The Unquiet Grave
 

Once upon a long ago a child was born. He was named Jesus and then he found a company called McDonalds. You know, the usual story. However one day he decided to become a Music Banter member because his father accidentally exploded his head and Jesus did not want to clean that awful bloody mess.

Even ancient dinosaurs knew the meaning of the lost chords. I sadly don't, but I will. Anyway the reason I'm writing this is because I'm a loser and I have no life on my own. So I got to do something to waste my time and so I'll become Jesus (or Stilton Drunkenness).

I have heard rumors that some people say that Bob Dylan ain't a good singer. So I have been wondering and wandering around my mind gardens to find the answer. How can one tell who is good singer and who is not?

EDITOR'S NOTE: I KNOW. Sincerely yours, Allah.

So who decides that? I have been thinking about it a lot (five minutes, exactly), and I have come up with a theory. It is illuminati.

There are many kind of singers out there:

1) Technically good, able to express emotions, good sounding

That class includes singers like Paul McCartney. Nobody can deny they can not sing or anything. Usually everyone admits their singing talents.

2) Technically bad, able to express emotions, good sounding
That class includes for example, Willie Nelson. He sounds good even if he's out of time. Usually nobody complaints, usually they get compliments because their unique style.

3) Technically bad, able to express emotions, bad sounding

Ok, what sounds bad and what not is usually a matter of opinions. But some people consider Bob Dylan as one of those. I don't agree but still. Emotions are the most important thing in music which is why I always prefer Bob over

4) Technically good, unable to express emotions, good sounding.

Like Freddy Mercury. With all respect, he never sang any sincere sentence. Just awful pretentiousness and coldness. I respect their music but I never get any emotional effect from it. It just sounds so cold.

So there's more to the picture than meets the eye. You can be technically good but that is not enough. The lack of true emotions can not he saved by your singing skills but the lack of skills can be saved with sincerity.

So what I'm trying to say? I don't know but let's pretend I do.
This is an allegory. A biblical allegory. It seems like many people are good when you look at them for the first time, but soon you'll notice they're as empty as hell. I mean, usually nowadays everything sounds pleasant but not much more.

That means it is a faud. Too good production can make an empty picture look like Da Vinci. A musician who is virtuoso can make a song that is no song look like a song. But it is still not a real song, mind you.
So I always get annoyed when people talk about musicianship and how technical perfection matters a much. But it is songwriting that matters the much.

So in this world of ours we have too many guitar heroes and people like that, but not too many great songwriters. You can take a dookie and make it look a like a cutlet but still it tastes like a dookie. And smells like one.

Good to see you decided to start a journal, looking forward to it! :)

My biggest problem is that I can't write seriously even if I try. Too much Mark Prindle, too much John Lennon, too much Bob Dylan,too less serious poetry or literary like Shakespeare or our beloved Moody Blues and their over pretentious drummer.

Let's get it straight. Some people say that The Beatles sucked before the year 1965 or 66 because some people are snobs. Every snob has to have moustache, and he has to like snob music. Snob like his tea with lemon and his coffee with cream. Snob loves to be snob.
However, being a snob ain't a crime.

But for me, the Beatles were at least as good when they were "just" a pop band. I can't help it, but nothing strikes me more than carefully crafted catchy pop song.
That was some kind of introduction. But the reason why I wrote it is because now I'm gonna talk about early Beatles.

Live At BBC vol 2 was released recently so I bought it. (Of course it is a cash-in and do not include anything new but I could not help but buy it anyway.) One thing that Vol 2 and it's predecessor Vol 1 prove is, contrary the rumors, the Beatles were not a ****ty live band. How could they had been? They were the ones who ruled the whole Hamburg with their stage show. So while I'm ready to admit they were not instrumentally extraordinary talented, they sure knew how to play.
However, this is not the point. The point is that these releases give us many clues about their roots. Their love for early rock n roll has been well documented.

Many of those straight fast rock n roll numbers, many of them by Chuck Berry, were sung by John. He really shows the power of his voice. Say, who could sing them better? Usually their versions are nearly equal to originals, though their version of Johnny Be Good is somehow a bit of pale when you compare it to the original by Chuck. But well, I have not hear even a single cover that would be better than Chuck's original Johhny Be Goode.

Then there's sappy stuff. Paul sings many of these and they are usually quite allright, although The Honeymoon Song is too, well, too sappy and honeymoonish even for me. (And I usually tolerate sappy stuff pretty well. However, Paul's greatest achievements are those times when he does his Little Richard impersonation and nearly surpasses the inventor. I mean, listen how he sings Long Tall Sally, and listen how the band groove. And after that, are you still capable to say that they did not know how to rock? They nearly put the early Stones to the shame. (I'm overstating now, but still.)

The biggest surprise is that George sings nearly as many songs as John and Paul did. Also it shows George's obsession with rockabilly and especially Carl Perkins. And he sings quite well, too. Unlike on the early studio records, his vocals works pretty well on Live at BBC. Also his guitar playing is good. He draws very much influence from Carl Perkins and Eddie Cochran and other rockabilly pioneers. But well, listen to his solo, for example, on I Saw Her Standing There and then listen to some classic Perkins and you can hear it clearly.

