DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: Interact: if losers had a website...

Forums > The General Forum: Interact

if losers had a website...

AdamsGod	Date: July 4, 2006 @ 5:48 PM ok, so theres this site called www.redfizz.com www.redfizz.com
K3VIN	Date: July 4, 2006 @ 7:15 PM maybe u suck joking id never be that much of a jerk, probably envy simon cowell
K3VIN	Date: July 4, 2006 @ 7:16 PM they *
AdamsGod	Date: July 4, 2006 @ 9:24 PM i dont mind hearing that i suck, trust me my ego is super huge.. i just like knowing why someone didnt like something i worked on, instead of just telling me it sucks, without a real reason as to why.
Distilled1	Date: July 4, 2006 @ 9:48 PM Adam I checked it out, ya that looks mighty bad anyone can be the critic and say you suck, hell if they don't like the flavor there gona say that seems theres more rap and ?pop/alternitive? there. Your great and BTW your on Goth Nights podcast Independent Industrial Revolution Avalib;e now at gothnights.com and all the usual
thesoloer	Date: July 4, 2006 @ 9:57 PM I dont know Adam I'll have to look at that later on when I have the chance. I am afraid to put up my music here, because I am always afraid. If people are like going to at me or they are going to shutter in , then there is no point to putting music up. I just want an honest opinion, THAT'S ALL. I really want to see a site which you'd get good and honest critiques for music. I like Dmusic for that sole reason. You know what I mean? That type of music they have may not be the right fit for me.
ChillinBuzz	Date: July 4, 2006 @ 11:19 PM maybe Simon Cowell created the site
AgentMGD	Date: July 4, 2006 @ 11:57 PM "that was bloody awful" - Simon Cowell
Fraser	Date: July 5, 2006 @ 12:44 AM Nah, if I put my music up there, everyone would die of too many orgasms in a row. My music is just that damn good
K3VIN	Date: July 5, 2006 @ 12:47 AM i want multiple orgasms
LiQuidMetamo...	Date: July 5, 2006 @ 11:32 AM 'you sound like a waiter in a bad Portuguese restaurant who was singing to clear out the stragglers at closing time' Simon Cowell
ElectrikFlame	Date: July 24, 2006 @ 10:11 PM Ohh Man that's bullshit how they do that. I agree with Simon Cowell Being the soul of that industry. Don't let em get cha down. It's just a bunch of people putting others down on their tunes even though they can't play a note.
SimonWaldram	Date: July 25, 2006 @ 7:31 AM I'm quite tempted to join that site just to see how they'd rip into me. I'm sure I'd get lots of comments like: "needs more instruments to keep it interesting" and "could have been recorded better" and "you suck, asshole!" Is it easy to take your songs off of there when you've had enough?
kingo	Date: July 25, 2006 @ 8:07 AM 1. Yes, I think they let you delete songs easily enough. 2. It's fun giving them songs to say, "wtf?" about.
SimonWaldram	Date: July 25, 2006 @ 8:10 AM Ha! I might have to do that, then. I wonder what they'd say about 'One Chord Wanker' or 'Stuck Up the Slide'
Israfel	Date: July 25, 2006 @ 8:31 AM 'Stuck Up the Slide' is one of my all time favorites! It just makes me happy everytime I listen to it!
SimonWaldram	Date: July 25, 2006 @ 8:47 AM Thank you! It was certainly the most fun I've ever had recording a song
SimonWaldram	Date: July 25, 2006 @ 5:11 PM I've just submitted 'The Archerfish' to them. They'll probably rip it apart, but never mind.
hueseph	Date: July 25, 2006 @ 9:02 PM People come down on Simon Cowell. I personally like him. Isn't there enough crap on the airwaves? It's a good thing there's someone out there trying to filter through all of that to get to the real cream of the crop. Seriously though, people may hate Christina Aguilera and B Spears but the truth is that they have some serious vocal chops. Sure I hate their belly aching, sugary sweet ballads but they can belt it in tune every time. Some of the crap that passes for singing on American Idol is just pathetic. I'm glad Simon is there to tell the truth. Now if you want an honest opinion AdamsGod: listen to your stuff with an honest and open mind and ask yourself "Would I pay to listen to this?". Maybe you would. In all honesty, I couldn't. I just find the sonwriting to be a bit lacking. That's just my personal opinion. Better that you hear an honest opinion than have someon bloat your ego so that someone else can come along to pop that bubble. If you think that Simon Cowell is a rarety, you're in for a big surprise. I think that you'll find most A&R reps are as critical or worse. If you think that anyone in the industry is going to listen to anything that is less than mind blowing both in audio quality as well as musically, you're in for a rude awakening when you send your cd to the label only to find out they filed it under T for trash.
LiQuidMetamo...	Date: July 26, 2006 @ 6:13 AM Probably true on most scores here, especially the A&R people. Not sure about Brittney, I always felt she was a beneficiary of Antares autotuning but as I haven't seen her live, I couldn't comment but agree Aguilera can sing even if the material she represents is typical fluffy sugar pop handed on a plate by the record company. However, musical taste is a subjective thing and I happen to enjoy AdamsGod and hueseph - this may not be very constructive, but it is my truth...
kingo	Date: July 26, 2006 @ 8:15 AM Indeed. Hueseph seems to ignore that fact in his occasional rants (which, by the way, I think we need more of.) " id="236768">"...musical taste is a subjective thing..." Indeed. Hueseph seems to ignore that fact in his occasional rants (which, by the way, I think we need more of.)
zedsalt	Date: July 26, 2006 @ 11:35 AM There is such an infinitesimally small portion of what can be called music that I simply CANNOT bear, and Mr. Cowell seems to be pretty good at identifying it. The fact that he enjoys...or at least, sees the great commercial potential in...that tiny portion doesn't make him any less useful.
SimonWaldram	Date: July 26, 2006 @ 12:26 PM Hueseph, you said about Simon Cowell that: "It's a good thing there's someone out there trying to filter through all of that to get to the real cream of the crop." The thing is, though, when you see him and the rest of the panel judging the auditions you have to remember that everyone they show on TV has already been through one audition with them. They get tons and tons of people who are just mediocre but you don't usually see them as they get filtered out. What you do see are the ones who are "good" enough to pass, and the really awful ones for all the smug people watching to laugh at. In other words, it's not even his job to reject the bad ones; it's merely his job to be horribly and unnecessarily cruel to them for other people’s amusement.
