The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board

Achewood => Achewood => Topic started by: AugustWest on January 04, 2007, 03:53:33 am

Title: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: AugustWest on January 04, 2007, 03:53:33 am
Looks like it'll be Teador after all.  I predict that he'll be highly successful as the bassist for Mr. Band.

Total formality.  (http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=01042007)
Title: 4 January 2007 -- "Total Formality."
Post by: littlefallsmets on January 04, 2007, 03:53:50 am
http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=01042007 (http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=01042007)

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH snap.

Things do not bode well for the bear.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: AugustWest on January 04, 2007, 04:16:16 am
17 seconds is a hell of a long time on the internet, Ace.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: Flaaron on January 04, 2007, 04:17:42 am
What I felt was sympathy for a drawing of a stuffed animal who is normally a badass dude but got checkmarked into womanhood by a serial killer who writes silly songs. In the fifth panel, specifically.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: CortJstr on January 04, 2007, 04:26:02 am
Man, Lyle must've had many screw-ups that we didn't get to see. Now I wonder how else he offended NP.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: AugustWest on January 04, 2007, 04:53:08 am
What I felt was sympathy for a drawing of a stuffed animal who is normally a badass dude but got checkmarked into womanhood by a serial killer who writes silly songs. In the fifth panel, specifically.

A tiny can for your avatar sirrah!
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: littlefallsmets on January 04, 2007, 05:02:19 am
Quote from: AugustWest
17 seconds is a hell of a long time on the internet, Ace.

It's what I get for momentarily considering which day/month/year format is prefered by the plurality.

It's what I get.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: AugustWest on January 04, 2007, 06:33:01 am
Dude, I changed my date stamp twice.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: Undertoad on January 04, 2007, 03:59:01 pm
I just gotta say, as a bass player, that I am totally offended by Teodor's attitude. 
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: Drygioni on January 04, 2007, 04:18:11 pm
I just gotta say, as a bass player, that I am totally offended by Teodor's attitude. 

Really? I've played bass for 8 years and totally sympathise with Teodor's attitude.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: side_show on January 04, 2007, 04:20:51 pm
Oh man, I love those check marks.  I totally had teachers in grade school who did that.  Usually at the end of the day, all would be erased, but I remember how there were a couple kids that were always in trouble and the teacher totally gave up and stopped erasing their names at the end of the day, and later started accumulating check marks over days and weeks.  Poor kids.  I even remember getting my name up there once - so stressful!
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: pmcd9 on January 04, 2007, 04:47:11 pm
Playing bass is like a lot of things in that it is easy to do, but not so easy to do well.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: theinevitable on January 04, 2007, 04:55:22 pm
weird. I had this conversation with my girlfriend the other day. because she confessed that she had no idea what the difference between a bass guitar and a normal guitar was. And that she couldn't hear the bass on a song.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: littlefallsmets on January 04, 2007, 05:24:25 pm
The drummer and the bassist both suffer from the fact that.. as the rhythm section... in most cases, they're supposed to be in the background sonically. You only notice them if they're incompetent or if the song was specifically written to show off their skills.

...or if you have a tendency to listen to super-audio CDs and listen closely like a nerd.

Still, as a non-musician music nerd, it must be said:

33% less strings seems to bespeak 33% easier. If there were four less keys in an octive, I have to imagine I'd've had a better chance at playing more than chopsticks on the piano.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: jaydub on January 04, 2007, 05:46:16 pm
I even remember getting my name up there once - so stressful!

I have to admit, I sort of liked it when my name was up on the board.  I'd have worked harder at getting it up there, but I felt bad that the teachers had to deal with the kids who were misbehaving so regularly.  Basically I was a wanna-be bad boy who couldn't hack the requisite emotional detachment.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: theinevitable on January 04, 2007, 07:46:48 pm
lfm: nah, nah. It's more like if you had a piano that didn't have as many octaves. Actually, that's exactly what it is like. I would say playing bass Well is harder, because it's really noticeable if you screw up.

...this is mostly because I played bass in a band, and had no idea how to do anything other than play the root notes, and everyone is glaring at me, why won't they stop, and my hands are so small and oh god just stop i don't like the bass any more....
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: Bobby Isosceles on January 04, 2007, 09:24:12 pm
The drummer and the bassist both suffer from the fact that.. as the rhythm section... in most cases, they're supposed to be in the background sonically. You only notice them if they're incompetent or if the song was specifically written to show off their skills.

...or if you have a tendency to listen to super-audio CDs and listen closely like a nerd.

Still, as a non-musician music nerd, it must be said:

33% less strings seems to bespeak 33% easier. If there were four less keys in an octive, I have to imagine I'd've had a better chance at playing more than chopsticks on the piano.

see also:new order
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: AugustWest on January 04, 2007, 09:30:19 pm
This bears repeating:

omg saddampoline
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: littlefallsmets on January 04, 2007, 09:47:30 pm
Like I say, I'm not judging...