That leaves us with Ringo. Didn't he have such a friendly tone? Sadly his vocals are quite off key sometimes, maybe it was too hard to bang the drums and sing at the same time. Drummers are not supposed to sing, ya know.

Anyway these two records shows too how they played pretty obscure numbers. Also it shows, especially those Motown numbers, that they sang harmonies correctly even when they played live.

Also, I'll Be On My Way reminds us how profilic songwriters they were. It is as catchy as hell and pretty much equal to their other early hits. But they threw it away. They gave so many great songs to other artists. Bad To Me, I'll Be On My Way, I'm In Love and so on, it is an endless list. For example, Bad To Me. A perfect pop number, catchy as hell, great melody and all. Some songwriters like Noel Gallagher could kill for this kind of stuff.
John hated it, of course, but he hated every song he ever wrote.

I tried to be more serious now and left those stupid offtopic jokes out. Hope it helps. I have not decide yet should I try be myself or should I try to be serious. The best option would be to make some kind of mix between those styles but I have not learned how to do it yet.

First, welcome to the journals section! Looking forward to seeing what you can do.

Second, Freddie Mercury not emotional? Come on! Have you heard "Who wants to live forever" or "The show must go on"? The guy had emotion to spare.

Third, where would you place Springsteen in your rankings?

Good start though!

Freddie was too much showman to show how he truly felt. Just like the whole band. I like their music, they were talented players and Freddie surely had a great voice. They were diverse, occasionally even original.

But, first their lyrics were kinda awful. Pretentious stories about pretentious things, and their music did not help that. You know, they mixed opera with rock and it is a good allegory. Opera is a show. And it includes actors.
Same goes for Queen. It was merely an act. Just like, Mick Jagger.

Just read those lyrics. Let's take Bohemian Rhapsody as an example. It would work as an allegory of Freddy's homosexualism and all, and be sincere statement, cos it starts like one. If a song starts as a sincere-sounding piano ballad, you should not spoil it with a nonsensical operatic bridge. I mean, musically that bridge is great and makes that song for me, but it spoils the whole emotional side of that song.
Same goes for nearly everyone of their songs. Too overblown and pretentious, both lyrically and musically.
It could be possible that for example, Who Wants To Live Forever was a sincere song when it was written, but when it was brought to the studio and recorded, it became too overblown to cause any kind of emotional reaction.

In spite of all those complaints, I really like Queen. They were a great, diverse and pretty original band. I just get annoyed when they are claimed to some kind of gods. But while I like to listen to their music and I get a lot of inspiration and satisfaction from it, I won't get any emotional refund from it.

Although, to be fair, I believe The Show Must Go On and Those Were The Days Of Our Lifes are sincere emotional statements. But nobody would notice it if he was still alive cos again. The Show Must Go On. Definitely so. Show indeed.

When it comes to Bruce, well, this is gonna be hard to explain.

He surely have a great voice. Good sound, mighty roar and all. He surely knows how to reach people's hearts (hell, that is what he is all about).
He surely have a knack to write a catchy melody every now and then. His band surely is great and professional and I like saxophones.
He surely knows how to rock and most of all, he surely is one of the greatest live acts nowadays.

But, in spite of all those compliments, I don't like him.
And now one may ask why and I'm gonna try to explain.

First, it seems like Bruce is a way too American. He writes lyrics that tell stories. Stories of working class heroes, tales of ordinary men. Sagas of American people with American dream. And that annoys me. This is my personal problem, I know. But personally I don't wanna hear stories like that when I listen to rock music.
Now someone is gonna point out that it is not what you say, it is how you say it. And that's the biggest problem.

Bob Dylan used to also write about ordinary things. But he wasn't so straightforward. You know, when I listen to the words of Dylan's song, it took some time to get into, but once I get it, the refund is pretty big.
On the other hand, Bruce wants that everybody knows what he's talking about. He makes a statement and it is right there on your face. You get all you can get from it when you listen to it once. A bit cheap trick, ain't it?

Basically Mr Tambourine Man and Born To Run have the same message. We were born to run. Where Dylan uses allegories and give us hope, Bruce just makes one realistic stupid statement that tells nothing new. Of course we were born to run, you don't have to mention it.

Okay, what if we do not care about lyrics and think about his music?
But the problem is, Bruce wants that his lyrics are understood, he wants them to be well-known, he makes them sound important. That is Because the way he performs them.

Many people have a delusion that Born In The USA is a patriotic anthem that celebrates USA. Of course it is not. Say what you say, Bruce is clever enough to not to do song like that. Actually those words criticize America and Vietnam War, but no one notices it without thinking about it. Why? Because it is an arena rocker, that is why. It includes overblown eighties production, a refrain that was designed for arena concerts. Bruce perform it with a high energy, he wants people to shout along "I was born in the USA".
So even when his lyrics are unpretentious, he spoils them with pretentious and overblown music. He wants to be loved, he wants to affect people and so he uses many cheap tricks and that is why I don't like him.