Rikki27	Date: July 26, 2006 @ 12:39 PM lol that is EXACTLY what people do in ultimater-guitar forums. if u arent friends with anyone there, they completely rip ur song apart without so much as a "Well u could improve here...." its more like "that was bloody terrible, im gonna spread word around that 1.u cant play guitar 2.u cant sing and 3. ucant write songs"
SimonWaldram	Date: July 26, 2006 @ 1:05 PM I think a lot of people on redfizz.com just enjoy the power (so to speak) of being armchair critics. I've seen some really good songs ripped apart on there for the pettiest of reasons. Particularly interesting to me are the (usually one word) reasons the panel gives for rejecting songs, including: "Square" "Yawn" "Useless" "Hookless" "Tepid" "Eh" "Mupperty" "Annoying" "Demented" "Not Classist Enough" "Prosaic" And so on. Pretty blunt ways to dismiss someones art, especially as a lot of them deserve better treatment. It's also interesting to me to note the disparity of opinions between DM users and Redfizz users on AdamsGod's music. One of his songs got absolutely torn to pieces on Redfizz, but praised to the high heavens on DM ("classic", "awesome", "fantastic"). It makes me think that not only are many Redfizz users way too harsh in their comments, but a lot DMers pour forth gushing praise way too easily (I thought the song, which I won’t name, was just okay - for the record). It's an old topic, I know, but stepping into the waters of a similar kind of website has really brought it home to me. God knows what the folks at Redfizz will make of 'The Archerfish'. I'm not expecting much praise, that’s for sure, but I just wanted to see the difference in opinions between here and there. Maybe it will be a bit of an eye opener.
LiQuidMetamo...	Date: July 26, 2006 @ 4:21 PM Also, most of the people writing the bitter and harsh comments are noticable absent when it comes to posting their own music, that's if they are even musicians. (I viewed the redfizz site ans saw precious little objectivity and plenty of cheap insults) It's sooooo cool to hide behind a semi-anonymous identity and become someone else these days on the net - objective criticism is one thing but hateful bile coming from someone who misguidedly thinks they are 'smart' and 'superior' and 'hip' posting this junk is something else - I mean, A & R men kind of have a right as their careers live or die on their decisions and recommendations but some nut wannabe Simon Cowell commenting on music when they probably can't sing a note in tune and wouldn't know whether a guitar is a musical instrument or something to hang a hat on dissing people is something else...
hueseph	Date: July 26, 2006 @ 10:26 PM "it's not even his job to reject the bad ones" - actually before he ever did AI, he was an A & R guy. So yeah in a way it is his job to filter out the bad ones. "It's also interesting to me to note the disparity of opinions between DM users and Redfizz users on AdamsGod's music. One of his songs got absolutely torn to pieces on Redfizz, but praised to the high heavens on DM ("classic", "awesome", "fantastic")."- I find this interesting too. The fact is, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, that Dmusic is a touchy feely group who would rather bolster the ego of mediocre musicians than hurt their feelings with the truth. Yes, music is subjective in a superficial way. There are aspects though that undeniably define what is good and what is bad. I'm not talking about I like this or hate that. There is something difficult to pinpoint that which artistry was once measured. There was a time when standards were high and musicianship was one aspect of that definition. Why do people still listen to Zeppelin and Sabbath? Why are there groups that stand the test of time while others fall into obscurity? Is it a superficial quality that we all agree upon? Maybe. I think that there is definitely something that we all strive to achieve that few people actually have the ability to attain to. Many come close and may even gain some level of fame. The majority however will inevitably get filed into the archives. I understand that there are some uncalled for, maybe heartless comments at redfizz. Take the good with the bad. That is the industry and the industry is fickle. People are fickle. Those are the risks we take for wanting to express ourselves. Again, it's only my opinion. Don't take it personally.
Woof	Date: July 26, 2006 @ 10:36 PM The Redfizz model is good, in theory. Somebody uploads a song that even the jerkiest critic can't find fault with, and it gets featured. Let's assume, in a perfect world, it worked exactly like that. The resulting "winners" would remind me of what a very wise man once told me: "Good is not the absence of bad". And I know I've just contradicted myself, but that's okay 'cause I'm thinking out loud. This, however, is the www, not some TV series with some vague governance of standards and practices. Therefore, in the real world, the Redfizz model doesn't hold up very well, 'cause there are no criteria set up to qualify the critics. Therefore, the site can simply degenerate into an excuse to practice trollism. If DM had a troll invasion, and we were to wake up one morning to find crappy, insulting comments posted for all of our songs by a number of new and relatively anonymous users, would those comments be the result of abuse, or "honest"? It's a good an fair question I'm asking there. Because sometimes really insulting remarks do contain grains of truth. So you tell me...
TameasDust	Date: July 27, 2006 @ 1:34 AM
theblacklodge	Date: July 27, 2006 @ 5:21 AM Huseph, you basically argue that there is an essential quality "there" in some music, that consequently people with good taste (like Simon Cowel) recognize as good. In other words people who have leaped into experiencing the 'true source of quality' in the music. You accepted that indeed, people can "like" or "dislike" various things, but you're talking about something else, a kind of essential quality in the music (music, defined in the broadest sense) that stands out objectively, and is not, as Kingo claimed, subjective/relative. I could say that in consequence you claim there is only one 'truely good' way of doing things musically, only one kind of way to jangle that guitar in a certain song, only one way to shred over a certain background, only one production for each arrangement. You could interject and say: no, there are of course more ways than one to do "good" quality music! I mean there are a lot of different "surviving" bands (even in the same genres) out there so it would seem crazy to say that one way to do it is the only right way. But.. How many ways, how many choices in playing that guitar, how to sing and so on, are there then? There has to be a limit of choices before it becomes, in your reasoning, a "bad" choice, otherwise there would be endless choices and they would all be good (or bad if you woke up on that side)! Then your world with the good, successful giants would seem like one ugly facade. And what happens when very popular ways of doing things just die out?? Progressive rock was literally overcome by punk and other acts in the late 70's and even if the bands from that era reappeared the most popular ones had changed or even changed a lot musically (take Genesis). Is your argument for why progressive rock lost so much of its popularity, not only that the public shifted but also because they just weren't good enough before? You seem to be fine with arguing that popularity, when you bring up Sabbath and Zeppelin, is somehow evidence of that there is that 'essintal quality' in some music and not in other. And saying that the reason that the music from the surviors you mentioned has lived on, is because it's good in an essential way because people like it, I find, is not really an explanaition. It's more like looking at things as how they appear, and saying "people find it good" therefore it is essentially 'good'. Like the old Greek guys who just 'observed' things as they appeared, and concluded that the "origin substance" of everything was water for one, fire for another and so on. My point is that your argument against why taste is a relative concept, falls short because you simply state that the essential quality is there in some music just because people happen to like that music. That does not in any way disprove the idea of taste as relative. Oh yes oh yes, people listen for this, that and more in music to decide if things fall under what they categorize in a conveniently simplified way as good or bad (production, the lead vocals, the guitarsolo, songstructure, younameit), but there's quite a difference between accepting that they do that, or saying that they don't only do that but also agree on seeing some things as 'good'/'bad' in a certain genre because they have found what real, essential 'good' music is for that genre. And yes, we can go into songs and break things down in whatever categories we want to: song structure, a chord sequence here, an effect there, and saying that if we changed this or that, it would possibly do something that we recognized as 'good'/'better' 'worse' or whatever. It doesn't mean we created that standard for ourselves just because we were merely translating the 'pure quality' in music into good and bad. Back in the days of predominaiting calssical music there were different, more strict formulas, but the fact that those formulas existed does, again not disprove the concept of taste as relative, it doesn't give evidence to that Mozart's music was objectively 'better' than Salleri's, just cause his pieces are/were more popular. Why call the act of agreeing (without the guidance of a 'true' quality) that something falls under "good" or "bad" taste as "superficial"? When you're eating out with your friends and having a good time that could be analysed as a social ritual where all of you get good energy together and possibly get closer. It's not an act where the positive results are there because the 'true essential qualities, equal for everyone everywhere' in having a good time together were followed. It's just a social ritual that you create together (see the difference?) in any way that want to (culturally, not objectively constructed), possibly with some nice results. Now, would you call that "superficial"? I hope I've not come off as a prick in arguing so sternly against your point, but trying to convince myself that there is possibly no arguing against Simon Cowell's opinion, because he knows 'true quality' (since the music that is played on the radios is the most popular=best) would be as impossible as saying there is no arguing against a President since he got most of the votes. Think about it, he's the most popular one and therefore the values he bases his politics on must, objectively be the best!
