OOTS #1032 - The Discussion Thread

[Quibblicious]

Which is why my radio is set to the classical music station. First, it's NPR, no commercials, but second, the variety and quality when they select from 400 years of music is astonishing. My JS Bach box set is ~180 disks. If only one song per disk is good, that's a "Greatest Hits" box set of about 12 CDs, more or less, where every single song is a classic (you should pardon the expression). Repeat for Brahms, Mozart, Beethoven, the horde of Bach boys, Vivaldi, Telemann, Haydn, Handel, Copeland, Gershwin, Mahler, Grieg, Sibelius, ...

I started in music as a classically trained violist. I love good performances -- Julia Fischer, Dmitry Sitkovetski (sp?), etc.

When I was still in Dallas I had a regular subscription to the Dallas Symphony Orchestra. The had Itzhak Perlman in fairly regularly at the time, which was a wonderful experience.

Q

[Quibblicious]

Interesting choice, since that would be my first example for the declining audio quality in pop music over the years

It's fascinating, really: Weird Al doesn't reuse the music directly from the songs being parodied, the band actually plays it for the recordings. And while on a lot of the songs you can't really tell the difference; on the more recent stuff, their superior competency shows. For example, Perform This Way has a much better balance between the instruments than Born This Way does, in particular the drums in the latter sound like they're fighting with the rest of music.

That's because Weird Al is a great musician as well as a funny guy. He also draws a lot of talent to him, so his instrumentalists are really top notch.

Great observation, btw.

Q

[8BitNinja]

Interesting choice, since that would be my first example for the declining audio quality in pop music over the years

It's fascinating, really: Weird Al doesn't reuse the music directly from the songs being parodied, the band actually plays it for the recordings. And while on a lot of the songs you can't really tell the difference; on the more recent stuff, their superior competency shows. For example, Perform This Way has a much better balance between the instruments than Born This Way does, in particular the drums in the latter sound like they're fighting with the rest of music.

I love Weird Al's music. The fact that his parody has better a instrumental is, in a way, a parody on the original artist himself.

[Ruck]

With this forum it seems "new" is relative. But yes, you have named some great ones, especially Run the Jewels and Kendrick Lamar. I think Kanye is totally still relevant, but his absolutely horrendous personality turns many people off from his great musical abilities. Jay-Z has pretty much given up music to do business-y stuff, and Eminem is pretty much gone too, but both were so great and such huge influences on the genre I felt it impossible to not mention them.

Lady Gaga is a very clear imitation of Madonna, but I still think much of her music will stand the test of time. Especially Edge of Glory (her best song I think) and to a lesser extent Bad Romance and others. I think the idea that "sounds like someone else = bad" is a logical fallacy: It is possible to sound like someone else and be good, as well as sound like your own person and be terrible. The fact that she sounds like Madonna has nothing to do with how good her music is. At this point music has been around so long that everyone is going to sound like someone before them to a point, until we get another Garth Brooks or Nirvana who introduces something totally new.

I still like Kanye's music, too-- though my favorite album of his is still the first one, I love the bombastic audacity of My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy and Yeezus. I more brought these up in reference to Jay-Z and Eminem, who, as you said, have largely moved on to other things.

My exact words re: Gaga were "a shallower imitation of Madonna," and it's the shallow that is the problem. Not that she sounds like Madonna, but that she sounds like Madonna with less originality and less depth of thought and feeling. Disposable is the first word that comes to mind when thinking about her early albums. (That said, we put her duet with Tony Bennett on "Cheek to Cheek" on our wedding playlist.)

Even Nirvana sounded a lot like the Pixies and the Vaselines. Didn't stop them from completely changing the game in rock music and becoming one of the most important rock bands in American history, because they brought their own strengths and Kurt Cobain's sense of simple, raw urgency. "Bad artists borrow; great artists steal."

Yes, pre MTV music was radio based, with a live performance being a unique experience. The songs always sounded a bit different live, which could end up either good or bad.

Pop music nowadays is pre-manufactured: you might be surprised where a lot of it comes from.

