BassTractor

Starting in 1969: Five pupils from groups 1A and 1F - lasted a day or so Four pupils from groups 1A and 1F - lasted a day or so Three pupils from groups 1A and 1F - lasted three or four days, but we did get to play at what was called the Pupils' Evening Quand je te vois - named after a poem The Group - not Pekka Pohjola's one, and predating his band by three or more years - still a lame name Quaars-Liebrechts - a lot of noise Quaars-Libreks - somewhat softer noise Quasar Librax - even softer Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra - is that a band name? Anyway, I said: "That nameless choir over there - you should simply call it the Amsterdam Baroque Choir", and a red/green-faced Koopman nearly blew up in my face: obviously, I had STOLEN his own, brilliantly ingenious, naming idea!!! 😱 There was more, but I forgot or they remained nameless. You can have all these names for free. 😉

Top band indeed, and @D-L-B of this parish was in it once upon a time. Who knows, maybe their current bass player is on BC too.

Yeah, I only knew about Coldplay and Nickelback from those negative remarks. Then, driven by curiosity, I saw a Coldplay gig on tv, and was positively surprised. Watched it several times even and found it quite agreeable. Similarly, a buddy made me a sampler with a.o. Nickelback, and I was like: why all the negativity? Maybe people have good reasons, Idunno, but without any further knowledge or delving, I wasn't able to see one from just listening to their music.

You're kidding me. Thread title made me think of the Cardiacs, whom I finally came to grips with in ... Royal Leamington Spa (which I think is pretty well done for a tuliphead living in Norway). A shop called Fopps or something? I avoided them as I wasn't capable of hearing the fun and the humour, and, being lyrics-deaf, initially experienced them as aggressive and harsh in a peculiar society-hating way. Then their sampler on offer in that shop, and a Leamington friend urging me to give it a listen. Lurve them these days.

@Richard R, I was just kidding, as in my tuning being terrible and your t-shirt clearly, sarcastically telling me so. I thought it was funny. 😟

Me, I'm just happy you haven't been in the audience when I played. I don't take kindly to this type of harsh criticism of my atrocious tuning. 😁 Edited for clarity.

This guy's t-shirt was on the news just now, giving me a chuckle. Tangential maybe, but then again I'm pretty sure Francis Buchholz's Warwick is a bass.

The diverse opinions in this thread interest me, but this ^ even more. Having grown used to your and my sensitivities having many similarities, I'm surprised of the words "his playing is extremely musical". It may well be that I misunderstand the exact meaning of these words, as to me that is the single bit that's lacking, as in: Skill level: high. Do I like the notes: Yes! Even as a "shifty" show piece to me it seems to have more coherence than many songs that are not show pieces. Would I play it again: Yes! I've already played it a dozen or so times. Would I buy an album with the complete music as I imagine it (experiencing this being only some of the parts in a wider composition): Absolutely! Think bands like Cynic and the like, with this as the bass/Stick/Warr part. Would I buy the album if it's just this? Absolutely, but only if he prioritised musical expression above speed, for example by slowing down a tiny percentage and taking more care of tone shaping and exact timing. So: much admiration on many levels and from many angles, but not from all angles. Then again, as I boy I was bitten by the classical music cobra, so maybe I'm simply barking up the wrong tree. BTW, I love Gentle Giant including their "fa diddly diddly wee".

Oh, and Nile was quoted as saying Soul Glo was his greatest composition and his proudest moment ... ... so what does he really know, eh? 😁

That's it, innit, and thanks for that word, which I will now quote in my first post. BTW, coincidentally, the above mentioned Beverly Hills Cop "Axel F" theme (used for Crazy Frog), on Beverly Hills Cop III was played by Nile Rodgers and Rich Hilton. Maybe @MacDaddy knew that and was referring to it. Slightly off-topic, but related like cogs in cogs: Maybe it's worthy of being mentioned that Nile himself, when trying to speak to others' souls, applies his vast knowledge of music theory (fact, not my imagination). I think maybe music theory is not necessarily something to meet with the disdain it often gets. Music theory is not a straightjacket, but explains why stuff works like it does, and it's amended all the time.