Rikki27	Date: July 27, 2006 @ 10:23 AM wow that was quite a post
Israfel	Date: July 27, 2006 @ 10:46 AM but very well said!
zedsalt	Date: July 27, 2006 @ 11:07 AM One thing is for certain- if Sabbath or Zeppelin had never "happened" and were trying out for any of these contest-type shows, they'd NEVER make it past their hometowns.
theblacklodge	Date: July 27, 2006 @ 2:31 PM That sounds possible Zed (especially in the case of Sabbath who weren't exactly falling into the usual categories in their playing), and I am quite sure that Britney Spears, as a singer would never have made it through American Idol. Actually I think it's not unlike walking inside that "bubble" to keep having to tell yourself that artists who you constantly hear on the radio, see on TV, are there just because they make music that is "mindblowing" in every aspect..
LiQuidMetamo...	Date: July 27, 2006 @ 4:22 PM Led Zep did have a better chance than most, given that Jimmy Page had made a lot of connections (including top A&R men and record company owners, directors) as a prolific session player and a stint in a band with commercial success (The Yardbirds, also home to Eric Clapton and Jeff Beck at different times) plus he financed the first album himself using top producers of the day (Glyn Johns etc), so any prospective record company picking up Led Zep didn't have to worry about paying for the album if it was a flop. Given he had an established reputation and that he already had a finished album to present was a pretty good incentive for Atlantic to sign them up...
SimonWaldram	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 1:11 AM I know the discussion has moved on a little, but I just want to bring it back to Redfizz for a moment: They rejected 'The Archerfish' - unsuprisingly enough, apparently because the judge "Just didn't dig". Here are the helpful comments I've got so far: "it's a little open mike-y. needs to go to the next level of production. maybe change up the guitar to add a little more dimension. and pass the shrooms, dude." "dude: archerfish is a the#@&%!utic yoga position that helps with horrible headaches. some say, with regular practice, it can actually reinvigorate lost brain cells from indulgent mescaline or mushroom abuse. seriously." "the picture for this song is really really bad. I have no idea what an archerfish is, point and laugh at the retard. This sounds like a "theme" based song, gone horribly wrong. The strum pattern is really really generic, and the cadence of the verses seems a bit to forced. It just doesn't have a flow or anything to it, i think "forced" would have been my reason for rejection. Either that or "Default pic"" That's right, folks, I must be on mushrooms to write a song about a fish. Woo! I'm so crazy! The picture the guy is going on about is just the band picture you have to upload (I used a drawing made by a kid of a girl with a headache). Why that has to be judged in conjunction with the song I have absolutely no idea. Also the comment "needs to go to the next level of production": Why? Why does it? Who am I, Britney Spears?? No, I'm a indie-folk type guy, dammit! Production my arse!
SimonWaldram	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 1:11 AM http://redfizz.com/rf/song.aspx?&songid=342530
Saint	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 1:23 AM I posted "something inside"...It got rejected because someone "yawned" while listening..my comments thus far: 1.Dig the groove out of the gate! hits you in the face! Then it gets a bit weak. needs to rock out a bit more and yeah vocals seem to be candy punk mixed with some bee bop. Keep rockin though my man! 2.this voice sounds like too nice a guy to be making bad ass music 3.it seems a little marchy. i'll admit i'm not very familiar with hardgothrock. maybe that staccato feel is a prevalent device. there are some interesting elements in there. i'll let those that are more familiar with this genre make the votes. 4.whoa! hardrock/goth rock and instrumental new age at the same time? you could give a workshop on compartmentalism.
SimonWaldram	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 7:09 AM "This sounds like a "theme" based song, gone horribly wrong. The strum pattern is really really generic, and the cadence of the verses seems a bit to forced. It just doesn't have a flow or anything to it, i think "forced" would have been my reason for rejection." Agghhh! This comment has pissed me off so damn much
DeadraveN	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 11:41 AM I've started posting on redfizz as well, but here's what I've realized.. A) the stuff in the "featured area" is mostly crap, and even the people on redfizz seem to acknowledge that. the place to find good music there is in the "reject" area. B) yeah, most of the comments are negative, and posteed by people who are underqualified at best, but there are still those bits of helpful criticism from objective listeners to be found within the pile of crap. 73)If we really wanted to have an effect there, the bst way to be for us all to listen to some music there, and give honest insightful comments, helpful criticism when we can, and praise when it's deserved. Obviously, blatant ass kissery will be, well, obvious, but c'mon.. we're from Dmusic for christsake, we know how to write a decent comment on a song! and last and probably least.. 24) If nothing else, it's at least mildly amusing, so long as you're ego isn't tied to getting your ass kissed. just my twelve cents...
