his ridiculous comment. it's kind of embarrassing even debating it.

12/7/2010 10:20:46 AM

Quote :

"you're going to be seriously hard pressed to find any Beatles records in the "pop" category."

Everything up to Beatles for Sale is at least 75% bubblegum. Goddamn brilliant bubblegum, but still bubblegum.

Why do people treat "pop" as a dirty word? I say the Beatles are a pop band and everyone says, "NO THEY'RE NOT!" as if using the word puts them on the same level as Katy Perry. The Ronettes were a pop group, too, and no one has a problem with calling them that and acknowledging their quality. Why's it any different when the band writes its own songs?

12/7/2010 12:36:45 PM

12/7/2010 1:45:48 PM

the Stones were blues. the Beatles were proto-punk.

12/7/2010 6:27:22 PM