He is a heartland rocker. No irony, no humor, no sarcasm, oh no, no. That is not merely a bad thing, but it is not my personal cup of tea.

But the world needs someone like him, so if he was not born, someone should invent him. Bruce loves his fans and his fans love Bruce, so who am I to complain? Everyone is free to like, even love, him, I won't accuse anyone for that.
But hopefully I made clear why Bruce is not my personal favorite.

Have you ever though how important diversity is when it comes to music? It seems like nowadays many bands take something from their idols and then just copy it. And that's all. For example, Led Zeppelin, while they were hard rock/blues band, were also heavily influenced by British Folk among the other things. But when someone says that Zeppelin is his idol, he usually takes only that hard rock thing from them.
And Stones. The myth of Stones Formula is a lie. There's more to the picture than meets the eye. They played country, pop, even reggae, disco and early rock n roll, blues and also of course riff-based rock.
And Beatles, can anybody even define their sound? It changed between every album. And if a band is able to make one record that includes piano pop, psychedelic music, Motown- pastiche, baroque pop, a song for children, an Indian tune, and then straight guitar rock, ain't that pretty diverse? Nearly everyone of those songs on Revolver sound different

But nowadays every have to have their own sound. People think that band have not found their style yet if they have more than one sound. People want to categorize them "You are punk rock band, if you record a ballad, you are a sell-out" or "What they think they are? They are just a pop band. They're completely inadequate to do anything like that" and so on.
But that is a shame. A big shame.

You see, most of the great bands were so diverse because every member had different musical background. But nowadays, if five GNR fans decided to found a band, they'd probably end up to sounds just like Guns and Roses- of course, that's what they want.
If you have even a slightly different music taste, it is hard to join a band with people who have different taste. This is just completely stupendous. How can you ever create anything new then??

So this is why, even if I don't like something new and exciting experience someone has come up with, I always respect even an unsuccessful experiment more than someone who does five same-sounding albums in a row. yep, I'm thinking about you, Noel Gallagher.
So everytime a band is called a sell-out or something because they have changed, I get pretty annoyed.

I don't mean that taking influences from others is wrong, no, no. Just he sure you are influenced by more than just one band. It is all right to love The Ramones (everyone should do so) but it is not allright to sound just like them.
No one can say that Ramones were not exactly diverse band. But they invented a new perfect sound. Now if they had just copied their sounds completely they would not be so good (I'd still like them because I love melodies, but I wouldn't respect them then.)

What I'm trying to say? don't know. I'm just sitting on a bus and getting bored. But maybe my point was that try to be original and it is not that you should actually invent anything. Usually it is enough just to make a new mix, ya know.
That is what I'm trying to do. When I write my little songs, I always try to tackle a new style. Just because I'm you don't do that, soon you have a formula that you cannot **** with. So everyone should **** with formula ( to misquote Mike Love)

Also I'd like to tell what I've been listening lately.
I have made an acquaintance with classic prog that I used to dislike but I'm not doing it anymore. Also I have fell in love with folk music, especially British/irish folk. A little history-nerd inside of me makes me wanna listen to those folk melodies...
Also I rediscovered my longtime love, fifties rock n roll and rockabilly. I know that my tastes may sound odd, but I can not help it.
Still one of the biggest genres I'm not familiar with is metal. Someday I should make an acquaintance with it, too. Just if it includes melodies. I'm a big sucker for melodies.

OK well if you don't get an emotional reaction after hearing "Who wants to live forever" and you want to paint Queen as nothing more than an act, I can't help you. There are some excellent songs with great emotion in them, though I'm not the biggest Queen fan. And humour? "I want to break free"? "Radio Gaga"? Even "We are the champions" has a sense of laughing at the pomposity of such a statement about it. But we'll agree to disagree I guess.

As for Bruce, well I'm not sure how you can accuse him of being too American: that's where he's from after all. What would you prefer? He sang about Africa or Poland or Sweden? Or Finland? ;) Come on: the guy has spent his career learning and perfecting his art. Seems to me you're just looking for things to not like artistes for, which seems a very close-minded way of going on. Not getting at you, but you do not seem to be open to different styles at all. If someone doesn't sing how you want them to, or about what you want them to, you don't rate them? Weird.

Well, good luck with the journal and as the Overseer/Caretaker of this place I'll continue to read your entries so I can include them in the update thread, but your entrenched attitude makes me reluctant to continue debating with you, as you seem to have your mind firmly set and nothing I say will change it, or make you see another way.

Oh no, I just can't get Bruce. I have tried, though. But I know this is one of my problems that I made my statements sound like they were facts and all.
You know, after all, like I said, If I don't like something it is my problem. But maybe Bruce is easier get if you live in America, or something. I admit he has an extraordinary talent and he is good at affecting people and their feelings. It it just that arena-rock attitude that spoils it from me.

But well, maybe we disagree so badly that we cannot discuss Bruce. But it is always hard for me to explain why I like something or why I don't.