My inability to learn the piano is one of my few non-lady-based regrets.

I just couldn't get over my left-handedness and get my right hand to play the complex parts.

Never figured out how to overcome it.

The ability to play any instrument, even one of the "easier" ones, is completely beyond me.

Being able to do that, even poorly, trumps me utterly.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: LCB on January 04, 2007, 10:01:51 pm
I like how the checkmarks just got bigger and bigger until, apparently, Lyle had finally reached "WOMAN" status in Nice Pete's deranged mind.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: robot_god on January 04, 2007, 11:51:20 pm
Well, with the bass, there is no immediate need to have your muscle memory learn the hand positions to play chords which is awfully difficult for a beginner to pick up on the guitar.  However, there is a slightly increased need for stretching.

I have a couple neanderthal-like buddies who can play a couple bars of song on an electric bass, so I'm going to use that as evidence to agree with Teodor.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: pmcd9 on January 05, 2007, 12:02:58 am
33% less strings seems to bespeak 33% easier.

Using this logic i've reasoned that the trumpet is easier to play than the bass because it only has three valves.  Singing is the easiest of all because you only have one mouth.  Drumming is the hardest because i've seen some drummers who play upwards of a hundred pieces.  John Bonham must not be a very good drummer because he only used about 6. 
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: theinevitable on January 05, 2007, 12:36:32 am
well, I mean, have you ever heard anyone argue that he was a good drummer? I'm not really up on all these hipster modern groups. I'm sure he can't compare to the groups back in the good days-- Led Zeppelin... now, -that- was some good drumming.

Paul, you can play Bass with me any day. Except, it would probably be really embarrassing for me.

(I'm not really sure where I was going with that zeppelin thing. huh.)
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: jough on January 05, 2007, 12:45:33 am
... and Pianos have 88 keys, bitches, plus 88 little hammers, and hundreds of strings.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: robot_god on January 05, 2007, 01:18:14 am
well, I mean, have you ever heard anyone argue that he was a good drummer? I'm not really up on all these hipster modern groups. I'm sure he can't compare to the groups back in the good days-- Led Zeppelin... now, -that- was some good drumming.

Bonham is very highly regarded among rock drummers.  Alot of drummers overrate him, I think.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: linnea on January 05, 2007, 05:28:55 am
This bears repeating:

omg saddampoline

Jesus, Bobby, where do you find these avatars? Are you a goon?
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: anotherpat on January 05, 2007, 11:26:07 am
Using this logic i've reasoned that the trumpet is easier to play than the bass because it only has three valves.  Singing is the easiest of all because you only have one mouth.  Drumming is the hardest because i've seen some drummers who play upwards of a hundred pieces.  John Bonham must not be a very good drummer because he only used about 6. 

As a pianist, a trumpeter, a bassist, and a (bathroom, but sometimes with my band) singer I have to say: a tiny imaginary can for you, paul. i'm not allowed to give them out yet, but once i am, you will get one.

the trumpet, when played correctly, is both incredibly sexy and horribly difficult. (listen to dizzy gillespie or miles davis if you don't believe me.) the best players can make it wail like a... (to be truthful) donkey. a very attractive donkey, mind you.

the piano is much easier, once you master the ability to relate those little scribbles on a page or sounds into finger movements. it takes most people about 3 or 4 years of practice. after that, it's pretty easy to play 'most everything with minimal effort (judging from the people in my music class in high school.)


The drummer and the bassist both suffer from the fact that.. as the rhythm section... in most cases, they're supposed to be in the background sonically. You only notice them if they're incompetent or if the song was specifically written to show off their skills.

...or if you have a tendency to listen to super-audio CDs and listen closely like a nerd.

another imaginary tiny can for you, sir. 'most everyone i know thinks the bass is guitar for people who were dropped on their heads when they were children. the rest wonder how exactly one plays a giraffe.

anyway. you can play the bass for yonks, and never get the groove one needs to play jazz, swing, or funk (the latter is the one reason why i play the bass. funk is the seximus prime of music.) of course most pop and "emo" nowadays is dead easy to play on the bass. but that's not it's fault! blame the long-haired, greasy-faced wristslitters that churn out derivative crap. hello, teenage wrist-slitters and indie rock nerds! have you perchance heard of talking heads, the buzzcocks, nirvana, the smiths, sunny day real estate, or joy division, or done more than just name-check them? god.


ahem. all apologies for nerding out about music. but i love me my music.

*retreats back into her tiny lurker cave*
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: dejavroom on January 05, 2007, 11:41:10 am
Bonham is very highly regarded among rock drummers.  Alot of drummers overrate him, I think.