I'd heard of Max Martin and Dr. Luke, but didn't realize they were Scandinavian. Mostly I'm disgusted by Dr Luke because of the Ke$ha story.

Last note, I still think Weird Al's best song is "The Saga Begins," because it manages to better than both "American Pie" and The Phantom Menace.

[Quibblicious]

I'd heard of Max Martin and Dr. Luke, but didn't realize they were Scandinavian. Mostly I'm disgusted by Dr Luke because of the Ke$ha story.

Last note, I still think Weird Al's best song is "The Saga Begins," because it manages to better than both "American Pie" and The Phantom Menace.

I quoted this mostly to link a broader comment back into the whole music discussion...

I marvel at the eclectic sensibilities of this group. I inadvertently spawned a very interesting and informative discussion...

Q

[littlebum2002]

I will have to say that I think TV has gotten MUCH better over the years. I challenge anyone to find any tv show from the past which is anywhere as good as Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones, etc.

Interesting choice, since that would be my first example for the declining audio quality in pop music over the years

It's fascinating, really: Weird Al doesn't reuse the music directly from the songs being parodied, the band actually plays it for the recordings. And while on a lot of the songs you can't really tell the difference; on the more recent stuff, their superior competency shows. For example, Perform This Way has a much better balance between the instruments than Born This Way does, in particular the drums in the latter sound like they're fighting with the rest of music.

The problem I see is that there's a difference between "good" and "entertaining". I listened to that song, and recognized that it was good, maybe even technically better than the original, but yet I still won't replace the original on my playlist with it. Why? The original just sounds better. It's more catchy. I don't know why, it just is.

Take movies. I am well aware that Citizen Kane is a better movie than, say, Good Will Hunting, but I'll watch the latter over the former 99/100 times. It's not as good but but much more entertaining. Citizen Kane is a great movie, but I only watch it whenever I want to fall asleep watching one of the best movies of all time.

My exact words re: Gaga were "a shallower imitation of Madonna," and it's the shallow that is the problem. Not that she sounds like Madonna, but that she sounds like Madonna with less originality and less depth of thought and feeling. Disposable is the first word that comes to mind when thinking about her early albums. (That said, we put her duet with Tony Bennett on "Cheek to Cheek" on our wedding playlist.)

I think she's gotten much better with her later albums. Her early stuff was loaded with energy but all sounded very similar.

And her duets with Tony Bennet are great, but maybe not as great as Amy Winehouse's. I think even the Gaga haters can admit that woman was extremely talented.

[Doug Lampert]

I have a theory behind this as well . If you go back and listen to the music from when you were a kid, you'll realize a lot of it was terrible, too. The problem is the terrible stuff isn't continually played on oldies or classics radio stations and is quickly forgotten. So all that is remembered is the good music. I'm pretty sure in 20 years people won't really remember all the junk music coming out today, but all the good stuff will still be played and be seen more fondly than it is now. Think about music from the 80's - during that decade, it was pretty much laughed at because of how horrendous it was, but now there's a huge desire for 80's music.

When I was in high school I came up with a theory that you should only listen to oldies stations playing music 20 or more years old for that very reason.

It works quite nicely. Awhile back I started listening to 80's music, and it's MUCH better than what the "cool kids" were listening to when I was in college (during the 80's) because the trash has been weeded out by 20+ years of time off.

Every so often they'll do a "Top 40" show based on some week in the 80's, and half or more of it is total crap. Same thing happens with 70's music when they do a 70's top 40 rundown. So it isn't that I've got rose colored glasses or that my tastes are different than they were when I decided in the 70's that current pop's not worth listening to. 20 years later it's pretty good, because the bad stuff is mostly forgotten.

Sure, I'm missing out on the good 90's, 00's, and 10's music, but that's just 3 decades out of several hundred years worth of music and about 80 years worth of recorded music, I'll live, and I won't have to listen to trash to weed out the good stuff.

[littlebum2002]

oldies

Don't you hate when you're listening to an oldies station and some moron calls up and requests one of those terrible songs they enjoyed as a kid?