So I think I should correct myself a bit. In spite of all the criticism, I own five Queen records. And two by Bruce plus I have seen him playing live and I enjoyed it a lot. So I respect Bruce's ability to affect people, but it seems for me he is overrated musically and lyrically. But who knows, usually cheap trick are the ones that work most greatly

So. Bruce is good lyricist, not as good as Dylan or others and though I don't personally like his style.

Hey, Taxman - you and I have something in common:wave:! I am a big sucker for melodies too. And there is not much metal-style music which I like much. Even mean and loud music is only fun to listen to if it has good or great melody. The only metal band which I love is Blue Öyster Cult (their first three studio albums, their three live albums and plus Imaginos). I also like some songs by Led Zeppelin, Budgie, AC/DC and Kiss (the fact that they are clowns is irrelevant here). I also love three mean and loud punk bands: The Ramones, The Queers and The Punkles.

I presented my esthetics of music in the thread I started titled "My tastes in music - an essay on my esthetics of music". Have you seen that thread, Taxman? Any thoughts?

That thread is located in the section "General Music".

Maybe your esthetics of music is similar to mine?

Hey, Taxman - you and I seem to have a lot in common when it comes to taste in music:yeah::clap:!

I also go for melody and diversity in music. Also - even in regard to mean and loud music, such as metal - I only enjoy listening to hard rock, metal and punk songs which have good or great melodies. The only mean and loud groups which I love are Blue Öyster Cult (their first three studio albums, their three live albums plus Imaginos, that is to say - most of the rest of their output bores me), The Ramones, The Queers and The Punkles. I also like some of the output (the stuff with the best melodies, that is) of Led Zeppelin, Budgie, AC/DC and Kiss (the fact that Kiss acted like clowns when on stage is irrelevant here).

Taxman, have you noticed the thread which I started a few days ago in the "General Music" section? I mean the thread with the title "My tastes in music - my esthetics of music"? I present my criteria for liking or not liking music in that thread. I suspect that you would agree with most of my ideas, Taxman.

Maybe you could check out my thread and share whatever thoughts you have with me?

I have read your thread. I agree with lot of things you said. But still, I guess there's melodic metal out there. I just have not found it yet cos I have not made any acquaintance with it.

I actually like AC/DC and Zeppelin, especially Zeppelin's third is great. And Ramones are great. They have melodies, I dare say?
Your thoughts of music were good, and I enjoyed to read it. If your able and you have a will write like that, you could found a journal. Then you could write what you what you like. I promise I would read it. For sure.

Anyway, tomorrow (or maybe tonight) I'll share some of my favorite sixties albums that may are not that much popular nowadays, but they should be.

Nah. I live in Ireland and have no problem relating to his lyrics, and any time he plays London, Paris, Berlin or a hundred other venues they're sold out in minutes. Anyway, if you were to tag every American act as "too American" where would you be? Bruce can play Giants Stadium or Times Square, or some little coffee shop in Seattle, and still exude the same charm, honesty, workingman ethic and connectedness (is that a word?) that he does in the stadia, so it's nothing to do with arena-rock. I saw both Steve Earle and BB King in a small venue here called the Stadium --- holds about two thousand people I think --- and had as good a time there as I would have had in the O2, Millennium Dome or whatever. You can't categorise artistes as "arena-rock acts" unless that's all or most of what they do, and when someone gets famous and popular, well of course they're going to play arenas, as the most people possible want to see them. It's what you do in the arena, and whether it changes in a smaller, more intimate venue, in my opinion that defines the artist.

Could be so. Maybe I was too nasty for Bruce. I dunno. I have seen him playing live and it was a blast, so maybe I should respect him a bit more.

So this is my final statement about The Boss:.

He is a good artist. He is great when he plays live. He surely knows how to connect with people, no matter where he plays. He has performed with guys like John Fogerty, Roy Orbison and Paul McCartney so he probably is very nice man as a person.
I just personally don't like him as much as other people do, but I have tried. And I do not hate him. The world needs someone like him. So I'm afraid I failed when I tried to explain why I am not his fan, cos it seemed like I was just insulting him?

Anyway that's enough about Bruce. I should not be so radical.

Even though the 60s is my favorite decade where pop and rock music is concerned - there were so many albums released during that decade that I am only familiar with a small fraction of that decade´s output (mostly I only know about the albums put out by the famous groups).

GEORGE HARRISON

So this maybe a pretty boring subject, but because sixties rock ( and especially The Beatles) is probably the only genre I know something about, though I'm looking for a change. My music taste is too narrow, and I know it. I should do something for it and I will. Maybe I'll write something about my journeys to the undiscovered world of unknown music later. I hope so.

However, I just relistened George Harrison's first (Electric Sound and Wonderwall Music don't count) solo album All Things Must Pass. And it reminded me why George Harrison has always been my favourite Beatle.

I admit that Paul and John were musically more talented. I would be a fool if I did not admit that. But as a person, I have always found George to be the most interesting.
Oh maybe that was a wrong word. You know, rather I have found him to be the most unpretentious and lovely.

