DDD Home Page
DDD Music Lists Page
DDD Movie Lists Page
It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 11:29 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3759 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 ... 251  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: state your unpopular opinions as facts
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 11:06 am
Posts: 5209
I kind of agree with both of you. I think corrections is right in that splitting them up is an obvious bid at creating "cohesion" and turning the album into a "concept album." But I also love the track and don't think it needs pairing down and don't mind that it's split up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: state your unpopular opinions as facts
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:45 pm
Posts: 28804
corrections wrote:
Gray wrote:
corrections wrote:
ClashWho wrote:
Everyone who thinks "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" should have been one shorter track is a crackhead.


Anyone who thinks it should exist as it exists on the album (split apart at the beginning and end by other music) has recently undergone a lobotomy.

I'm totally fine with it. I don't see why they made the decision to split it up, but I don't see how it detracts from the album at all. I like both parts a lot, as well as the album altogether, so I can't say they did anything wrong really.


Because it makes literally no musical sense.


Of course it does. The first part is a complete piece of music unto itself. The second part is another complete piece of music unto itself. They're no more than part one and part two. They don't have to be combined into one track. The first part has a clear ending. The second part has a clear beginning. So what's the problem? Do you have this problem with "Another Brick In The Wall"? If not, why not? What wouldn't make sense would be if the first half of "Won't Get Fooled Again" was the first track on Who's Next while the second half closed the album.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: state your unpopular opinions as facts
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:45 pm
Posts: 28804
corrections wrote:
Dreww wrote:
They are not fair points. The split is justified because though they are related they also stand alone. What is not justified is the claim that their split and placement is somehow only cheaply coherent. After such a long piece you might not want to listen to another so similar in length and style. In literature, good writers often vary the length and tone of the sentences per paragraph, and the same principle applies here: the songs between the two give the album a much-needed change of pace. The album would be much worse if it were lopsided as corrections suggests (and I'm no expert on the LP format but I wouldn't be surprised if fitting both of them on the same side were a technical impossibility--though I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't either).


This is such a weak justification and I expected better. I don't believe the middle three tracks lead particularly logically or fit reasonably between the two ostensibly connected pieces (which I should note Pink Floyd encourages by listing them as containing multiple parts of a similar piece). It would make no sense for a peroformance of Beethoven's 9th to have say the Egmont overture and some movements from his string quartets stuck between movements three and four of the 9th Symphony (which I should note asks exactly that you listen to one long piece after another). And before you object yes the 9th Symphonies movements all can stand alone. They very much more widely in tone than the two parts of SOYCD (and I should also note the album as a whole). I'm not disputing that the cut off between the first track doesn't work nor that the beginning point of the last track is a direct continuation of a sentence from the previous track so the split into two mega parts is fine (and if there are technical limitations that forced the split well that is that although I should note it could have been broken into further tracks to get around this problem).

But the only justification for splitting them onto the two ends of material that is not part of them is if the material connects the two parts in a musically coherent and logical manner. It does not. To me when I listen to the album all the way through I feel like I have a musical thought that is then completely veered away from in unrelated material before returning to the though (like a person who began a speech stopped at a spot that seem fine, talked about a few other things, and then resumed the speech they were giving earlier). What you are describing for writing works if the ideas are coherent and flow together (I suppose unless you are going for the feeling of complete incoherence). In any case the ideas must flow together logically. This is why I think they used a cheap means to generate cohesion. I don't think the album is particularly cohesive (which doesn't really matter as you can have a fantastic album with no cohesion whatsoever) and people wouldn't think of it as such if SOYCD was either at the end or the beginning.

I think they did run into the exact problem you described. They didn't think anyone would want to listen to both of the tracks (or if you will all nine parts) back to back because it would be too ponderous and samey. And they couldn't figure out where such material would go logically because it would make one side of the album too heavy (I think they were going for a cohesive effort). So they settled on what I think is a weak musical compromise to generate the feeling of cohesion by throwing highly related material on both sides of the album. This does generate a somewhat cohesive feel but a weak one because I think ultimately the other songs do not create a natural transition of the musical material. Which is why I agreed with Lacuna that pairing down SOYCD to a more manageable length and either opening or closing with it (I'd opt for opening and ending with WYWH) would have created a stronger album and made more musical sense. For an example of how this can work on an album if you balance the material properly is Our Fortress is Burning Pts. I-III that closes out Agalloch's Ashes Against the Grain or She Painted Fire Across the Skyline which opens Pale Folklore. Yes this isn't as long as SOYCD but I've already established that I think the song needed pairing.