You can`t overrate John Bonham like you can overrate The Beatles. John Bonham is just the quintessential shit. You listen to his pounding on "In My Time Of Dying" and tell me he`s not.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: robot_god on January 05, 2007, 12:14:18 pm
Yeah, he's alright, and all the musicians in Zep were... good.

But half of their catalogue should somehow become unrecorded.  Half their work is the most influential music ever recorded, and the other half is the most irritating music I've ever heard.  Misty Moutain Hop, Fool In The Rain, Heartbreaker, fuck to that.  The fact that no one in the band said, hold on, this song blows, brings all the musicians down a peg for me.  Dazed and Confused?  Gtfo of my face.

I mean, you can argue that the Beatles are overrated, but they put serious time into every single song.  They were always tasteful, while huge chunks of Zep's work sounds like it was filler written the day before the recording session, if not the same day.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: V-Adore on January 05, 2007, 08:20:53 pm
the trumpet, when played correctly, is both incredibly sexy and horribly difficult. (listen to dizzy gillespie or miles davis if you don't believe me.) the best players can make it wail like a... (to be truthful) donkey. a very attractive donkey, mind you.

I am distinctly reminded of when we had just started elementary-school band, my fourth-grade year, and had our first "you have to play a little solo in front of the class" band quiz. One classmate of mine (who was, if memory serves, nine years old, and who had been playing the trumpet for approximately three weeks) finished his solo, only for our band teacher to announce to the whole class: "Malen, that sounded like a half-dead cow."

Ah, Mr. Criswell. For three years, he was the most bitter person I'd ever met; then I got to seventh grade and met his wife, a middle-school band teacher. Shortly thereafter I gave up music.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: Sub_Topical on January 05, 2007, 08:37:49 pm
Wow.

Take a child's interest in music out behind the woodshed and pull an ol' yeller type wow.

BANG

ALSO: It ain't the size of the instrument, it's the skill of the player.

Wait, What?
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: theinevitable on January 05, 2007, 08:59:21 pm
anot-pat: A can, for putting "emo" in quotes, and naming a bunch of bands I like. Also, for playing funk.

people, I suck at the guitar. Just so you know. But I am totally starting a band, and that will hopefully make me better. I am getting to the point where I can at least kind of write songs I like. So.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: jough on January 06, 2007, 02:20:23 am
Bobby, that avatar is in the worst taste ever.

Frankly, I feel actual disappointment in you.

Seriously, I am embarrassed for you.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: dejavroom on January 07, 2007, 02:12:59 am
Quote from: #####_god
I mean, you can argue that the Beatles are overrated, but they put serious time into every single song.  They were always tasteful, while huge chunks of Zep's work sounds like it was filler written the day before the recording session, if not the same day.

Oh my God I'm so choking you right now. You have to read those interviews when John Lennon goes on checkmarking song after song as "rubbish" or "throwaway" (I might be being mean, but most of those remarks that I remember come from a Playboy interview in 1970, and mostly concerns "The White Album"). If there's one band that wrote one song too many, that's The Beatles.

Yeah, he's alright, and all the musicians in Zep were... good.


Actually I think they are one of the rare types of bands that manage to have a fairly considerable creative output while also being known (and booked) as very proficient, shit-hot studio musicians. Alright, we know in the back of our minds that if a musician gets *too* proficient at his instrument he'll end up playing fusion; li'l paunch, sports a black goatee indulges in jewelry etc (as a sloppy rhythm guitar player myself, I couldn't care less about that type of thing). And I don't even like them so much, anyway, as you said, they have awful, unnecessary stuff. No one needs a rock concert that goes on for three hours you incredible assholes.

A recent, unbelievably good drummer: that dude from the liars (on their first album).
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: robot_god on January 07, 2007, 12:40:55 pm
Well, dissatisfaction with previous material is a hallmark of any musician with a desire to improve themself, so I don't think that necessarily means that he feels they phoned songs in.  But I dunno, I've never read the article.

Ok, I'm reading the interview now.  Yeah, this sounds exactly like what I mentioned, it's just the attitude of any true musician:

Quote
LENNON: Why should the Beatles give more? Didn't they give everything on God's earth for ten years? Didn't they give themselves?

later:

Quote
...you play me those tracks today and I want to remake every damn one of them. There's not a single one. . . . I heard "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" on the radio last night. It's abysmal, you know. The track is just terrible. I mean, it's great, but it wasn't made right, know what I mean? But that's the artistic trip, isn't it? That's why you keep going.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: dejavroom on January 07, 2007, 01:23:54 pm
...While the remarks I have in mind are more like:

GLASS ONION
(Lennon/McCartney)

JOHN 1980: "That's me, just doing a throwaway song, a la 'Walrus' a la everything I've ever written. I threw in the line 'The walrus was Paul' just to confuse everybody a bit more. It could've been the fox terrier is Paul, you know.