You know, John changed his opinions as usually as most of us change our boxers, you know, once or twice in a year, or so. (When the smell gets annoying, that is a sign.)
John was a paradox that ended all the other paradox. And that was what made him so interesting, both as a musician and as a person.

Paul, on the other hand, has always been Paul. Always wanting to be popular, always on the spotlight, always lurking around and trying to find whatever is going on. But to me, this is hardly a crime. I admit that his ego is too big, and he probably watches his mirror image every night and masturbates, but that is not illegal, after all. He believes in his highly melodic silly love songs and so do I. I admit that I secretly love most of his most sappy stuff, but my taste is bad, I know.

Ringo, well, pretty average as a songwriter, but on the other hand, he has penned one timeless classic and not everyone can do it. Not Phil Collins, at least. Ringo is always drunk, telling ****ty jokes and fooling around and singing out of tune (which he, actually, seldom did on the Beatles records, contrary to rumors.) I guess Paul did not allow him to, Paul would have crucified him and filled his mouth with poison apples, so luckily he stayed in tune.

So, lets discuss the original topic. George was boring. He liked dump Indian religion, he was just a gardener and loved trees. He never smiled. Such a bore.

That is not true. Of course he was not a lost genius either, like some people might say, oh no, as it usually is when it comes to things like these (and also things unlike these ), the truth lies somewhere in between.

Actually, George was cool. He was religious, of course, but I won't accuse him for that. Being a religious ain't a crime, as long as you don't **** choir boys or something. Also he never changed his religious beliefs which is something I respect.
Those people who believe that he was a bore, are wrong. He was actually the funniest among them. It is just that you might not realize it. He wrote a song like It's Only A Northern Song which I find to be perfectly hilarious. Also his sense of humor was pretty great. You just have to get it.
Oh, I forgot. He also produced the most hilarious film ever: LIFE OF BRIAN BY THE MAGNIFICENT MONTY PYTHON. That's something special, ain't it?

When it comes to his person, it is hard to believe anyone could do any harm to a man like him. John was provocative and occasionally annoying, Paul is, you know, PAUL MCCARTNEY, and Ringo was (and is) too drunk to notice anything but George...he was...well, himself. Pretty humble, pretty lovely, pretty funny.
Also it seems like everyone in the business was his friend. And why not? Ukuleles are something everyone needs.

When it comes to his musical talents, I admit I'm not as much fan. But let's concentrate on the good sides, shall we?

He created three absolute masterpieces on his own. First, All Things Must Pass is maybe the best Beatle solo album ever. Period. I love it. Those jams are boring, though. But it is equal to other Beatles solo album and I love it more than most of the Beatles albums, I guess.

Second, Cloud Nine is the best Beatles solo album from the eighties. (Paul fooled around with crappy electronic, John was dead and Ringo was drunken, as usual.)

Third, his last solo album, Brainwashed, is one of the greatest farewell records ever. It is not even sad. It is a record by a dying man, who still enjoyed everyday of his life and was ready go. No sadness, bp desperation. Pure joy of playing and pure fun instead. And great songs with his trademark sense of humor.

Also as a huge Bob Dylan fan, as a huge Electric Light Orchestra fan (I know...it is kind of guilty pleasure...), as a huge Roy Orbison Fan, and as a average Tom Petty fan, I pretty much love Travelling Wellbores. It is funny how even Bob seemed to have fun, and he wasn't as introverted and shy as he usually is. Especially Volume 1 is one of the most relaxed records ever.

So, nobody cannot live without hearing those four abovementioned records.

Also he organized the first charity concert ever. How cool is that?

Yep, I'm not expert either, but I hope I can share some more obscure albums. I'm not pretending I know pretty much but I'll do what I can. But there were so many great album released during the sixties so I'll never get enough. And it is great.

THE LEFT BANKE

So I'm not expert. There is a lot of album considered as a classics that I haven't heard. I would like to, but I have not enough time to listen to everything.

Anyway, I haven't yet met anyone who likes this album. Or has even heard about it. So there it is. Walk Away Renee/Pretty Ballerina by The Left Banke. That name is crappy, though. They just took the names of two singles, you see.

That album is baroque pop as it's finest. I would like to say it is nearly equal to Pet Sounds, so everyone who likes Pet Sounds, should check this one out too. It is one of the greatest lost masterpieces, at least I think so.
I'm not good at describing how music sounds and I'm too tired to write more now, so I'll just throw one link to good review about this album: The Left Banke

And then to actual album: The Left Banke - Pretty Ballerina/Walk Away Renee FULL ALBUM - YouTube

I know I'm not good at writing but if someone checks that album out and likes it, I'm satisfied because it is in my opinion nearly equal to Pet Sounds, and that is a HUGE compliment.

There are tons of melodic metal bands out there. Have you heard Iron Maiden, surely? Almost all progressive metal bands use a lot of melody and then there is a subgenre called melodic metal, which is sort of almost the AOR of metal. Plenty of bands there. If you need introducing let me know; melody is definitely my thing too. I can't listen to music that has no melody.

Yep, I would be thankful.