You said "very" when you meant "vary" and "pairing" when you meant "paring". Yeah, that's all that's worth commenting on in that post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: state your unpopular opinions as facts
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:09 pm
Posts: 2415
Location: Michigan
Corrections, you can't be serious.

Of all the things to get worked up over and write a novella about, that's what you chose?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: state your unpopular opinions as facts
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:49 pm 
Offline
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 7:55 pm
Posts: 16988
Location: The Capital of the Free World
Not to seem like I'm picking sides, but Drew, how can you criticize someone for having a wordy argument that needs to be trimmed down. You've had posts just like that, but without the paragraph breaks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: state your unpopular opinions as facts
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:11 pm
Posts: 7642
I remember writing something like "pot calling kettle black here" but I guess I removed it for effect.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: state your unpopular opinions as facts
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:25 pm 
Offline
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 7:55 pm
Posts: 16988
Location: The Capital of the Free World
Ah, that's fair.

Anyway, I like SOYCD the way it is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: state your unpopular opinions as facts
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:53 pm 
Online
moderator

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:11 pm
Posts: 23364
Dreww wrote:
Next time you send me off into such a miasma of verbiage I hope you edit your argument down a little more. Jeez louise.

corrections wrote:
I don't believe the middle three tracks lead particularly logically or fit reasonably between the two ostensibly connected pieces (which I should note Pink Floyd encourages by listing them as containing multiple parts of a similar piece). It would make no sense for a peroformance of Beethoven's 9th to have say the Egmont overture and some movements from his string quartets stuck between movements three and four of the 9th Symphony (which I should note asks exactly that you listen to one long piece after another). And before you object yes the 9th Symphonies movements all can stand alone. They very much more widely in tone than the two parts of SOYCD (and I should also note the album as a whole). I'm not disputing that the cut off between the first track doesn't work nor that the beginning point of the last track is a direct continuation of a sentence from the previous track so the split into two mega parts is fine (and if there are technical limitations that forced the split well that is that although I should note it could have been broken into further tracks to get around this problem).

correction wrote:
So they settled on what I think is a weak musical compromise to generate the feeling of cohesion by throwing highly related material on both sides of the album. This does generate a somewhat cohesive feel but a weak one because I think ultimately the other songs do not create a natural transition of the musical material.

We are talking about a concept-light album by an indulgent but talented rock band, not a symphony by arguably the greatest symphonist of all time. The songs between the parts of SOYCD are under no obligation to create a natural transition bridging them. The placement of the different parts of SOYCD do not have to create a "strong" sense of cohesion. The totality of the material only has to be placed on the album in a way that is (1) technically possible and (2) as interesting as possible, taking what the band has decided they want to publish as a given. If you are a fan of the music they performed in the studio (something you don't seem to qualify as anyway, and which many other people do happen to be) then the way they organized it is as technically reasonable and interestingly varied as it possibly could be. That it doesn't live up to the simultaneous cohesion and variation of Ludwig van Beethoven's greatest symphony is a distraction of an argument; no one expects such a thing and it would be unreasonable to, even rhetorically. Your suggestion that the parts of SOYCD could have been split into two more parts to solve the technical problems reveals just how little you have engaged with the material as well as the extent to which your argument is a bunch of hot air. If two related ten minute rock songs sound better spaced apart then they do placed together, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. There would be something wrong, however, with placing them together if they sound worse that way just because they are related.


Yeah so I dived back into WYWH earlier this week and I disavow most of my argument above. I listened to it all the way through as written and then listened to SOYCD as a unified whole in context with the music. In fact I like the album far more than I've ever liked it on hearing and will now put it above anything else by Floyd. Actually the first four tracks have a great sense of cohesion. And the lyrical subject matter actually works really well with SOYCD and WYWH having similar emotional tone and the middle two tracks having similar emotional tone as well.