SimonWaldram	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 12:24 PM All good points. There are some useful comments on there, I know, and not everyone just likes to poke holes, I know. My ego isn't tied to getting my ass kissed...at least I don't think it is I put a song on there because I wanted different opinions from different people...which is what I got. I'm going to put some more songs on there and they'll probably get a similar negative reaction, but I still want to see what those wacky Redfizzers will write about them. You're right about us going over there to comment. If someone on there has a decent song that's being unfairly ripped apart, for example, we could perhaps be there to offer more objective and postive opinions.
theblacklodge	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 5:19 PM I bet some of the typical "one word" reviewers aren't exactly serious, but I just get so tired when I hint that some of the 'reviewers' seem to honestly believe their wankings in shocked and appauled interjections, should be desired in the name of 'truth' or whatever they call it. Resulting in unconstructive, dismissive blabber under the false label of being "honest and constructive truth saying". Don't we all, at first love to read the cynical, very trendsensitive music magazine critic who slays artist after artist in the same sarcastic way as a lot of people on that site? I thought it was hysterical to read things like that, and it still can be a nice kind of 'entertainment' in a way. To me it's just sad to see people who have stopped at the "trendy and cynical magazine critic"-stage, and believe that rants about how terribly wrong, lousy things are in a song, actually make up an "honest, constructive review". Putting out dismissive opinions in a way that is designed to be entertainment, and saluting themselves as "truthsayers". I know that I have made reviews that have been going on and on about verious things that I would have liked differently, but I try my best to give as specific reasons as I can when I go on a rant, and try to keep it away from being a showoff of my 'image', where the purpouse is to show everybody how 'funny', 'cool' or 'in' I could be. "the line about how you miss your girlfriend is too gay" or "the lousy way you did this, brings it all down to a hole of nothing, dude", are opinions, but that's all.
Israfel	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 5:37 PM I agree. It's perfectly acceptible to state what you like or don't like in a song but when the comments or commentors seek to simply write something "clever" that virtually kills any creative interaction...I just don't see the point. Opinions are fine...but it just makes more sense to be helpful and constructive rather than denegrating and negative for no reason other than to be denegrating and negative.
MonkeyGirl	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 7:15 PM Nothing i like more than being told i'm shit. it validates what i always knew anyway. i'm so going to join that site. no. wait. i don't need someone to tell me what i already know... do i? or do i? dammit. music by nature is subjective. if someone doesn't like it f*ck em. the next person might. besides if it makes you happy playing it then what does it matter what anyone else thinks, really? Constructive critcism is fair enough; everyone can learn and improve from it (and i'm always delighted if Alex (theblacklodge) comments on one of my songs because he leaves insightful, constructive comments) but disparaging a song just because it isn't to your taste is poor, and demonstrates little more than a disturbing combination lack of intelligence and breathtaking arrogance on behalf of the critic. Save it for the letters pages. Personally I don't think Simon Cowell's name should feature in a music forum... he wouldn't recognise a decent new song if it was stuck between a stripper's breasts. Marketing, promotion & sales is his game, not music. Otherwise he wouldn't be systemically destroying it peddling endless money spinning programmes that could be considered light entertainment; if you get your kicks at the expense of someone elses humiliation (sometimes, i admit, sometimes) and forcing new music ever more underground due to lack of funding, or committment beyond one album. That said, its pretty obvious from the site, like Pop Idol, what you're gonna get. Don't go to the auditions if you're not prepared to be made to look like a dick. now. where do i sign up?
TameasDust	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 7:39 PM The nice things about opinions is that they don't have to be right.
Saint	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 12:07 AM Well my song has been posted there for almost 2 days now.I've gotten some really good input on that site.I like it because the opinions are completely unbiased...noone knows me there,and some of the members really do give good insight and reviews...its mostly the people who judge you the first time to decide where on the site you get placed that are assholes.And then there are those that just comment to be mean but between those their are some people on the site.It will never beat dmusic as they have no shoutboxes and a forum layout from hell and if you want to chat you kinda have to do it on your song's comment box...but if you want really honest reviews i'd give it a shot for a few days
Opossum	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 3:37 AM My father, who was in the industry for well over 50 years and worked with Woody Guthrie and a few blues singers of the old days, even writing polka and waltz standards, never even mentioned critics or judges as it didn't even seem to be an issue with him. I don't even know to this day if he even knew they existed. Myself, I certainly enjoy both positive and negative feedback, but REGARDLESS of whatever you do, you're going to have a lot of fans. Listening to the radio is certainly proof of that.
Opossum	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 3:42 AM And yeah, any art is subjective. Look on IMDb and you'll see that some movies on there have just as many "one" votes as "ten" votes, even in the thousands...
Opossum	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 6:41 AM With regard to that site, I got an "illegal operation" from a plug-in? First time for everything. I'll check it out when I get the chance again.
zedsalt	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 11:00 AM Does anyone have a copy of...crap, now the name escapes me...Wolf Marshall? Hound Dog Marshall? The dude who did (does?) reviews for High Times...I'm looking for his "The Fifty Worst Things to Ever Happen to Rock"...or maybe it's "The 100 Worst..."...something like that... In it, he slags basically everything that could be considered a "sub genre" of Rock, except maybe Surf and Garage. I'd really like to find a copy of that.
DeadraveN	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 11:40 AM Sounds awesome. Note me if you ever find it, zed.
GreatGooglyM...	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 12:05 PM i just like knowing why someone didnt like something i worked on, instead of just telling me it sucks, without a real reason as to why. Why is it worse than people sucking you up without a reason?
theblacklodge	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 3:31 PM "Date: July 29, 2006 @ 12:05 PM i just like knowing why someone didnt like something i worked on, instead of just telling me it sucks, without a real reason as to why. Why is it worse than people sucking you up without a reason?" Of course, out of a "constructive analytical reviewing" perspective both the sucking up without a reason and the "telling it sucks" without a reason would fail to achieve what such a review can accomplish, and if you set your mind to only appreciate those kinds of reviews then it sucks. I personally don't set my mind to that, I want to appreciate comments that don't contain anaylitical language and form, and that's when the positive acknowledgement becomes an encouragement. If someone just tells me "this is all so crappily made", is not constructive or analytical and it could not serve as an encouragement from someone who's a fan. It's up to you to be suspicious of people, pointing fingers and say: "they would all rave anyway, whatever you did, those people who make such stupid comments!!!" Seeing things that way, is your problem then..
DeadraveN	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 4:14 PM rest of the comments are... here the rest will be positive encouragement, and as alex points out, that is helpful in it's own way. At a place like redfizz however, the rest will be moronic blabber; someone trying to be funny at someone else's expense, and I don't think that's helpful in any way to anyone. I don't see any problem with appreciating encouragement and resenting pointless negativity. :shrug: " id="237419">"positive acknowledgement becomes an encouragement." that's a truth that a lot of us, myself included, tend to overlook when we get so greedy for constructive criticism and analysis. thanks for the reminder, Alex. the truth is, places like dmusic and redfizz are similar in that only a certain small percentage of the comments are going to be truly "helpful" in terms of analysis and criticism... the real difference between the sites is what the rest of the comments are... here the rest will be positive encouragement, and as alex points out, that is helpful in it's own way. At a place like redfizz however, the rest will be moronic blabber; someone trying to be funny at someone else's expense, and I don't think that's helpful in any way to anyone. I don't see any problem with appreciating encouragement and resenting pointless negativity.
GreatGooglyM...	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 4:17 PM Lets all praise mediocrity then, shall we?