I used to have strong opinions against heavy metal,as well as prog and I don't know even why. Maybe it was some kind of pretentiousness, I dunno.

But after all, the only one you're causing harm when you are doing that, is yourself. There's no use to put down a whole genre without even listening to it.
That just means that I'm probably unable to get deeply into those bands (like I got into the Beatles), there's too much good music out there, so I simply have no time to do that. Whether that is good thing or not,I don't know, but usually I prefer that rather so something about everything than everything about something so I guess there's no problems.

But yes,I would like to get some heave metal recommendations,as well as prog rock ones. I'm an amateur I know, but ain't it a good thing since it means there's more pleasures that are unknown for me?

Though I'm an amateur too, I'd like to second Trollheart's recommendation of Iron Maiden, that's a great band. Also check out Helloween's Keeper of the Seven Keys, part I and II. Those albums blew me away.

But surely Taxman already knows some of Iron Maiden's material:confused:

Okay, I'll start with Iron Maiden then. Which particular album would you recommend? I don't like greatest hits collections that much, though.

Ok you don't know them. I'd go with the following three to get started The Number of the Beast, Piece of Mind and Powerslave to get started and then follow them up with Somewhere in Time and Seventh Son of a Seventh Son. This is the cream of the Bruce Dickinson era.

The reason I do not is that I spent many years thinking that all the heavy music sucks...but I dunno anymore. Different music serves different situations.

I have been pretty conservative and I have had some very strong opinions without any reason to have them so outside pop rock and basic rock n roll most of music is completely new for me. It was the Ramones which finally opened my eyes. After discovering punk is a genre with something to offer, same happened with prog and now it is heavy metals turn, I think. Also being relatively young and growing up with my dad collection that included only fifties acts and that stuff, then discovering sixties and spending many years with only sixties music. It was only one and half year ago or so when I decided there have to be good music made after the sixties too. Silly me.
Of course I know Iron Maiden. And some of their hits. But I have never listened to them with a open mind because reasons listed above.

I'm not in any way an expert on the topic, but I think Powerslave is really good and that you should hear it as soon as possible.

I'll check it tonight when I get home. I'll send my first reactions.

I'm halfway through that Powerslave album. Surely it is melodic, and surely it is good. It is a bit samey sounding and undiverse, though, but good anyway. I expect it to kick more ass, but now I'm sure, nothing kicks more ass than Ramones' debut, so there.

Anyway it is good. I'll surely check their other albums out, too.

Dude, you surely haven't heard "Back in the Village" yet, that solo knocks your socks off.

I'll download it tomorrow and listen to it more then so I can not say much now

You're in for a treat..! You should throw in Piece of Mind while you're at it.

I will. I will anyway download many albums tomorrow cos I have listened these old ones too many times. And I will someday get them on a cd and I want that I have not over-listened them.
But I have a feeling I quite dig Iron Maiden.

As everybody knows, there is probably just one genre I know something about. And so I think I'll write about the sixties now. I just listened Beatles' Revolver again, I do it maybe once in a month or so, and everytime it amazes me.
While White Album may be more diverse, Sgt Pepper may be more famous and Abbey Road's b-side may be the best b-side ever, I still prefer Revolver. I know, it is hard to tell why it is so great, but I'll try and you pretend that you are interested?

So if Rubber Soul still included some lightweight pop numbers (don't get me wrong, I love lightweight pop), Revolver did not. I have no problems with lightweight pop, and I completely adore early Beatles, but when you have just listened In My Life and after that comes Wait, you know...was wait released in 1964 it would have been perfect, and it is good song, no matter what you say, but it just is kinda pale when you compare it to In My Life.

I got a feeling I'm just repeating other people's points...never mind. Let's pretend they are my own.

So now, because I'm afraid I'm not boring enough yet, let's do a track by track journey through one of the most enjoyable music albums ever, shall we?

The first song is called FATMAN! Oh, no not, though it could be a good title. It is SCATMAN...oops it is actually very ****ty song, now I guess it is Batman. It tells a tale how Batman and Robin(son Crusoe) saved Got Ham city.
It is funny how Georgie, always the most spiritual Beatle, was the one who complained about money. I can smell irony...or maybe it is just that poop that is under my bed. Nevermind.
However, The Jam later stole Taxman's bassline (Haha, nice wordplay) and used it in their song called Start!.10/10

Next one is a song Paul wrote when he was trying to get a date with some old woman. You know, Paul could not stand the idea that there's someone in the world of ours that doesn't love him. So he wrote this one, but cos the lady refuse to marry him, Paul got angry and decided that that woman should die. Anyway, it is a great song. And while Ray Davies from the Kinks once said that those string are overcheesy Horrorwood crap, I must agree. I love that arrangement. And as usual, John's and Paul's harmonies are as angelic as anything. 10/10

This is getting boring, right?