It's quite far away, and I gather she doesn't want us turning up one by one, so I propose we take a bus and look her up together - after a proper appointment has been made. I think we should bring the cookies and coffee ourselves, seeing as we're quite many.

Good point, well made. It ain't easy indeed, but in this case the film tune IMO is nice and the novelty aspect of the song moved enough people('s money to other pockets) that at least the product deserves some respect if not the great composition inside the product.

Certainly a sympathetic view, with some merit, but if he could just switch "song" and "composition", it would sound more realistic to me, also avoiding a bandwagon fallacy: Any composition in the top 40 is a great song because it speaks to the souls of a million strangers. That I can begrudgingly*) agree with. Any such song deserves respect for speaking to souls. *) thanks to @Franticsmurf for the perfect word

You are soooooo wrong! I can say that with great confidence, coz I knows a guy on the innerwebz who found a few notes on side 4 (Tantras: "Ritual") that were a repercussion of some notes on side 1 (Shrutis: "The Revealing Science of God"). Notes straight from Shrutis to Tantras, I tell ya! That's not crackers, that's compositional density, and, as said guy professed, people who can't appreciate that are lured by "the mating call of the short-time attention span". 😁 (Yeah, I love that guy. 😉 )

In several documentaries and interviews, the criticism was referred to, but not quantified further. Sadly I have no idea who these people are, and can't give an example, but Joni has certainly felt the need to defend herself, and this has been a theme throughout her career. Of course there are people who not only reckon they know better than Joni, but also do in fact know better. It's just how the world is, unless of course Joni is the exact one person who knows best, and for example knows better than Herbie Hancock (whom I suspect is that name musician) or Krzysztof Penderecki to name but a few. I'm not saying these two people are examples of people who are always right, but I can say Joni can't explain her chords to them whilst they can explain her chords to her, they can explain why the well-developed musical ear responds as it does, and how she could've reached her musical aims more efficiently with a changed chord here and there. I think this should not surprise anyone at all, but your wording seems to indicate it does surprise. Maybe I misunderstand. Yeah, but then again, I'm not aware of anyone having said Coyote is formally weak, or contains a chord that could've been exchanged with one that more firmly supported what she was aiming for. We don't wanna risk straw man argument territory, do we? In what I've seen of this, Joni defended herself against unknown claims of unknown scope, and instead of either relaxing or using formal arguments she used a highly flawed argument from authority. I was saddened twice, so to speak: both long-time, by seeing this has gone on for five decades, and by seeing her seemingly being oblivious to the actual content in the reaction she got from this musician. My point is that, while I basically agree with the formal side of it (not being that critical myself, that is), she'd probably be served by recognising she isn't perfect and does not need to be - especially since she's an artist with a large body of highly respected work. Of course it's her life experience and her choices, not mine. We can still love her music, as do I and apparently as do you. As a side note, if she were to decide to take teachings from say Herbie Hancock, this does not mean she will stop making Joni music or become one of the slick guys I dislike. Music theory doesn't work like that. Hancock would teach her to write Joni music even better, potentially giving even greater musical joy to the listener. As to your last sentence, no: highly gifted, highly educated people like for example Herbie Hancock do not need to change their concept of music theory. There is no need this type of people be zealously subsurvient the moment Joni's name is mentioned. She is not above everyone.

Aw, you elegantly, beautifully brought it back to "Free Hand" by Gentle Giant ("Just the Same" being its opening track). 😃 As to the talent show, I have no idea how scripted this was, but at any rate: you just don't kill a decent instrument (if that's what it was, and not a stage prop), and you don't treat people this way. Edit: Sorry! In my mind we were in the "Tried listening to Yes thread" - hence my last two posts.