Woof	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 9:27 PM And who decides what's mediocre and what isn't? Should we appoint a council? Have hearings for each artist that's ever come and gone? I know people who think that Janis Joplin has a terrible voice. Maybe we should re-think whether she belongs in the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame... Better yet, let's establish limits and criteria for playing, so that only a limited number of permutations are classified as "music". That way, we can instantly gauge whether a performer is "musical" or "not musical" based on whether they're repeating the proven formula we devise. And when only the proven formula exists anymore, every song that's ever "music", will be sung, and we can all stop playing and move on.
theblacklodge	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 10:17 PM "Lets all praise mediocrity then, shall we?" I rest my case. It's your choices, your standards.
SimonWaldram	Date: July 30, 2006 @ 8:27 AM This is an excerpt from an interview with Steve Albini in response to being asked how he feels about producing bands who make music that he himself doesn't like. I think it's very applicable to this discussion: "Well, I think I've been in enough situations to realize that every band has an aesthetic. It may not be an aesthetic that I find particularly laudable or whatever, but it might just be that I don't get it. Before he died, John Peel said something that I thought was really profound. He said when he gets a record from somebody and he doesn't like it, he assumes that it's his problem and that the band would not have made that record if there wasn't something valuable about it. And I kinda feel like that's an appropriate perspective. Like this band wants to make this record - for some reason, they really want to do this - and they can get a lot of satisfaction out of it. And I get to witness their satisfaction, and how fucking cool is that? It's like being there on Christmas morning watching kids open their presents. It's like you get to see somebody having the time of his life, satisfying some deep ambition of his, and bringing something into existence from his own creative impulse. Seeing the satisfaction in other people and getting to be a part of it and helping that happen - regardless of what it is, it could be a fucking nursery rhyme, you know? But that it happens at all is immensely rewarding." From: http://www.markprindle.com/albini-i.htm
kingo	Date: July 30, 2006 @ 8:44 PM Googly: If saying, "This rocks, I really enjoyed it," especially when that's an honest statement, is praising mediocrity, then I'm all for it. In fact I'll chair the Committee for Praise of Mediocrity. What this comes back to, over and over, it seems to me, is that you're under the impression that there's some way you can objectively measure the "enjoyment" factor of a song. It's like you're thinking, "Shit, man, these people are full of shit, saying this is a good song. Whoever made this song had the enjoyment knob barely cranked past 2. Can't they see that?" Encouraging people is worthwhile. Whether it's more or less worthwhile than constructive critique depends on the audience.
Woof	Date: July 30, 2006 @ 9:27 PM One other way I'd put it, is that listening to loads of Zappa, Yes, Concrete Blonde, and Leonard Cohen hasn't lessened my enjoyment of The Raspberries, The Hollies, or The Cowsills one bit.
Opossum	Date: July 31, 2006 @ 2:43 AM I have to do another remix, I forgot to adjust the "smile at bar 7" knob.
hueseph	Date: July 31, 2006 @ 4:21 AM Mozart was undeniably good. At writing music. At conducting symphonies. At being a musician. In that same respect so were Bach, Bethoven, Liszt, Chopin. Other universally recognized musicians: John Coletrain, Glen Gould, John Williams, Cole Porter, Thelonius Monk, Charles Mingus. Many of these were not recognized until after their death. Like them or not, anyone can recognize their musicianship. Anyone with a love for music because of the art could learn to appreciate them. Yes there are many ways to write music. Simplicity isn't always simple. Even among punk, rap, dance, electronica there are the few who stand out as innovators. Why? Average is the majority of us (including myself). Face it. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. I'm not ashamed of being average. That gives room for those who truly excel. Over analyze it as you will. Disect it with "higher thinking". Everyone has that tune or group that they think is utter garbage. Whether they understand why or not. I can honestly say there is no music I don't like. There is some that I'm not partial to but I can appreciate anything that is well written and performed. And, absolutely I believe there are innovators in all types of music, who stand out. Back to topic. The web is a nest of trolls. redfizz apparrently breeds them. So be it. That is your audience. Thank goodness for their honesty. That should toughen up your skin. Now you know what to expect from the next label you try to sell to.
hueseph	Date: July 31, 2006 @ 4:33 AM "Why call the act of agreeing (without the guidance of a 'true' quality) that something falls under "good" or "bad" taste as "superficial"?"- as you kindly pointed out: "Good" and "bad" is relative. That is it is a matter of taste and really has little or nothing to do with the construction of a peice of music necessarily therefore it IS in fact superficial. suÂ·perÂ·fiÂ·cial Audio pronunciation of "superficial" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-fshl) adj. 1. Of, affecting, or being on or near the surface: a superficial wound. 2. Concerned with or comprehending only what is apparent or obvious; shallow. 3. Apparent rather than actual or substantial: a superficial resemblance. That's not to say that personal opinion of good or bad is necessarily good or bad. Only it is a matter of personal taste and really has nothing to do with wether a song really has good qualities or not. Only that you don't appreciate the qualities that the song has.
GreatGooglyM...	Date: July 31, 2006 @ 4:38 AM What this comes back to, over and over, it seems to me, is that you're under the impression that there's some way you can objectively measure the "enjoyment" factor of a song. It's not about enjoyment, silly. I don't care to continue this pointless argument. Like, blacklodge said, your choices, your standards.
GreatGooglyM...	Date: July 31, 2006 @ 4:41 AM I'm not going to write a long Zappa-quote here, so I'll just quote hueseph: The fact is, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, that Dmusic is a touchy feely group who would rather bolster the ego of mediocre musicians than hurt their feelings with the truth.
SimonWaldram	Date: July 31, 2006 @ 5:11 AM There's a big difference between being positive, supportive and encouraging and being "touchy feely", I think.
kingo	Date: July 31, 2006 @ 8:16 AM I actually can't tell, based on everything you've said about this subject, whether or not that's a joke. " id="237724">"It's not about enjoyment, silly." I actually can't tell, based on everything you've said about this subject, whether or not that's a joke.
zedsalt	Date: July 31, 2006 @ 10:46 AM One of my favorite Zappa quotes was in Guitar World (I think. Maybe Guitar Player) about how the world's most crassly commercial music NEEDS to be recorded and released, because there's obviously a HUGE audience for that sort of thing, and those people don't deserve entertainment any less than the more "sophisticated" listener.