[KorvinStarmast]

Oh, how nice of you to just assert something must be physically wrong with me. I am going to reply and then just add you to ignore...

On the internet, it is very important to get indignant and throw a hissy fit. It gains Internetz points and earns the respect of your fellow denizens.

It's even more important to get back on the horse and re-engage on the topics of Paladins. (or whatever topic).
Good recovery. Up to full HP or not, close enough.

[8BitNinja]

Oh, how nice of you to just assert something must be physically wrong with me. I am going to reply and then just add you to ignore... Hint: if you need to preface something with, "I'm not trying to be..." then you almost certainly are being and you know it.

It's okay to be colorblind, in fact, a lot of people are. I think that of you just said "yes, I am colorblind" then you might not have looked as mean as you did. There is a right and wrong way to say everything. This is coming from someone who has spoken rashly on this forum much too often.

I'm not saying that you are a bad guy though, I actually think that you are probably a really cool guy.

[Prospekt]

I wonder how many times he has played paladin. Mr. Burlew has obviously been around or heard stories of the Lawful Stupid or Lawful Jerk paladins, and he has also seen those or heard stories that break the stereotype, but how frequently does he play it, and how?

On a somewhat related side note. I also don't think that Mr. Burlew is the kind of guy that says "Oh no, Doug is playing Lawful Good again, get ready to not have fun" considering the story's protagonist is lawful good, but there is a possibility that he may have gotten a few bad impressions on paladins. After all, they are a stricter lawful good character.

However, on a side note related to the side note, paladin is not the strictest you can get, this is my taxonomy (highest is strictest) of strictness

Paladin/Divine Emissary/Exalted Saint
LG/Divine Emissary/Exalted Saint
Paladin/Exalted Saint
Paladin/Divine Emissary
LG/Divine Emissary
Paladin
Lawful Good Character
Lawful Neutral Character
Lawful Evil Character
Neutral Good Character
Neutral Character
Neutral Evil Character
Chaotic Good Character
Chaotic Evil Character
Chaotic Neutral Character
Doug*

*Doug is not in D&D

From what I recall, Rich has played, at the very least, a very Lawful (and either neutral or good) Samurai who valued honor and duty above all else. Considering his character ran through traps that they knew about to save someone, it definitely seems closer to Lawful Good. His issue with paladins (as written at the time) stems from the attitude that people who play them often feel they must police the rest of the party and take on a holier-than-thou attitude with their alignment, strictly thinking anything not Lawful Good is inferior and/or wrong. In other words, Miko.

[GreatWyrmGold]

And, curiously, every one of the other paladins in the comic acts more like his samurai than they do like Miko (to the point of wanting to make stupid, wasteful sacrifices). And they always have, even though Miko was the only paladin in focus for a while.

[Gusion]

It's okay to be colorblind, in fact, a lot of people are. I think that of you just said "yes, I am colorblind" then you might not have looked as mean as you did. There is a right and wrong way to say everything. This is coming from someone who has spoken rashly on this forum much too often.

I'm not saying that you are a bad guy though, I actually think that you are probably a really cool guy.

Oh, I agree it is okay to be colorblind; lots and lots of people are. That's not it. It was asserting that the only way anyone could possibly think something is if there is something physically wrong with them.

Anyway, I still like the strip.

[Coat]

It's okay to be colorblind, in fact, a lot of people are

Specifically, about 1 in 10 men have some form of colour abnormality in their vision. Incidence is much lower in women, as the genetic information for the red/green cones in our retina is carried on the X (female) chromosome.

Most humans have 3 colour sensitive cones in the retina; Short wavelength (blue), medium (yellow-green) and long (yellow-red). Colour vision abnormality in the Short wavelength cone is very rare. Most colour vision abnormality occurs in a shift in the frequency-response of the medium or long cones. These work as an oppositional pair: i.e. the signal is interpreted as green if the response of the medium cones is stronger than the response of the long cones. Which is why you'll never normally see a reddish-green colour.