Hm. I thought he started a bit weakly, but got a lot better when he came to "And achieve it all with music that came quickly from afar, Then taste the fruit of man recorded losing all against the hour And assessing points to nowhere, leading every single one".

Apparently I have a much more balanced view than you: I love Joni and hate Joni. 😃 Or, spoken in more serious terms, I love many of her songs and at the same time react with slight unease to some strictly amateuristic chord progressions where she displays an abundant lack of ability to understand why those choices are unmusical and what she could've done about them. Still love those songs though, as well as her sense of continuing musical lines so they never seem to stop, AFAIK rare in pop music, and I far prefer her meanderings to some overtly slick offerings by many formally educated musicians who just go through the motions without offering something new and exciting (you know the type: Juilliard educated studio musician types and the lot). So far so good. I have no essential beef with her music, own many of her albums and love them - even live recordings from '66. I won't be seen buying albums by the mentioned slick ones. At the same time I'm saddened by Joni's apparent need to defend her chord progressions (supposedly after criticism by unknown sources) by means of arguments from authority (Yeah, but <name musician> says my chords are "interesting" so these people who are negative should ... ), as if <name musician> wasn't just being kind and polite after shaking his head in disbelief. In this she also effectively tells her audience that if you can hear weaknesses she can't hear, then it's you who has the problem. Er ... no, Joni. We all do our best within the limitations of our resources, and so do you. Oh, and I'm with Leonard Smalls as to Ornette Coleman and people of his ilk.

Yeah, nice documentary. From memory it spawns: The Mamas & the Papas CSN (&Y) Joni The Band The Eagles The Monkees and probably many others. Twas quite the 'milieu' there and then, and I found the documentary well worth several looks and listens.

😄 Yeah, normally it's a strange suggestion, but happily @meterman already likes Roundabout. Sound Chaser ain't no Owner of a Lonely Heart (a song I lurve, so it's not about that), and I thought it spawns some of the same drive and intensity as Roundabout does.

Maybe so. To me it feels like that if you do like Roundabout, there must be other Yes songs for you. Have you heard "South Side of the Sky" - also from "Fragile"? Another possibility, as @ezbass says, might be "Siberian Khatru" off "Close to the Edge", and I feel a third one possibly could be "Sound Chaser" off "Relayer". I was wondering whether you've heard their songs many or few times, coz I gather there's a difference. Me, I started my Yes career listening to "Yes" and "Time and a Word" and not buying them, stating to the startled girl behind the counter that the music was nice, but "they sing too much." 😄

But how are you gonna vacuum clean a VST for mite, eh? Eh? BTW, I "played" the viola da gamba for two or three years during my youth, and lurved the instrument. Great thread, zbd!

Yeah, but he had a hard time not hitting all eight strings at the same time with his bow! 😉

Gladwell initially seemed blissfully simplistic (see how I avoided "ignorant"? 😉 ), and later has modified and softened the notion, but that doesn't mean that the entire thought is without any value. Not that we needed Gladwell to tell us that you need a number of hours of focussed, efficient practising in music, arts, sports etc, but you do need a number of hours ... If that be 5,000 or 15,000 hours to me is of less importance, as the point remains: put in the hours. To me, the core seems to be how fast the brain can set aside sections for certain tasks and use those sections at speed. I know that the knowledge is out there, but have forgotten what I've read. At any rate: your fingers need to put in the hours and so does your brain. Oh, and define what "mastery" is. I've seen hard working people finish music college after six years and coming out on wildly different levels of proficiency and the ability to tell something interesting about the pieces they played. Just for fun, I put down some rough typical numbers as I've seen them in Holland, with the Dutch system of teaching at music colleges: 3,000 h - beginner to music college (my most efficient pupil did this in 1,750 hours; others will need a lot more and some even less) 5,000 h - music college first three years (theory and piano taking a lot of time too) 7,000 h - music college last three years -------- 15,000 h - roughly and typically

This is far from the first time you post exactly this, or very similar stuff. Now please share with us your advanced thoughts about the concept the thread is about.