Here is the part of my argument I maintain. My view on cohesion was wrong but my view on SOYCD being together and shortened was not. I think the split doesn't work. Not because it is artificial necessarily but because I think the album should end with WYWH. I think that would be the perfect closer for the albums tone and build up. It does not help that Track 2 of SOYCD is significantly weaker than Track 1 or anything else on the album. Specifically, Pts. 6 and eight are in need of major editing. Far from being an artificial way of creating cohesion it actually weakens the albums cohesion both from a quality perspective and and tonal perspective. So I think it shold have opened the album as a unified track with much of Section 6 and Section 8 merged into the other sections. That would have shortened it to a reasonable front end length and I think Pt. 5 would flow almost perfectly into Pt. 7. I will also note that Gilmour did want SOYCD to be one track but was outvoted by the other members.

I do want to emphasize how wrong I was about the albums overall quality. My opinion came mostly from a disappointed long ago listen (particularly on Welcome to the Machine and Wish You Were Here I was very wrong). I just think SOYCD as a return is unnecessary.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: state your unpopular opinions as facts
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:58 pm 
Online
moderator

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:11 pm
Posts: 23364
ClashWho wrote:
corrections wrote:
Gray wrote:
corrections wrote:

Anyone who thinks it should exist as it exists on the album (split apart at the beginning and end by other music) has recently undergone a lobotomy.

I'm totally fine with it. I don't see why they made the decision to split it up, but I don't see how it detracts from the album at all. I like both parts a lot, as well as the album altogether, so I can't say they did anything wrong really.


Because it makes literally no musical sense.


Of course it does. The first part is a complete piece of music unto itself. The second part is another complete piece of music unto itself. They're no more than part one and part two. They don't have to be combined into one track. The first part has a clear ending. The second part has a clear beginning. So what's the problem? Do you have this problem with "Another Brick In The Wall"? If not, why not? What wouldn't make sense would be if the first half of "Won't Get Fooled Again" was the first track on Who's Next while the second half closed the album.


They created a clear ending and clear beginning because they had to to split the songs but I don't think that was how the piece was intiially conceptually realized (at least that's what is suggested from the wikipedia info about it). Naming it as Pts. 1-9 does suggest a clear musical connection. However, I've retracted much of my argument and realize my problem has more to do with the second track than it does with the split.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: state your unpopular opinions as facts
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:59 pm 
Online
moderator

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:11 pm
Posts: 23364
Dreww wrote:
I remember writing something like "pot calling kettle black here" but I guess I removed it for effect.


It was drivel anyway for the most part so you were right to call me out (and it was pretty heavily repetitive and incoherent).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: state your unpopular opinions as facts
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 6611
Location: AKL
Nicole Kidman is average.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: state your unpopular opinions as facts
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:45 pm
Posts: 28804
beyonddeities wrote:
Nicole Kidman is average.


Average compared to what? She's definitely much more attractive than the average woman.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: state your unpopular opinions as facts
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:38 am
Posts: 9229
Location: Blackwater Park
I think she's really unattractive now that her face is wrecked but right around the time of Eyes Wide Shut her hotness peaked imo.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: state your unpopular opinions as facts
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 11:06 am
Posts: 5209
The Supremes > The Beatles


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: state your unpopular opinions as facts
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:05 am
Posts: 9561
Location: manch vegas
ClashWho wrote:
beyonddeities wrote:
Nicole Kidman is average.


Average compared to what? She's definitely much more attractive than the average woman.


She might have meant acting you know


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3759 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 ... 251  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rick and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:

DigitalDreamDoor.com   

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group

DigitalDreamDoor Forum is one part of a music and movie list website whose owner has given its visitors
the privilege to discuss music and movies, and has no control and cannot in any way be held liable over
how, or by whom this board is used. If you read or see anything inappropriate that has been posted,
contact webmaster@digitaldreamdoor.com. Comments in the forum are reviewed before list updates.
Topics include rock music, metal, rap, hip-hop, blues, jazz, songs, albums, guitar, drums, musicians...


DDD Home Page | DDD Music Lists Page | DDD Movie Lists Page