Because the medium/long cone genetic information is carried in the female chromosome, a proportion of women actually have 4 colour-vision cones, not 3; three different cones in the green/yellow/red end of the spectrum. Guessing at how the brain actually processes the extra information is hard, but most likely, it gives them more colour precision in the green area of the spectrum (where, incidentally, we are most sensitive).

So: if your girlfriend/wife/mum/sister/etc tells you two apparently identical greens are completely different, she may well be right.

Had to do some learning on this for work reasons. Love this stuff!

[KillingAScarab]

Because the medium/long cone genetic information is carried in the female chromosome, a proportion of women actually have 4 colour-vision cones, not 3; three different cones in the green/yellow/red end of the spectrum. Guessing at how the brain actually processes the extra information is hard, but most likely, it gives them more colour precision in the green area of the spectrum (where, incidentally, we are most sensitive).

So: if your girlfriend/wife/mum/sister/etc tells you two apparently identical greens are completely different, she may well be right.

I could swear I had read if you have two X chromosomes, you're likely to be more sensitive to differences amongst reds rather than greens. Doesn't mean what I read was correct, of course.

[Jasdoif]

Why? The original just sounds better. It's more catchy. I don't know why, it just is.

That may be the saddest thing I've read in this thread. I mean, Doug Lampert's "let it ripen for two decades" strikes me as sad too, but with an explanation I can appreciate the position. I certainly wish I had enough spare time and energy to expend on digging for quality....


I like to understand things, it makes it a lot easier to appreciate and learn from them. Or in this particular case, what isn't there to learn from: I can't fault Lady Gaga's singing for something I don't like with the drums, something that happen quite easily if I didn't recognize the drums bothered me. (In a similar vein, I think problems lie with the instruments, not with the composition)

Lady Gaga sings well enough, I suppose. Of course she's no Tarja Turunen, but exceedingly few people are; she has the rich vocal range and smoothness to carry an entire song by herself, and it's probably the biggest compliment I could give to Nightwish that the band never needed her to. Or another side of the high end of things, I could say Mike Patton and Faith No More are really good at drawing sharp contrasts between their own styles within the same song. Or on yet another side of the high end of things, I could say Dream Theater practically revels in their overall instrumental competence, and their long intros and long songs (the linked song is quite short for them, they frequently exceed seven minutes in length) effectively show it off.


But "I don't know why, it just is"...what can I learn from that? What can I learn about you from that? "If she's good enough for Clarence Clemons she's good enough for me." might be somewhat better, if I knew a lot more about Clarence Clemons then that he apparently died in 2011.

I'd like to think you deserve better than to only be agreed with by people who already agree with you...but I don't have much to go with here. Which is the sad part.

[littlebum2002]

That may be the saddest thing I've read in this thread. I mean, Doug Lampert's "let it ripen for two decades" strikes me as sad too, but with an explanation I can appreciate the position. I certainly wish I had enough spare time and energy to expend on digging for quality....


I like to understand things, it makes it a lot easier to appreciate and learn from them. Or in this particular case, what isn't there to learn from: I can't fault Lady Gaga's singing for something I don't like with the drums, something that happen quite easily if I didn't recognize the drums bothered me. (In a similar vein, I think problems lie with the instruments, not with the composition)

Lady Gaga sings well enough, I suppose. Of course she's no Tarja Turunen, but exceedingly few people are; she has the rich vocal range and smoothness to carry an entire song by herself, and it's probably the biggest compliment I could give to Nightwish that the band never needed her to. Or another side of the high end of things, I could say Mike Patton and Faith No More are really good at drawing sharp contrasts between their own styles within the same song. Or on yet another side of the high end of things, I could say Dream Theater practically revels in their overall instrumental competence, and their long intros and long songs (the linked song is quite short for them, they frequently exceed seven minutes in length) effectively show it off.


But "I don't know why, it just is"...what can I learn from that? What can I learn about you from that? "If she's good enough for Clarence Clemons she's good enough for me." might be somewhat better, if I knew a lot more about Clarence Clemons then that he apparently died in 2011.