theblacklodge	Date: July 31, 2006 @ 11:22 AM "Mozart was undeniably good. At writing music. At conducting symphonies. At being a musician. In that same respect so were Bach, Bethoven, Liszt, Chopin. Other universally recognized musicians: John Coletrain, Glen Gould, John Williams, Cole Porter, Thelonius Monk, Charles Mingus. Many of these were not recognized until after their death. Like them or not, anyone can recognize their musicianship. Anyone with a love for music because of the art could learn to appreciate them." It doesn't take any "overanalysing" to come to the conclusion that making music is a craf that you learn. Through this craft you express yourself and you learn to do it according to standards that are set (and as I've argued before those standards are not 'objective'). My point was never to deny that you have to learn things, and practice when it comes to technically master something, or understanding a certain 'form' to make your music out of. In classical music I argue that form was a highly important, much more rigid concept for music ot fit into. Take the "vertical listen" (where it seems like you listen to a piece vertically, if you see it through a certain structure) of Bach, which is a typical example of how important a certain structure could be then. All of that said, just because "form" was more important does not make it objectively 'better' music. Seeing music out of the perspective "form", "structure", "dynamics" and so on, is a way of understanding it, like any theoretical perspective. That means all music has it, which means that if one audience can learn a certain form they can learn any other as well . And the theoretical concept of form or structure does not have anything objectively 'good' within a certain form or structure, cause it's music theory not a value. I also think there's kind of a confusion going on about the difference between being skilled (like, learning according to a certain standard, that varies) at doing something, and creating something that is 'good'. I've never said making music is not a skill according to a standard that you create. If you're talking about people viewing a 'performance' (according to a standard) you still end up in the relativity of standards, and we're back where we begun. You mentioned "innovators", but I claim that if you want to mark them as advocates for the 'essential good' you will never be able to pinpoint that within their expressions. Not even if you seperate the musical structures in their songs from other songs, since musical form or structure is theory and does not contain something 'good' within itself. I don't see why it should make experiencing music less of an experience to accept that what some find, as you put it "utter garbage" others will rave about, and do that without caring about if your opinion is 'justified' in the name of the 'real good'. It's a very unneccessary guide to tell yourself that you can only 'truely' experience and appreciate something that is 'essentially good', since you will not find that "essentially good" expression anywhere. If you're persistant in only having the 'essentially good taste', you will by the end of the day fall back on the reason that either that taste is very "popular" or because "someone says so". "The fact is, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, that Dmusic is a touchy feely group who would rather bolster the ego of mediocre musicians than hurt their feelings with the truth." so stuck with that 'truth'. Now it even came to the point where it doesn't matter whether anyone acknowledges it or not! Heh
hueseph	Date: July 31, 2006 @ 1:44 PM " "The fact is, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, that Dmusic is a touchy feely group who would rather bolster the ego of mediocre musicians than hurt their feelings with the truth." Sigh so stuck with that 'truth'. Now it even came to the point where it doesn't matter whether anyone acknowledges it or not! Heh" - This I can agree with. It doesn't matter. Regardless what people say, ultimately, as long as you're satisfied with what you are doing, others opinions are not that important. Mind you if you find yourself clamouring for support, maybe you are not satisfied with your work. That's not to say this is a bad thing either. I often look for support on tune that I know I'm not satisfied with. Criticism helps you improve. If it doesn't, it's not the fault of the critic.
theblacklodge	Date: July 31, 2006 @ 2:17 PM "Regardless what people say, ultimately, as long as you're satisfied with what you are doing, others opinions are not that important. Mind you if you find yourself clamouring for support, maybe you are not satisfied with your work. That's not to say this is a bad thing either. I often look for support on tune that I know I'm not satisfied with. Criticism helps you improve. If it doesn't, it's not the fault of the critic." Oh yes I agree, for success in the games (or name it what you will) we create, we need to learn, adapt and not be afraid of faliure to be critizised, that I can agree with. The thing is, your point seems to lie in that if I don't acknowledge the 'objective good', like the 'objective talent', then I just cannot explain a whole bunch of things like 'real talent' and the 'generally acknowledge good' and so on. And you're damn right I don't "explain" that. Your problem, as I see it, is that you criticize the lack of "explaining" my own critique of your 'objectivism' does. But I criticize your objectivism out of exactly that reason (yup, it's a merrygoround ): you were the one using "how can we else explain" as an argument for an 'objective truth', but the problem is that a theory of 'good' and 'bad' explaining what IS in fact objectively good and bad does not exist. Because good and bad are values. In other words, we cannot obtain information about what is objectively 'good' or 'bad if we assume that it exists. That's why you face a problem when putting emphazis on the need for "explaining", since statements about objectively good or bad values, leading to statements like "talent makes way" are as empty of testable content as "all humans are rational", or "God is in everything" They are initial assumptions, and cannot be tested directly. We all have initial assumptions, and I'm not telling anyone that they should not believe in what they want. I do think however that one theory can be tested and verified/falsified as another one cannot, and I think it's problematic to both state that there exist objective values, and then emphazise the need to "explain", with those values as basis. It somewhat resembles saying: I don't know how to explain this so I will believe that it was 'meant to be'. You may well be right, but there is no way of knowing if you are!
theblacklodge	Date: July 31, 2006 @ 2:28 PM ... And the problem is not that you believe, but if you put emphazis on using it as the "explanation" as opposed to other explanaitions.
theblacklodge	Date: July 31, 2006 @ 3:51 PM "not to be afraid of faliure 'or' to be criticized"
Woof	Date: July 31, 2006 @ 10:20 PM Getting back to Redfizz for a moment, I just wanted to mention that I've gone there almost daily, to check out the featured song, ever since this thread was first written. Call me limited in perception, but I really can't make much of a distinction between their "winners" and "losers". Has anybody else had this feeling?
kingo	Date: July 31, 2006 @ 11:06 PM I just post shit. I have yet to listen to anything.
hueseph	Date: August 1, 2006 @ 2:42 AM "music is as much math as it is melody"-somebody. Many things can be prvoen but not explained. We know how life works but not why. It just does. We know what chemical reactions take plce and what properties cause them but not why. Unless you want to suggest that "because" is why.
hueseph	Date: August 1, 2006 @ 2:43 AM uh proven not prvoen.
LostYears	Date: August 1, 2006 @ 3:17 AM has this really gotten all the way to the mathematical formulas for writing music? come on people, you have taken this issue so out of its context just to prove that u are right, time to just drop it and bash on redfizz.... or was that not the point of the thread?
hueseph	Date: August 1, 2006 @ 3:20 AM Yeah. I admit. I'm getting stupid now. It was fun though. Always up for a good debate.
hueseph	Date: August 1, 2006 @ 3:22 AM After all, what's really important is whether mac is better than pc!
GreatGooglyM...	Date: August 1, 2006 @ 3:34 AM PC.