Next song is my favorite. There's nothing as great as just sleeping and wasting time. It is something I'm good at. John's I'm Only Sleeping rules. Especially that backward solo. It rules. 10/10

Next one is an Indian bore. But, look, it somehow manages rock. That sitar solo really gets you a-going, man. As a song it is not as good, but that solo is great. Thanks,Georgious. 8/10

You know, nobody with self-respect should like the next one. It is by the book ballad by Paul. But on the other hand, those harmonies rule. Am I just a sissy if I dig it? If all by the book ballad were like this, soft rock would not be as miserable genre as it is. 9/10

So already, after four songs, we have heard one rocker about taxes, one classically influenced chamber pop song, one psychedelic pop song about sleeping and one Brian Wilson influenced ballad. And when you think there is not gonna be more surprises, then: there's a children song about YELLOW SUBMARINES. AND IT IS SUNG BY RINGO. AND IT INCLUDES FUNNY VOICES. WUHUUUUUUUUU. I don't know why everyone hates it, I think it quite decent and at least funny. 7/10

MCDONALD'S

AND BURGER KING. FREE HAMBURGERS.

So, you know, just as you started to think "Sitars and children songs are quite allright on their own way but I would like to hear some guitars", then there comes a John-penned guitar rocker about LSD trip. Yeah, hippiees. And drugs. And unicorns. And Marc Bolan. Flying saucer. And so on. The song is good anyway, though it is not groundbreaking, but even a decent Beatles songs is usually a masterpiece. At least it is better than anything by the friggin' Eagles. Or ICP. 8/10

I'll discuss the rest later, I'll go now. Maybe I should count the average value of these songs so then I could compare albums that have different amount of songs. I don't know. But, the rest of that overlong review or whatever that is will come later.

REVOLVER PART II

yes, want it or not, I'm back. I'll continue my stupid boring and pseudoscientical article about Revolver by The Magnificent Carpenters.

So, song number eight is a piano pop one. Good Day Sunshine. I suppose it is about a day walk Paul did with himself. And his mirror, of course. It is great song, as usual, but if you are depressed or something, it can make you feel a desire to kill someone. It is over positive. Darkness is a lot more interesting. NUMBER OF BEAST. 666. (8/10)

And Your Bird Can Sing. So you think you have seen the seven wonders, but have you heard this one? A great guitar rock song, with funny lyrics. I still prefer this version though:
And Your Bird Can Sing // Anthology 2 // Disc 1 // Track 19 (Stereo) - YouTube

For No One is a ballad. Again. Paul, what's up with these ballades? Allright, I quite dig this one. It has great melody as usual and that horn solo is magnificent, ain't it? 9/10

The only relatively bad song is Roctor Dopert by John. I can't quite tell why, but it is not as good as the others. It has a melody and it all, I dunno. It is about one doctor who used to sell drugs to his patients. And by saying drugs I don't mean Burana.

The next one is by George. Three songs on a record was quite good for him. And all them rules. I Want To Tell You is a perfect brit-pop song. Not quite innovative but catchy and all. 9/10

Got To Get You Into My Life is a Motown pastiche. One you can't blame them for is monotonous. God Only Knows how many genres they tackled on this record.
The song itself is a an ode to marijuana, as you might have guessed. But the greatest drug song is yet to come.

TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS.
Maybe the best psychedelic song ever. Includes only one chord, but wh cares? Those lyrics are from The Tibetan Book Of Dead, that drum pattern was invented by Paul and George played tamboura on that track. How cool is that?
Anyway, what is the most amazing thing, is that in spite of that magnificent production and all that psychedelia, the main melody is still kinda catchy.

Just like The Beatles themselves. Remember, if you want to he inventive and experimental, that more than okay, but you shouldn't forget pure listenability.

Why Your Music Should Not Be Complex Just For It's Own Sake

As a lover of pop rock who has recently started to listen prog rock, because the only one who suffers when you reject one genre completely, is yourself. So at least one should try. And what I have found is that prog is a worthy genre. Usually every genre, where it generally good or not, has something good to offer:

Generic AOR soft rock gave us Eagles (they suck though, but their debut is a good album...)
Euro Dance/Pop/ Dance Pop gave us Abba. I know, I should be ashamed, and I am, but I can't resist their melodies
Punk gave us Ramones

And so on. You get my point? You should never reject one genre completely. At least not without trying to get into it.

However, one problem is, in my humble opinion, usual when it comes to prog. Is it necessary? I mean, are your song complex because you have enough ideas and ambitions to do so, or are they complex because of complexity is cool

For example, if you do one ten minute long song, chances are a) it is great masterpiece or b) the stream of your ideas runs dry in the middle and you fill the rest with something that sounds cool, but is not. Something that sounds pleasant enough but in reality is nothing.
That problem I have had with Yes, and occasionally King Crimson. Mainly with Yes, but maybe the more I listen to them, I get used with it, I dunno.

Of course, the same goes for other genres. If you play punk and you have more complex ideas tha you should, why do you play punk? Why you make things simplistic just it's own sake? If you wanna write a ballad, why you should not?
That goes to show, the whole genre thing is useless when it limits your creativity. If punk band releases ballad or prog band releases pop song, people call them sell-outs. But that is completely useless. But who cares which genre it is if it sounds good?

********

Also I'd like to wish

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE

let's hope it's a good one without any fear...and so on. Ain't it a bit naive?