Or:

JOHN 1980: "'Birthday' was written in the studio. Just made up on the spot. I think Paul wanted to write a song like 'Happy Birthday Baby,' the old fifties hit. But it was sort of made up in the studio. It was a piece of garbage."

PAUL circa-1994: "We thought, 'Why not make something up?' So we got a riff going and arranged it around this riff. So that is 50-50 John and me, made up on the spot and recorded all in the same evening."



Heh. This is so typical. Remember that their record label had issued a memo prohibiting any - any - material recorded by The Beatles to ever be erased, which bespeaks for the mindset of the times: They were indeed more popular than Jesus on a graham cracker, and I can only imagine how tempting it must have been when they just didn't give as much as a fuck as they used to do in the past, having a humongous batch of unfinished, substandard material that they knew people still would guzzle down like manah from the heavens.

And:

CRY BABY CRY
(Lennon/McCartney)

JOHN 1980: "A piece of rubbish."


I really don't think he means the recording process here. And etc.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: AugustWest on January 07, 2007, 03:30:31 pm
Wow.  Those crap songs are some of my favorites. 

Too bad the Beatles weren't really trying.  I bet they could have been something if they were.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: vivouk on January 07, 2007, 03:41:32 pm
I'm always sceptical about bands reviewing their past work. Writing music- and particularly songs- is such an intense and innately personal experience (even with co-writers) that your feelings about them can change wildly depending on what mood you're in, what you're currently writing and how people react to them. Even John Lennon wasn't capable of viewing his work objectively.

In fact, it's almost impossible to view ANY art objectively, but that's another debate.

Also, some hideously overworked/overproduced songs sound like dogshit to me, while a few off-the-cuff numbers (or so they appear- again, the barrier between artist and audience complicates things) are immediate magic.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: dejavroom on January 07, 2007, 04:36:52 pm
Okay, I *never* said that all of their material was crap, c'mon. That's really not what we're talking about. I like them with some "buts", the same way I like Zeppelin (with  even more "buts").
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: vivouk on January 07, 2007, 04:41:21 pm
All I'm saying is that the artist's personal opinion and account of how they wrote certain songs is not a reliable indicator of its value or influence.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: dejavroom on January 07, 2007, 04:52:26 pm
Sorry, I meant that as a reply to AugustWest, not you. Should have quoted.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: Bobby Isosceles on January 08, 2007, 02:12:28 am
Bobby, that avatar is in the worst taste ever.

Frankly, I feel actual disappointment in you.

Seriously, I am embarrassed for you.

Having won the nonexistent 2006 touambies, i am securing my hold on the 2007 with this early entry.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: linnea on January 08, 2007, 02:23:59 am
Having won the nonexistent 2006 touambies, i am securing my hold on the 2007 with this early entry.


My guess is that he's probably wearing this shirt (http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=798) as he posts on the board about his Saddampoline avatar. Or maybe this one. (http://www.awfulgear.com/merchandise/hoodie/pullover/index.html)
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: jough on January 08, 2007, 03:13:36 am
I don't think we've held the 2006 TOUAMBies yet, have we?

Anyone want to organize the thing?  It dragged on too long last year, I think, and lost some momentum.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: Bobby Isosceles on January 08, 2007, 05:26:53 am
I don't think we've held the 2006 TOUAMBies yet, have we?

Anyone want to organize the thing?  It dragged on too long last year, I think, and lost some momentum.

I think it's better if we all just imagined it happening, silently.
Really, most of this board would be better that way.


Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: theinevitable on January 08, 2007, 05:33:47 am
do it! do it! I miss Hobot, and I want to vote to this effect!

also Q. Damn.
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: wombat on January 08, 2007, 12:56:54 pm
I think we should do it, but without the live presentation.  Just post the results of the polls when they are over.

Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: vivouk on January 08, 2007, 01:13:49 pm
That avatar makes me laugh more than I am comfortable with.

[Checks self into mental home]
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: littlefallsmets on January 08, 2007, 08:44:33 pm
Quote from: jough
It dragged on too long last year, I think, and lost some momentum.

From the perspective of someone new, reading it after the fact, it was funny as hell and part of what made me wanna participate in this thang. But maybe as a live thing, it was different?
Title: Re: 04 January 2007 -- Just a High-functioning generalization
Post by: CortJstr on January 08, 2007, 09:53:43 pm
From the perspective of someone new, reading it after the fact, it was funny as hell and part of what made me wanna participate in this thang. But maybe as a live thing, it was different?

It was fun in concept but not as well organized as it may appear. The dual posting/IRC thing didn't work as advertised. But my part was hilarious, if I do say so myself.