I'd like to think you deserve better than to only be agreed with by people who already agree with you...but I don't have much to go with here. Which is the sad part.

First of all, I have to say that I think it's funny that both of us assume the other knows about musicians that apparently they don't. You obviously thought I knew who Tarja Turunen was (great song BTW), and I obviously thought you knew who Clarence Clemons was.

Clarence Clemons (The Big Man) was the saxophonist for Bruce Springsteen's E-street band. He was an incredible musician (perhaps his best solo was during the song Jungleland, starting at about 4:00) and I was making a tongue-in-cheek joke that if very talented musicians like Clarence Clemons, Beyonce and Tony Bennet decided that Lady Gaga was worth working with, there must be something to it.
(I also suggest you give Edge of Glory, the song in which he played a sax solo, a listen. It's her best song and anyone who isn't a fan's best chance of actually enjoying her music)

But on to your question. So I have "Born this way" on youtube right now. (I'm not a big fan of this song, but we started with it so I'll work with it). I'm no music expert but I'll try to explain what I mean. I'm also going to ignore the fact that I'm just enjoying the video on its own merits.

So I have no idea what instruments are being represented (or, to be more accurate, what instruments are being synthesized), all the background music kinda blends together. However, it just has this pounding beat which is making me want to crank the volume, get up and dance, which would probably be a bad idea at work. I also enjoy her voice, it's very powerful and sorta musky.

Now on to Perform this Way. Now obviously the first thing I notice is that his voice is hideous, but that's his intention because it's funnier, so I can't hold that against him. Also he looks much less attractive in a bikini then Lady Gaga does, but again, not his fault.

(He just said "Now for no reason I'll sing in French" and made me lol in my cubicle)

He's also singing with less rhythm than she is, but I think that's also by intent so one can hear his humorous lyrics easier. I can also point out different instruments in the background, unlike the original. I can't exactly name the instruments but I can hear at least 3 different things going on, as opposed to a mashed up beat.

But Born this Way is, by design, a dance anthem. It has that bass which just slams with an infectious rhythm that, like I said, makes me want to start dancing and singing along. Perform this Way doesn't have that. It sounds good, but it's just...there. Which, to be honest, is probably exposing what the original would sound like with a bit less processing. But it has that processing, and it has that infectious beat, and it performs it's goal of making me want to dance along. (and of being empowered or whatever, but we'll skip that part).

Is it a great song? No. But maybe it wasn't written to be, maybe it was just written to be a good song to dance to, and it certainly is that. So hopefully my "knows very little about music" opinion enlightens you somewhat.


EDIT: Now that I am listening to more of her songs, it appears quite a few of them (not all) are just her singing over a generic backing track. SO I'm guessing her producers are just using the strength of her singing to carry her music. I wonder how awesome she would be in front of some actual music?

[Knaight]

Oh, I agree it is okay to be colorblind; lots and lots of people are. That's not it. It was asserting that the only way anyone could possibly think something is if there is something physically wrong with them.

That's one way to put it. Another way to put it would be that when someone has trouble distinguishing between two similar shapes distinguished entirely by color, it might be because they have trouble seeing the color difference. It's similar to how if someone can't read something from a distance, it might be a case of them needing glasses.

[littlebum2002]

That's one way to put it. Another way to put it would be that when someone has trouble distinguishing between two similar shapes distinguished entirely by color, it might be because they have trouble seeing the color difference. It's similar to how if someone can't read something from a distance, it might be a case of them needing glasses.

And the person in question had trouble telling the difference between the "peach" colored lines on O-Chul in the first panel and the much brighter "red" lines on his face in the later panels. TO me these lines are clearly different colors, so I was concerned that someone who couldn't tell the difference legitimately might physically be unable to tell the difference. I wasn't trying to be rude, I just couldn't understand how else someone could confuse the two.

[Coat]

And the person in question had trouble telling the difference between the "peach" colored lines on O-Chul in the first panel and the much brighter "red" lines on his face in the later panels. TO me these lines are clearly different colors, so I was concerned that someone who couldn't tell the difference legitimately might physically be unable to tell the difference. I wasn't trying to be rude, I just couldn't understand how else someone could confuse the two.