LostYears	Date: August 1, 2006 @ 4:17 AM while it is true that the mac system is smoother and all, its just too in the box and trendy... and lets face it once u get used to system failures and all the bad things u kinda get to like pcs
SimonWaldram	Date: August 1, 2006 @ 11:41 AM Anyway, back to the previous part of this discussion... I just wanted to say one more thing in regards to this debate and the differences between DM users and users of other sites, specifically DM, based on my own experiences: When I come on here I feel part of a friendly, supportive, eclectic group of musicians, listeners and friends. And when I've posted music on here I've always found that people try and focus on the positive and offer encouragement. Now, don't get me wrong, sometimes I feel that the praise comes too easily, but this community has helped me so much. If I'd had joined Redfizz first I honestly don't think I'd still be making music, because while it's good that the folks there don't pull any punches, they totally take the fun out of it all for me. In the last couple of weeks on there I've been told that my production skills aren't up to scratch, my singing isn't good enough and my songs are "generic" and "lame". Honest opinions are great, but how has this helped? I'd be ready to throw in the towel at this point if music didn't happen to be all I've got. And, hell, I know I’m not Nick Drake or Bob Dylan, but I’m trying to do my fucking best, and – regardless of what this makes me – I like it when people acknowledge that. DMers might go over the top in their praise sometimes, but I still know the fans I have here are genuine, and I still enjoy it when I upload something that might be a little rough and not produced that well, but people still have enough heart to see past the flaws and be positive about the good bits. I’m not asking anyone to be sycophantic, and I hate dishonesty as much as anyone, but there’s nothing wrong with offering support and encouragement to people baring their souls through artistic expression. I’m going to quote Steve Albini here again seeing as you all ignored it the first time: “It's like being there on Christmas morning watching kids open their presents. It's like you get to see somebody having the time of his life, satisfying some deep ambition of his, and bringing something into existence from his own creative impulse. Seeing the satisfaction in other people and getting to be a part of it and helping that happen - regardless of what it is, it could be a fucking nursery rhyme, you know? But that it happens at all is immensely rewarding."
GreatGooglyM...	Date: August 1, 2006 @ 12:03 PM I agree with you. Support is as important as critisism. Those bastards haven't still reviewed my song...
theblacklodge	Date: August 1, 2006 @ 3:54 PM To make a final call in the "objectivism/relativism" sidetrack: I don't think human life is more of a mystery than trying to explain anything in the world. It all begins with an assumption that the world presents itself to us as it is, because without that assumption we would have decided explanaition impossible before the search for empiri. The second thing is that no empirical data speaks for itself but needs to be explained through theory (some way to order it), and thus we get different perspectives of everything and in a way the different perspectives see different "worlds" (like social constructivism, behaviourism etc). Some theories can be tested (and theory is not the same as "math") with the initial assumption (that the world, as it is, can be reached) and some cannot, and an idea about the 'objective good' is something that can't be tested, was my whole point. You can believe in it, but using it as an argument because of what it "explains", I find misleading. But I'm sorry, I've been going on far too long on this sidetrack from the main topic. I just find it interesting to see what comes out of a discussion about things like 'the truth' because I love science (and love discussing what it can and can't rationalize). About Redfizz, and constructive criticism, I agree with something that Gene said in another thread about the "banthering" that can be a risk when a reviewer decides he/she can only communicate in terms that maybe can be 'seen' in a useful constructive review, but does it in a way that has nothing to do with being constructive. I've also said that I'm not locked on craving comments in the constructive, analytical form or language and I stand by that. "Going in for the kill" with stylized comments (the music around 2 minutes is just a meandering pile of s***) is a statement, but how sad if the writer believes it's constructive criticism. And I think you're right Simon, I can't see how you can "use" comments that, when analysed are basically stating "you're not good enough". You might wanna ask those people: "Good enough" for what? But I have a feeling they won't really give you an answer (I hope I'm wrong) appropriate to that question. Call me cynical but it might not exactly be impossible that if you're looking for a crowd inside mp3 hosting websites who feel that "their bar (or their norm)" is THE bar (not just theirs and their thinkalikes), you'll find a lot of them in Redfizz, with some competition from garageband. That's why they will at worst not really answer the question (good enough for what?), since they credit themselves to a more refined taste and could just answer: "dude, look at your song". But I might be (and I hope) I am wrong. And no, I don't break down into shatters from "dude, you suck", I'm not saying all of this just cause I can't take an opinion. Speaking of "bar"
GreatGooglyM...	Date: August 1, 2006 @ 4:20 PM You know, eventhough you seem to have some problem with comments on redfizz.com I've got no complaints. Straight and honest. Nothing too encouraging or constructive, but nothing stupid either. The funny is thing is that I even agree with some of those comments. Mr. Bratty [1 hour ago] useless trivia can be entertaining. and it feels good when you can barf it out from time to time. jamsmith [1 hour ago] Give Mr. Bratty a cigar! Mr. Bratty [2 hours ago] yup, bring that bad boy up in the mix. let it reign. ooo, punny! Mr. Bratty [2 hours ago] stunt guitar is a zappa thing. steve vai was listed as "stunt guitar" when he played with him. which may explain the JEM pix on the website. aleksander_hemon [2 hours ago] Rated 3 stars not Yngwie, more like Satch...a little sloppy at times but overall a good gtr...the synth bass/perc makes me cringe. DeadraveN [2 hours ago] Rated 4 stars There's no getting around it, you're an amazing guitarist.. and this is a beautiful track, but it does feel like "part" of a song... the tempo pick up came a little too late into the track for my liking, and I would have liked to hear a bit more to this,.. like vocals, and maybe a recognizable rythm melody. still,,.. impressive chops. no denying it. 4 stars for skill alone. aaronlife [4 hours ago] huh, i liked where it was in the mix, if it was up front, i would have turned it off, too annoying, egocentric. the voice from within the storm is the guitar... jamsmith [4 hours ago] Rated 2.5 stars I am a fan of this kind of music. I love Yngwie and this sounds very Yngwie-ish. And that is the problem. He goes by Yngwie J. Malmseen - the "J" is to separate him from all the other Malmsteens out there. The challenge for neoclassical guitarists is to develop their own voice. Yngwie got his voice from Paganini. I would suggest looking to non-metal musicians for inspiration. Second, the bigger reason I didn't rate higher was the mix. You can't be a "instrumental virtuoso" and have your guitar sound like it was in another room. Put it up front in the mix. aaronlife [4 hours ago] Rated 2.5 stars #%!# is it raining outside? isn't this a Genesis song? you know, the rain is nice, the thunder is nice, i could listen to that all day, the guitar playing is nice, the angelic synth sound is nice... i wish i could play that well... performance is high, creativity is mediocre... well done is all i can say, i guess you could play this live at a show, or stick on an album... for some reason reminded me of a track of McCartney II (1980) called On The Way, starts out with a cool guitar lick, but it's a song, has vocals, I really love it... this is 1/2 way there, for me, but your playing is awesome, and there's nothing about this that detracts in any way, so if this is what you were going for, you hit it... Dumb Comments (0)