And what about my plans for this journal? I dunno. I may write about music but I may as well write about something else.

So what I have been listening a lot lately? I know these are pretty popular albums so no-one is gonna find anything new, but still I'd like to share that list. Mostly pop albums, I dunno why, but on the holiday I have been listening quote quiet music, maybe it is because I have been, well, just sitting here watching the wheels go around, ya know.

Anyway I heartily recommend following albums anyone who have not heard them and likes pop music:

Summerteeth by Wilco
Lonerism by Tame Impala
Warning by Green Day (I know, I know...)
#1 Record by Big Star
Pleased To Meet Me by Replacements
Automatic For The People by REM
Neon Bible by Arcade Fire
Arthur by The Kinks
Wish You Were Here by Badfinger

***
And these ones tho' they are not pop albums...

In The Court Of The Crimson King -King Crimson
Selling England By The Pound- Genesis
Bleach by Nirvana
Blonde on Blonde by Bob Dylan
Revolver by The Beatles ;)

I know my taste is pretty mainstream, so everybody knows those albums already but still I wanted to make this...

I guess I'll try something like that. After nineties I'll make eighties list and so on....these albums are not in particular order, it would be too hard. I'll try to add one album everyday so when January ends I'll be in the sixties. Maybe I'll try fifties too, I dunno.

TAXMAN'S TEN FAVORITE ALBUMS FROM THE NINETIES


PART I

THE MOLLUSK -WEEn

Released: 1997
By whom: Ween
About the band: Sometimes I wonder, why these guys aren't as big as that band which name starts with B. Boasis, you know. And I don't know. Are Ween usually considered as joke by some people? Even if they always had a great sense of humor and especially their first albums are completely hilarious, they are not joke. They actually have a lot of songwriting talent and a very big knowledge of music.
They may have not invented anything new, but say, is there something they have not tried? I dunno. The whole idea of a band with unbelievable diversity and great sense of humor seems pretty ideal for me. But nobody cares? Well indie nerds (to quote Briks) do, but does anyone else? And does it really matter?

Why I like about that album? Like I mentioned above, diversity is Ween's main strength. They knew their influenced and they could tackle every genre in the existence and write a song that imitates it. And still, their songs are catchy and all.
That album is still, especially lyrically funny, but it is not so hilarious than some of their earlier attempts. No, if you ignore the lyrics (and even if you don't) you can (and should) take it seriously. It is nearly equal to the best Beatles albums and when that is said by ME who took my name after a Beatles song and own nearly every legal Beatles release, you know it is saying something.

What I don't like that album (how it could be even better)? There's only one misstep here. The title track, an instrumental, (if you don't count that dog as a lead vocalist) is kinda bore. But only a little.

My favourite tracks: Nearly everything, but Cold Blows The Wind (an Irish traditional ballad originally called Unquiet Grave ;)), Buckingham Green (sounds like a Genesis song from Gabriel Era, I think...) and I'm Waving My Dick in the Wind. And Ocean Man, of course.

Final Words: A Tuneful, diverse, hilarious album including great instrumentation. If you like diverse, not over serious, carefully crafted pop music, give it a try (though I guess you have already done that.)

Ocean Man : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs926AIL-ck

TAXMAN'S TEN FAVOURITE RECORDS FROM THE NINETIES

PART II

THE SOFT BULLETIN

Released: 1999
By whom: The Flaming Lips
About the band: As everybody knows The Flaming Lips (led by Wayne Coyne) have recorded many great albums. Trough the nineties they released a classic after a classic. Filled with clever lyrics, great melodies and even some experiments (like Zaireeka).
However The Soft Bulletin is more normal than those earlier albums, for better of worse. It is not as unique, but I'm pretty old-fashioned and I think I like it better. Sadly the world don't give a damn.



Why I like about that album? Wayne really knows how to pen a great melody. Also album is quite melancholic and does not really rock. Influences are clear: Pet Sounds, some Beatles and so on. Surprisingly (or not) there's also some electro rhythms thrown in for a good measure. However, I think that album still sounds unique. Every song sounds more or less the same but it is a great sound I think. Lot of synths there, but don't let them annoy you, they are used well. Also Flaming Lips' lyrics are always smart, clever, even funny and at least, completely cliché-free.

What I don't like about that album? Again, an instrumental called The Observer is a bore, you see I don't like instrumentals that much. Also the version I own is stupid. It has no The Spiderbite Song at all, but instead it has radio mixes of Race for the Prize and Waitin' for a Superman. Stupid. And after those comes the greatest song on the record, called Buggin'. So I have to skip those stupid radio mixes if I wanna hear it.

Best tracks: Buggin', Race for the Prize, The Gash (that chorus is mindblowing), waiting for a Superman and Suddenly Everything Has Changed

Final Words: Great, great album. Tuneful songs, great production, clever lyrics plus I completely adore Wayne's singing voice. It may be shakey but it is pretty beautiful.

Race for the Prize:
The Flaming Lips - Race For The Prize [Official Music Video] - YouTube