Which is not unreasonable, because colour vision abnormality is a spectrum, and a lot of people have it and are not aware. So seeing an orange scar and a red wound as less distinct I think is definitely possible, for some kinds of colour vision abnormality?

I'm approaching the edges of my knowledge now though. We got there fast. They weren't far away.

I could swear I had read if you have two X chromosomes, you're likely to be more sensitive to differences amongst reds rather than greens. Doesn't mean what I read was correct, of course.

Both the 'long' and 'medium' cones have the peak of their response curves pretty much in the green area of the spectrum.

If you have a third cone in that region, where you get the extra precision will depend on where the peak response is, the shape of the curve, and what the brain does with the information. Brains are not static things: they have gross functions, but adapt and rewire according to stimulus - and also reuse redundant bits for other things, to an extent.

I would guess that a mutation giving you an extra cone is not likely to move too much from the peak and shape of the other two cones (simply because photosensitivity is a complex chemical process - change it too much, and it's likely to just not work, rather than pick up a different frequency). I would guess that at best, you'll get an additional opposed pair (or maybe two of them) between the new cone and the other two. Where that would give you additional detail will depend on how much the reception curves diverge.

In the reds is definitely plausible. In the greens seems more likely to me - but I'm speculating on limited knowledge. Not actually being able to interpret the information the cone produces, or using that capacity for other things - also seems plausible.

Constructing a robust experiment to find out - probably quite hard?

Stuff

Jasdoif, I just want to say that you're awesome. I love you!

[Doug Lampert]

Don't you hate when you're listening to an oldies station and some moron calls up and requests one of those terrible songs they enjoyed as a kid?

Doesn't bother me. It's just one song and someone still likes it. The multiple hours of a deliberate "we're not going to let your filter work" show, that bothers me.

[Jasdoif]

You obviously thought I knew who Tarja Turunen was (great song BTW)

Honestly, I just figured dropping in a link so anyone could judge for themselves was the most efficient way to do it, whether anyone had already heard of her or not.

He's also singing with less rhythm than she is, but I think that's also by intent so one can hear his humorous lyrics easier. I can also point out different instruments in the background, unlike the original. I can't exactly name the instruments but I can hear at least 3 different things going on, as opposed to a mashed up beat.

But Born this Way is, by design, a dance anthem. It has that bass which just slams with an infectious rhythm that, like I said, makes me want to start dancing and singing along. Perform this Way doesn't have that. It sounds good, but it's just...there. Which, to be honest, is probably exposing what the original would sound like with a bit less processing. But it has that processing, and it has that infectious beat, and it performs it's goal of making me want to dance along.

Hmm....So what you're saying is that both songs are emphasizing what's meant to be their strong suit (lyrics and bass, respectively), and the rest of them are the framework upon which that strong suit sits....which would mean I'm saying Weird Al put more effort on the window dressing?

Makes sense. Everything in an arrangement leading in a particular direction is pretty common, ranging from the exact amount of salt in a recipe to the purpose of OotS' plot. At the same time, people are a lot more sensitive to aspects falling short of their standards, than those that are average or simply not present...which is only complicated by everyone having their own standards (the wide range of reader complaints expectations for OotS on this very forum comes to mind).

Which kind of ties into what I was saying earlier about pop music: With the increasing prevalence of music videos, and the resulting expectations from that, it's only natural for a viewership to prefer an artist who's good with both the music and visuals, than one who excels with the music and doesn't do well on video. There are certainly artists who do great with both, but with the wider net they're harder to find in the first place.

EDIT: Now that I am listening to more of her songs, it appears quite a few of them (not all) are just her singing over a generic backing track. SO I'm guessing her producers are just using the strength of her singing to carry her music. I wonder how awesome she would be in front of some actual music?

And there you have one of the benefits of the analysis approach: The idea that something you like could be even better, without having the change what you like about it. There's potential for good things to be made better, and by extension for bad things to be made good, without having to sacrifice what makes them notable in the first place.