SimonWaldram	Date: August 1, 2006 @ 6:38 PM Googly, here are the comments that have been left for my song 'Blue and Grey' on Redfizz. I've included the comment I left yesterday as well just to show you that I actually appreciated much of what they said. Criticism is more than fine with me and as long as it's based on honesty and a bit of intelligence: SimonWaldram [12 hours ago] Thanks for the feedback, guys. The song was never indented to have so much reverb on, I was just experimenting with this mix to see what people would think of it. I still quite like it, but the final version won't have it on. It certainly doesn't do the ending any favours, which I think sounds great without the reverb but, as singtomefire said, just makes the song kind of fizzle out with the effects on (because the guitar is so buried). And the reverb is certainly not on there to so that "pot smokers will think [my] music is better than it is" as it's a really good song anyway. Deadraven, I like the idea of a second guitar, so thanks, man. KeavesSharpy [7/31/2006 5:28:55 PM EST] Rated I don't think turning the reverb up to max distance and mix, counts as "experimenting." I think it's called "going overboard" so the pot smokers will think your music is better than it is. I think the title fits the song. I have a bit of that "hear color" affliction, and it fits. I just want to give you some advice: Make sure you record this again, without the reverb, so 10 years from now, you won't think "man, i really loved that song, but gah that reverb!! Why didn't i have a better copy of this song??" just a thought. prattleon [7/31/2006 3:52:54 PM EST] Rated I enjoyed it...even the excessive reverb on the vocals. It made sense with the lyrics which I could understand. I like when people aren't afraid to experiment with effects to the point where they sound unconventional. DeadraveN [7/31/2006 2:56:49 PM EST] Rated The lyrics in this are really pretty good, and the guitar melody is beautiful, but the reverb buries both to where you almost have to strain to listen to them It's a very nice, mellow tunebut it does get a bit monotonous by the end. I think a lighter reverb, and maybe a second guitar track coming into change things up a bit towards the end would really help this one out. singmetofire [7/31/2006 2:43:37 PM EST] Rated that reverb is extreamly overboard. Other than that, there really isn't anything going on here that grabs me. This track is kind of like plain cheerio's. While it's a familiar platform, and generally accepted, it lacks the flavor and pazazz that would ever make it one of your favirotes. The ending, is tenacious, it goes absolutley nowhere, the song starts.....keeps that mood, then fizzles out, which wouldnt be bad, but it's kind of like watching a really lame firework, starts off lame, continues to be moderatley lame, and is then just done. Hm...yup. WillPenguin [7/31/2006 2:34:43 PM EST] Rated The singing sounds uncomfortable at moments. And the amount of vocals on the reverb borders on ridiculous. But it's pretty and I do like it. aaronlife [7/31/2006 12:28:51 PM EST] i wish i could understand the words. it isn't really engaging, but i think engagement is not the intent... your voice aside, this sounds very much like something i've heard before (not enough to be a ripoff), i want to say it was Suzanne Vega or someone... whoever it was, it made it to production and release... with better production and slighly better vocals
SimonWaldram	Date: August 1, 2006 @ 6:40 PM Damn, that looks a mess! Oh for a forum post edit function!
zedsalt	Date: August 2, 2006 @ 11:18 AM It's a little sad, a little funny...not a lot of either...the idea of a musician sitting in his studio, agonizing over "Less lame...what can I do to make this less lame?"
DeadraveN	Date: August 2, 2006 @ 11:32 AM I shoot for more lame myself. I just posted a track there that I did almost six years ago now (just posted at redfizz means: hopefully it'll go up sometime this week).. I very experimental little nugget I know everyone except maybe Kingo will hate.. I'm actually a little giddy to hear what they have to say about it,.. just 'cause I think it'll be funny to hear them rip it apart.. I have to admit, I'm kinda having fun with that site. ..getting some interesting comments and criticisms.. and a getting alot of shit for my genre, which no one there seems to understand.. but hey, it is fun.. and it's good to see more familiar dm faces there.. we seem to be tidying the place up a bit. and a little side note to all, if you haven't noticed.. The Dirty Hearts (aka girlb/firefly) have a track up there now!
Snoogans775	Date: August 4, 2006 @ 3:44 AM I think we should organize a mass shitstorm of all our personal favorite tracks we've done(respectfully to each artist). maybe redfizz needs something to get all of that bleach off.
Snoogans775	Date: August 4, 2006 @ 4:24 AM the lame fluffs return with a not-a-band anymore due to personal reasons vengeance!
GreatGooglyM...	Date: August 4, 2006 @ 7:20 AM More comments: KeavesSharpy [8/2/2006 11:05:16 PM EST] doh! [blocked] denied! KeavesSharpy [8/2/2006 11:03:50 PM EST] http://www.[blocked].com/ KeavesSharpy [8/2/2006 11:02:00 PM EST] heyyy... ingvey wasn't fat when i saw him live. he was like vin diesel. he could throw a guitar 2000 feet in the air, then catch it with his teeth, all while playing another guitar with his toes! jamsmith [8/2/2006 10:51:07 PM EST] I hope you realize I meant Yngwie is too fat, not this guy! cuuntry [8/2/2006 10:44:00 PM EST] Richard Greico walking out of a dark alley smoking a cigarette. GiBsOn10 [8/2/2006 10:31:44 PM EST] teach me because the guitarest is insane but the song needs words. bet every part of the song was hard becasue it sounds like it does . needs words!!!! TheBuyer [8/2/2006 6:23:07 PM EST] Too fat. watch for that as a reject reason. jamsmith [8/2/2006 6:04:46 PM EST] Too fat. I do love his playing. I don't have Paul Gilbert or any of them others. I just love Yngwie's adaptation of the greatest classical melodies combined with a fiery style. I really like the way he bends and uses vibrato more than his speed or anything. If I want to hear fast playing, I put on some Jan Hammer playing with Billie Cobham. singmetofire [8/2/2006 5:58:05 PM EST] i think you have a crush on Yngwie jamsmith [8/2/2006 5:55:30 PM EST]
kingo	Date: August 4, 2006 @ 9:05 AM Now THERE'S some criticism you can use!
SimonWaldram	Date: August 4, 2006 @ 11:08 AM Those guys should write for Rolling Stone, definately.
GreatGooglyM...	Date: August 4, 2006 @ 11:08 AM Yeah, I'm probably too fat to get featured.
EvilPicnic	Date: August 4, 2006 @ 11:29 AM 'teach me because the guitarest is insane but the song needs words. bet every part of the song was hard becasue it sounds like it does . needs words!!!! TheBuyer [8/2/2006 6:23:07 PM EST]' That's fucking awesome. You can just imagine this little kid typing that out while fired up on coke and suger. I wish I received that quality of comment.
GreatGooglyM...	Date: August 4, 2006 @ 11:59 AM Maybe modify it and add a track of me talking bullshit over the guitar licks?

Post A Reply
From:	guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: